The official 16:9 screen protest thread

But what would those people loose by 16:10? Nothing.

If there would have been a nice split - 16:10 business, 16:9 consumer (which if all brands did it, would work) there would not have been a problem.

But think of all your general "work applications".

MS Office - 16:9 is worse, those programmes need height (Outlook being an exception - but also needs height) - unless you auto hide the toolbar - which is a huge annoyance to some people (me included - I need it).

Adobe Software - they are slightly better off, as for some strange reason they have a wide sidebar on the right - but they are even better on 16:10 as they have menus at the top too - and Bottom if you look at Dreamweaver.
Again - 16:9 doesn't gain you anything - in fact, if you edit portrait images in Photoshop you again loose.

Browsers - again, need height, especially if you want to read something online, even if you more scan the page than read it.

The only application that "benefits" is watching films - and then these users don't really benefit unless they are allergic to black bars, which they must be.

On that note though - people who buy laptops solely for watching films are wasting their money as there are much cheaper products out there that would do the job just as well.

 

Basically we the consumers don't benefit... except that Dell, HP, Acer, etc save money thus they can compete for our business and pass the savings along. This was supply side driven, not market side driven. However, the market wasn't repelled enough to force manufactures to change back.

 

my new macbook pro has 16:10! still proud to say I don't own ANY 16:9 computing hardware.

 

The 'height' issue (less vertical pixels) is problem that most of us have with 16:9 displays! I never gave netbooks a second glance because they all had 1024x576 or 1024x600 displays initially....it was quite a while before any of them had a 1280x800 or similar resolution upgrade. The only exception was the HP 2133 Mini-Note, which offered an 8.9" 1280x768 display...but it also had a VIA C7 processor that was both slower than molasses and hotter than hell all the time...not thanks, but I digress....

As I was saying, I'm in agreement with you about the loss of vertical space going from 1280x800 to 1366x768 and definitely when going from 1920x1200 down to 1920x1080! The exception to this issue is on 16:9 displays with 1600x900 resolution, which replaced 1440x900 res 16:10 displays- they keep the same vertical resolution and add another 160 pixels to the horizontal res. It's great for 'desktop replacement' systems which traditionally started at 17.0" with 1440x900 and most entry-to-mid-level models didn't offer anything higher than that. Now they're 17.3" with 1600x900 displays, which adds some useful work space for office apps, multiple windows, etc.

A handful of 15.6" models have the 1600x900 display as an upgrade or a few higher-end ones have it standard (Dell Studio XPS 16, Alienware M15x, Dell Latitude E5510/E6510). It really should be STANDARD on 15.6" displays, at least on business notebooks. But it's not easy to find outside of those few.

The most worrisome issue is why it (1600x900) has been offered on just a few 14.0-14.5" models, but suddenly disappears from the option list to the frustration and dismay of potential buyers!?!? Sony did it with the VAIO CW-series and HP recently did the same on their 14.5" ENVY 14! And I can't believe that HP just rolled out their new XPS 14/15/17 models but the XPS 14 is only available with a 14.0" 1366x768 display, just like a $499 Inspiron 14R! I might actually have considered the XPS 14 if not for the basic display specs and no upgrade offered....

I don't know ANYONE who routinely watches movies on their laptop...nothing more than the occasional YouTube video that might last 3-4 minutes.

 

LEDs are shockproof, don't burn out, require less energy, weigh less, provide more even backlighting and allow for a thinner screen lid. There is really no upside whatsoever to outdated CCFL backlighting - except for the fact that Sony invested in this outdated technology and really didn't want to shift to LEDs.

 

The big problem is that consumers just aren't buying the upgraded displays when they're offered. In many cases, upgraded displays are the cause of returned units, since many users would rather have larger text and icons than a useless higher resolution. After all, 900P is not a standard resolution but an odd compromise. So, if consumers don't buy it, manufacturers won't offer it.

Now obviously, there's a demand for higher resolutions in the gaming niche and also in the business segment. For mainstream, or even higher end consumer units, people just aren't buying 1600x900 displays. If you want one go for a gaming or business notebook.

Oh, really? So you're saying that video content is very unpopular with notebook users? Try backing that one up.

 

I watch movies exclusively on laptops ... have been moving from place to place for a while now, I havent had a TV in many years...

 

LOL and here I thought I was the only who used their laptop for movies and watching TV over the net.

