The official 16:9 screen protest thread

I'm not that sure about 4:3 - at least for laptops, 16:10 is conveniently the same size as A4 for a 13" screen - or at least roughly the same size.

-> But on a desktop, why not.

 

thread went dead for 2 months and then........... Well there is only one cure, refuse to buy a new laptop with 16:9, put your money to work...................

 

There is a flaw in your theory. The most common 16:10 resolution is 1280x800 (1024000 pixels). The current most common resolution is 1366x756 (1032696 pixels). If your theory that fewer pixels (thus lower scrap rate) is the culprit then why do we have more pixels now than before. Don't get me wrong, I think somewhere between 16:10 and 4:3 is ideal. 16:9 is too short. However, the fact is the LCD manufactures have said if you want the best price you will take 16:9. Until enough people flatly refuse 16:9 screens they will be the aspect ratio of choice. Of course, my latest purchase was a 16:12 HH-QXGA screen so what do I know.

 

The other 2 minor flaws in the theory is how panels are made and capacity. Panels are actually made by PPI, not by form factor, because form factor only affects how you cut the sheet. What determines the basic production of the LCD sheet itself that the panels are cut from is the PPI, since that determines how many pixels you actually have to build into each sheet to achieve the desired resolution for a size cut. And that's one of the things that the aspect change does; it's not just "fewer pixels", but also lower PPI, which makes the LCD sheets easier to construct. Add on top of this the reduced area needed to make a 16:9 screen, and that's a big economic advantage in favor of 16:9 screens.

So even though the most common 16:10 resolution might have been 1280x800, that was largely only for smaller screens; larger screens typically had higher resolutions. Now, though, 1366x768 is common even in 15" and 17" screens... which makes lower PPIs, and thus much lower costs. As well as horrible screens, in my opinion. So really, while there has been an "improvement" in the low end (going from 1280x800 to 1366x768), that's been more than compensated for by the loss in the middle and higher ends.

As well, there are only a limited number of screen manufacturers out there, and they're all pretty much running to capacity just trying to fill all current orders. This is part of the reason why there are a lot more screens with defective pixels reaching consumers these days; the demand is so high that the manufacturers can't "afford" to throw out slightly defective screens. Thus, every tactic they can use to up production (and going to 16:9, for the aforementioned reasons, does indeed up production), is getting used. So when you consider that they would have to stop producing 16:9 screens that there is already a very high demand for, just to produce 16:10 screens that are inherently more expensive, and for which there is less demand (partly due to the price, which starts a vicious cycle), and you see how prices start spiraling upward for 16:10 screens.

 

It got deleted by the moderators almost instantly (the post with the mail addresses), but I could send it to you in a PM, or set up a temporary blog with the letter and the list of emails and add it to my sign. You think that might work ?

This my original letter... http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...-9-screen-protest-thread-113.html#post6275597

That was my plan as well...

 

OK... well, I did see it a long time ago....
-> So not instantly...

Maybe set up a blog and link to it in your signature?

 

Just to ask, is it just me, or Apple is the only company left, that still produces 16:10 notebooks? MSI, Clevo/Sager and Alienware switched to "Full HD" so I can't think for another brand...

 

There is some (very slight) hope that the coming iteration of the HP 8760w _might_ retain 16:10 for Dreamcolor, but... it's very slight.

 

Dang, that is depressing (I'm extremely glad I saw the trend of everything going towards 16:9, and bought a new MSI a few months ago when I did, when they still had a decent 16:10 in production). Since then, I poke google every so often to see whether there's been any signs of the trend reversing; sad to hear it's still getting worse. I'm sure Apple'll cave eventually too, not that I'd ever buy an Apple anyway.

So, anyway, I've now officially registered, to put my name on the fact that I will be using this laptop, no matter how old it may get, until manufacturers wake up to the fact that some people do more than just watch movies and tv on their laptop (which, incidentally, I watch a whole load of tv on my laptop. I have no issue with the small black bars - they happen to be just the right size and location for displaying media player UI elements - and I also do other things.) 16:10 forever!

 

Seriously how often do you have to scroll side to side. Even with the 1024 of a netbook side to side scrolling is a very rare thing. For anything wider such as a 1280 wide screen scrolling is almost a non-issue.

Really, I currently using a Panasonic W8 with an XGA screen and I'm starting to recall how I really rather liked 4:3 screens. The 1024 width is a bit narrow for my taste and I would prefer something just a bit higher on this 12.1" screen but not much. It's nice having a small computer display that you can read for a ways back. The text size on this screen is a bit bigger than that on a 1280x800 14.1" screen yet the foot print is hardly more than a netbook. In the end you have a small foot print computer that keeps you from squinting. Not bad at all.