 

Why would customers suddenly lose interest in higher res displays when they were offered on a lot of regular 14.1" and 15.4" models from Dell and HP, in particular. 1366x768 resolution is simply too low for a 15.6" or 16.0" laptop! Most expert reviews in magazines or on credible websites have complained about this from the beginning of the 16:9 displays showing up.....

No, I'm not saying that video content is unpopular with notebook users....YouTube is proof otherwise! But I also don't know anyone who purchases a laptop and intends to use it as their primary means of watching video. The argument that 1366x768 is sufficient for laptops because it's fine for HDTV panels doesn't really make sense. The point is that desktop area is diminished in vertically and/or overall desktop area is reduced in the case of 1920x1200 vs. 1920x1080! That's a problem for those who want to use their laptop for things other than multimedia or gaming....

By the way, I do purchase business laptops for my personal use to get the display size and resolution I want.

 

The way it has worked is that the crappy resolution panels were intially chosen by brands which not suprisingly cut corners in other departments and managed to produce really cheap laptops. Which many people bought, people who were newcomers to the laptop market and didnt know better or didnt care.

Now, even for business, bosses are dictating that cheap laptops be bought. They only work with powerpoint so they have no idea about the eye strain caused by crappy resolution or glossy screens.

My work the bosses have decided on some ridiculous low limit for laptops (there is money for random wasteful spending for them of course). If there are 500 euro laptops, a 1000 euro laptop is considered a "luxury" item and wasteful.
I'm having to buy a external monitor for work with my own money becuase I dont want to work with a glossy screen at work, and there are no super cheap laptops with high res screens.

 

Easy, the annoyance factor of the small text and tiny icons outweighed the dubious advantages of a higher resolution. Hey, 1080P is great with a 46 inch screen in your living room, but it amounts to a major annoyance on a laptop screen. The same goes for 900P.

Who says? Look at the market and it seems as if the market trend is away from higher resolutions.

In that case, it's a great pity that real world computer buyers just haven't been paying attention to the experts. My guess is that the experts probably aren't buying low end consumer models from big box stores, but are configuring high end gaming business notebooks for their own personal use.



No, I'm not saying that video content is unpopular with notebook users....YouTube is proof otherwise! But I also don't know anyone who purchases a laptop and intends to use it as their primary means of watching video. The argument that 1366x768 is sufficient for laptops because it's fine for HDTV panels doesn't really make sense. The point is that desktop area is diminished in vertically and/or overall desktop area is reduced in the case of 1920x1200 vs. 1920x1080! That's a problem for those who want to use their laptop for things other than multimedia or gaming....

So there you go. The computer companies aren't loosing your business after all. Problem solved.

Ironically, individual purchases of business quality PC notebooks have soared in the last year or so. This is the only higher-end are where PCs are competing well with MacBooks.

 

In your own vernacular, who says?

Nope! In fact it's rare to find a review on said machines. The overwhelming majority of information is on low/medium grade models.

Then permit me to introduce myself. As video enthusiast, video was a primary catalyst in my purchase of a laptop. Everything else, was secondary.

The last time I checked, there were a variety of panels to choose from. The only reason that would change, is if the market shows a trend to the latter.

Is that your final answer? If so, you'd be joining the group you're trying to oppose.

May that's because they don't know any better?

 

Hmmm interesting...makes me feel all nice inside
Got any links for the above data?

 

it's funny how you mention the macbook... all macbooks except the new air 11.6inch, have 16:10 screens... a major selling point to me.

 

HP didn't get rid of the "Radiance" display willingly, the sole producer of those screen's went under, pretty much screwing HP and Sony (who sourced the screen from the same company) alike.

 

Yes, but that's only because the 13" MacBooks are horribly outdated. We're talking about notebooks with 2008 vintage hardware, hence the 2008 vintage displays. If the new 11.6" MacBook Air is any indication Apple is going to 16:9 - while keep the rest of the dated hardware.

 

Well, if it had been important, they could have paid the supplier enough to keep them in business, or at least in production, but it apparently wasn't all that important. The fact that only a single supplier could supply the oddball screen indicates that there wasn't much of a market to begin with.

 

lol is asume core i5 is outdated? not all apple products are completely out of date.

 

Not yet... but in ~ 60 days...

 

haha true, true, but I'll bet your PC will be too! (I'm no apple fan I own one because I have to and for no other reason).

well actually 2 fingure scrolling is epic. not two ways about it.

 

Mine is worse: a lowly i3!