 

-> Just on the horizontal scrolling aspect:
I pretty much use my browser in windowed-mode all the time on a 1280*800 pixel screen, why?
a) I can't stand having to turn my head to read - text that is too wide is uncomfortable to read
b) all good sites are designed to be legible on 800pixels width anyway

On this note, a little experiment for anybody at home - print text, same font size, on an A4 page, once in landscape and once in portrait orientation, you'll find the portrait orientation much more comfortable.

That's why newspaper prints are in columns - to make reading easier.

-> If anybody claims a wider screen is better for reading, he/she is either not reading anything on screens, mad or might be a very rare case of a person who prefers wide text, but I've never heard of the latter existing.

 

Ironically this site is one of the ones that doesn't quite fit in 1024 much less 800. This is why I like just a bit higher than 1024 wide just so sites like this one with the banners on one side still fit without any horizontal scrolling. Not the end of the world as I only have to scroll to the side once and then I can see all the forum material. Still, from time to time I use a 5:4 1280x1024 screen and just realize how well suited it is for many of these forums despite being effectively a dead resolution.

 

Use the vBulletin default style (menu at the bottom left) and the sidebars as well as ads vanish and it fits nicely on a narrow screen.

vBulletin wasn't designed with advertisement space etc. on the sides - no forum actually is, i.e. the very moment you stick it into a div or give it less space in any other way you are changing the "playing ground".

 

I think that 16:10 is much better for laptop

 

I believe a widescreen is silly idea for a netbook.

They can't play movie smoothly with their minature atom processor, and also can't see the bottom of a web page without scrolling down.

 

Lets go back prior to the existance of netbooks. To a time when the VAIO P was indeed not a netbook. Picture below:


Widescreen makes more sense then you do lol. The entire point of this ultra-portable design is not being any bigger than it needs to be. Since all of the hardware could fit under the keyboard at the desired battery thickness, why would the screen be any bigger than the keyboard

Ultra-portable computing isnt about viewing convenience. Its about size and weight and when possible battery life. True some "netbooks" cant swallow video, the screen isnt wrapped around that concept either.

A square screened netbook would either be way too big, or have a even worse keyboard then they already do.

 

The future is 21:9 and I definitely can't wait for it!

 

The next standard: 4K resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

That old res? heh i do believe bluray projectors offered that for rich people a couple of years back. Dont be confused by the adoption in the newer hdmi spec. More computer displays then tvs will take advantage of it.

 

I posted that more like a joke, I doubt it will become the next standard any time soon.

 

Well, 4K is moving into cinematic cameras.
And if you want to film at 1080p, that's best done with DSLRs at a low cost

-> I actually wouldn't be surprised if 4K video comes sooner rather than later just to differentiate "professional video" from amateur video.

 

Guys, I am actually going to make a minisite in order to support our efforts for having 16:10 screens. However, I am out of ideas of how to call it, or what you slogan should be, any thoughts?

 

What about "Usability before profit"?

 

I would prefer if it was related somehow to the aspect ratio, LCD, etc.

 

That will be more difficult...

 

Precisely why I've asked for you help .

 

I might not be the best to ask for creativity... -> too conservative... (so why did I chose maths??)

You could use the old style "demonstration slogan variety" -> "yes to 16:10 no to 16:9"

Or if you post a bit more detail:
"An investigation into the effects on work with respect to the aspect ratio of the screen employed by the computer used".

 

how about sixteenbyten.com )

 

Another holdout has fallen - the ThinkPad W701. Thankfully, they let it die with dignity, and didn't try to sell us an "upgrade" to a 1366x768 "High Definition" shortscreen farce of a display. The ThinkPad line has a history of discontinuing their high-end computers, sometimes for months at a time. But they have always come around with something even better, eventually. Let's hope they don't let us down this time.

 

That would work.

 

This is a bit of a bummer indeed. Does this mean that 16:10 (and maybe 4:3) screens are going to be like the Gibson Les Paul '59 sunburst of computer screens? Vintage, desirable and hideously expensive.

 

Sounds awfully like a porno site...

I approve!

 

Nah if there is anything that isnt that desirable is some old screen.

 

Ok, I will wait for a few more opinions before I register it.

 

I'd be downright delighted if they replaced the W701ds with a W802ds/W820ds that had an 18.4" 2560x1440 display (replacing the 1920x1200) and a slide-out 1440x864 or 1440x900 display (replacing the 1280x768).

But alas I see no evidence of this happening.

 

@Jayayess1190; I noticed your closed thread. Now that I have a 16:9 monitor, my thoughts on it are mixed. I think I personally would prefer 16:10 over the two however, but that's just me.

 

I'd take Lenovo's old SXGA+ 4:3 over 16:10, but 16:10 over 16:9 anyday.