But... with 2 finger scrolling too!

Yeah, I'm sold on that feature.

 

I wasn't aware of that until after my posting, my bad!

That sucks for HP/Sony and for potential customers....by the way, which Sony model used the display?

 

I think the Z used that one at one point, might be wrong though.

 

No worries, if I came across as snippy, my apologies. It was never intended.

I know it was one of the smaller ones....potentially the Z

 

The 13.1" VAIO Z has been my "DREAM" laptop for quite a while now! I say "DREAM" because the configuration I want would cost in well over $2500 and possibly even $3000!

But the top-end, highest-spec VAIO Z models with the Core i7 processors and AMAZING 13.1" Full HD (1920x1080) Premium LED Display is truly one of a kind!!!

Even though I'm a high-resolution fan whenever the option is available, I had never seen a display smaller than 15.6" with 1920x1080 res. I had the chance to spend some time with a VAIO Z so-equipped at a trade show back in August and it BLEW ME AWAY! The contrast is exceptional, colors are beyond vibrant and with such high resolution you have so much viewable space on a 13.1" display. Most of the time, text and icons are still easily readable at the highest resolution. I'm sure I'd bump up the Zoom level once in a while in Excel and probably at times when using Firefox, but it's as useful as a full-size, high-end desktop replacement but only weighs barely 3lbs and is hardly thicker than a netbook!

Hmmm....I just paid off my car last month, but now I'm thinking about taking a loan against it to buy one of these gems....at least I can dream....

 

Except that that alien-thing doesn't weight 1,43kg and isn't 13,1" small.
Also, I don't think the Z actually overheats easily - at least not if you use it as it should be used.

The Z also isn't a gaming laptop - it's a business laptop with extra graphics power which could play games, but is more useful for things like Photoshop.

 

I spent at least 20 minutes playing with that one recently and never heard a fan running or felt anywhere near the keyboard or mouse pad that was warmer than room temperature.

I used a Penryn-based VAIO Z for several days early last year thanks to one of my buddies in the IT world who got his hands on a demo unit for a while. I'm not a gamer, so I didn't do anything that would tax tthhe GPU, but I had no heat issues whatsoever! Even when I ran some CPU and System Benchmarks on it, the mouse pad and wrist rests were barely lukewarm and the fans ran on high for less than a minute. Cool as a cucumber the rest of the time. That's the beauty of switchable/hybrid graphics.

Like most VAIO Zs, it had the 'standard' 13.1" 1600x900 display which was/is a marvel in its own right. Even though the 1920x1080 is one of a kind in this size, I would probably save the extra expense and go with the gorgeous 1600x900. It has a max. brightness of around 320 nits and the contrast ratio is better than any display I can ever recall on any computer! They are very expensive systems, but they are also in a class of their own and worth every penny....I'll own one of them someday...

 

Are there still 17 inch laptops with 16:10 aspect ratio? I'm becoming desperate.

 

Yes, although except for the MSI GX740/E7405, which tends to have a rather limited resolution, the rest are all rather expensive gaming or business machines like the Alienware M17x, Dell M6500, HP 8740w, or Lenovo W701/W701ds.

 

Make that very expensive.

There's also the 17" Macbook Pro. I never thought I'd be calling that a cost effective alternative.

I suppose a 1080p screen might be a compromise

 

IDK if you can still find it, but the OCZ 17in DIY is a 16x10.
only 1440x900 though....

 

HP EliteBook 8740w/8730w, Dell Precision M6500/M6400, Lenovo ThinkPad W710/W700.

16:10 WUXGA 1920x1200. These are not "laptop" laptops. They are "mobile workstations".

 

I took the question more to mean "new build' notebooks, i.e. core i and up. Older C2D based notebooks can still be found with 16:10, although most of those will be refurbished, surplus, or used.

 

A lot of models mentioned in Kaso post are "new build" (core i).

 

And are very expensive.

 

And I'd already mentioned them in my previous post. The new build ones, that is. I'd also been more responding to whitrzac about the OCZ barebones.

 

Looks like the Alienware M17x line has now fallen. And possibly the Dell Precision M6600.

All that's left would be HP's and Lenovo's 17.1" workstation laptops.

 

sadly true but i agree with OP 110%

 

I was thinking the same thing when I saw this pop up again in my usercp.

 

"nobody gives a crap about watching movies on laptops "

Except for like... everyone I've ever met lol

Most people I know use their computer for netflix, hulu, or other websites as well as DVD's... the average consumer sure as hell does NOT use their computer for gaming.

 

And then there are those that actually use their computers for, oh I don't know, work? A lot of those that do significant work much prefer the extra space while typing coding, or doing any of the many other work-related tasks that can benefit from more desktop area. The fact that it could also be used for entertainment (gaming, movie, or otherwise) is really just a bonus, and at that point, a few extra black bars aren't really a bother.

 

I always need more space for coding or editing photo's. But saying 16:9 is automatically a waste of space is like saying we need to go back to 5:4 or 4:3 ratio screens. Which ever way you go space is wasted in one direction and 16:10 sure as heck ain't square (even either).

Coding, purely coding I need vertical space. Visual IDE wise I need a wider screen because of all the crap surrounding the source editor. I just need a 20 inch laptop if u ask me.... thankfully there is such thing as a 18.4 now a days.

 

Oh, certainly true. However, my point has always been about the "high end", (which I've pointed out more than once in this thread), and at the current notebook high end (WUXGA), 16:10 beats out 16:9 (1920x1200 vs 1920x1080). In the mid-end, I freely admit that 16:9 allows for 1600x900, which is better than the equivalent WSXGA/WXGA+ at 1440x900 (although it's beat out by WSXGA+ at 1680x1050).

 

My $.02 worth (having finally been approved for a laptop upgrade at work and discovering that there is nothing that I would consider to be an upgrade...

A lot of folks are laboring under the illusion that there are highly automated production lines churning out 16:9 flat-panel displays in all different sizes for TVs, and then when an order comes in for some 16:10 computer displays, the line has to stop for some expensive cumbersome retooling for this oddball form factor. The truth is that computer displays and TV displays are in different size ranges, and it's no problem at all to build a computer display in 16:10. However, the manufacturing process is not perfect and a fair number of defects do turn up in these displays. The more pixels you have in a display, the greater the probability that you will have a defect. If you can reduce the pixel count by 10 percent, then you are producing 10 percent less product, which saves money right there, plus you are reducing the number of defective displays that have to be thrown out. This stealth downsizing of products goes on all the time with consumer products. Have you noticed that your 64-ounce orange juice carton looks slimmer lately? That's because it's now a 59-ounce carton. But the laptop display manufacturers saw an opportunity to do better than just a routine stealth downsizing. Thanks to the public infatuation with HDTV and the belief that a greater ratio of horizontal to vertical equates to "Widescreen" and
'Hi-Def", they were able to give their customers less and convince them that they were getting more. They had a great racket taking 10 percent of the pixels away from a 1920x1200 display and telling people that they had upgraded it to "Full HD." But why stop there? You can cut it down to 1366x768, taking away 54 percent of the pixels, and still advertise it as an upgrade to HD. You don't have to hope no one will notice, as detergent manufacturers do. You can proudly announce it as a breakthrough. As long as their customers are buying into it, why wouldn't they do this?

 

pretty much why i want to stab someone in the face. as much as i like my new MSI laptop; i can't stand 1080p. worse, it's got a GD glossy screen--which makes it about 5x worse than the wuxga matte-screen sager i have.

.

 

well said, and for a first post - welcome.

I see that this thread has progressed quite a bit, so just wanted to say that I'm loving my 1400x1050 screen.

later

P.S.
I would like to introduce my idea for new resolution that is 1500x500 and the reasoning will be that you have in order: an eye, a nose, an eye ... so that's three things horizontally, thus 3:1. At later time I'll remove the 500 pixels in the middle because you can not see with your nose, so I'll be down to two displays of 500x500 ... where I can start suggesting viewing in close distance to overcome the missing part in the middle. there will be 50% discount for pirates obviously . Eventually I'll be down to using glasses as monitor. OMG that will work as I'll introduce 3D ...

 

sounds great!^

i always laugh at the people who claim to be allergic to letterboxing. all the NEW hollywood movies aren't even shot in 16:9 anymore--so you're just as deep down in a pit full of voracious bunnies as you were before with a 16:10.

 

I had a letter of complaint made for varios companies (both OEMs and ODMs), I also had a large number of addresses to which to send it. I never got to send it unfortunately... I feel somehow that the battle is lost anyway.

 

Can you dig that post up again? Maybe put a link to it in your sig

 

I think we should flood the mailboxes of LCD manufacturers to go back to 4:3 and 16:10. And IPS screens for everybody!