 

Why do you guys like 4:3 so much? I hate it. You couldnt have two browsers opened next to each other. I have a 16:10 and I think I may prefer 16:9 for that reason.

 

So you would prefer 1920x1080 over 1920x1200? Or 1600x900 over 1680x1050? Yes, I know I'm slightly cherry picking resolutions here, but that's largely the issue. Moving from 16:10 to 16:9 has overall reduced the vertical height available. The one notable gain has been moving from 1440x900 to 1600x900.

 

14" SXGA+ is the perfect blend of size, performance and screen real estate in my opinion. Vertical resolution is preferred because applications like Office and internet tend to be more top to bottom oriented.

 

Although I generally prefer 16:10 over 16:9, the increase in higher-resolution screens in smaller notebooks is quite nice--1366x768 on 11" laptops isn't bad, and 1600x900 or even 1920x1080 on 13.3" machines is just amazing. I do wish 16:9 laptops had smaller bezels, though, to cut down on the total vertical height and minimizing any extra girth.

Overall, I sort of agree with Quanger about 4:3 displays. They just seem to have too much vertical pitch, whereas 16:10 is naturally and comfortably within your eyes' field of vision. That, and 4:3 ultraportables can't fit full-size keyboards, makes me prefer 16:10.

 

As it's been stated, programmers absolutely need all the vertical real estate available. Even if you don't program, Word and general internet browsing is more pleasurable with less scrolling with even 16:10. Business professionals do not need all the extra horizontal real estate. We don't plan on watching movies all the time on our laptops.

The worst part is people seem to accept 16:9 now. It's a selling point on monitors. Who wants 1368x768 on a 16" laptop? Or 1368x768 on an 19" monitor? 1440x900 is getting harder to find on consumer monitors now.

SXGA+ albeit expensive is totally worth it. Go take a look at an older ThinkPad with that resolution.

 

A 12" 4:3 screen fits nicely on an ultra portable. My Toughbook W8 has a nearly identical footprint when compared to my Toshiba netbook. I agree that at less than 12" a 4:3 is too narrow. However, if we set the minimum keyboard size to be "full with trimmed edges" like the Toshiba netbooks, then I want as much vertical as reasonably possible. A 4:3 12" works well as compared to a 10.1" widescreen. This is also why I would rather have a 16:10 vs 16:9 on the same width computer. I also firmly agree that SXGA+ as I had on my old Dell 14" computer was great for a laptop. A 14" 4:3 is about the width of a current 12-13" model but gives you more vertical space. Very nice to work with.

As for the comment about side by side webpages, well that's totally a function of horizontal resolution. I find that 1400 can do some side by side web pages but only a few. 1600 is decent but few laptops have that resolution. 1920 is good for most stuff but you need over 2000 to really be sure you won't have to pan and scan with either window.

 

I was reluctant to even buy a new laptop while I had my 15" 2048x1536 T42p
Not only did I use it for side-by-side windows, I used a tool called Sizer to place 1024x753 windows in three of the four corners, leaving the top-left corner open so I could access my desktop.
(Not 1024x768, the taskbar took up 30 pixels, or 15 per window)

 

I found that for small display (such as laptop display, especially 14" and below) its MUCH better to have 16:10, 4:3 or 5:4 display, because it have more height and much easier to read PDF flies and doing spreadsheet, less scrolling on webpage as well.

However on bigger display, I don't think it made much sense, as I can see from my 23" display on my desktop, I not concerned for it lack of height because of its size, even though its not as high (loses few milimeters) than previous 17" 5:4 display.

Another is resolution, like Indrek said, 1366x768 in 14"-15" IMO is absurd. Can't wait to buy 1600x900 panel. I love high pixel density screen.

 

Just throwing it out there for years AW fans used to use the 16:10 as a selling point, the R3 now using 16:9

 

Oh I had no idea they produced anything higher than wuxga on a laptop. How we can dream, when ultra hd 4320p is mainstream in 10 years we will be fine but i'd imagine the ratio will be 21:9 by then. Sad we don't have a choice.

This is just sick

YouTube - IBM Thinkpad T60 with QXGA Display 2048x1536

ok I'm seriously thinking now..

T60 upgrade to QXGA

 

if you look below the video there's a comment I made 3 months ago xD

 

Old school QXGA ThinkPads go for like 600-800 on Ebay lol.

 

It all depends on the need and application. I think 16:10 is the sweet spot aspect ratio but my favorite is still 4:3 and 5:4. I recently bought a new Dell 19" monitor on Ebay with a 1280x1024 and I still feel like I hit the jackpot LOL.

I still play all of my games in 1280x1024. I purchased a Viewsonic 19" with a 16:10 ratio. It's a gorgeous screen and things do look nice but for me nothing compares to a 4:3 aspect ratio especially for things like Office and the internet.