The official 16:9 screen protest thread

Do you all know what this remind me off?

-> In the old Soviet Union the west was labelled "fascist", and I think they had a good point, although not from the common viewpoint, it wasn't a person "leading", but it's money.

Profit is everything - who cares if the company is ruined by it, or if the customers like it, the short term profit is what counts -> changes that achieve this are good by default.

This screen debate is the same -> there is ZERO rational argument for 16:9, all it comes down to is a few more Dollars for the executives to line their coats with or to use in their fireplace to warm their house.
It's the same with many other products - electronics get cheaper over time, look at 32GB MP3 players, they cost the same as 2 years ago.
The flash at least got cheaper... nothing changed.

And we, the stupid consumers accept this, also because items will break and no longer last for ever as they used to do. At some point we HAVE to buy, no matter if we like it or not.
Of course producing for eternity (as in the socialist era, and making things last) would destroy capitalism... so things must break, the people MUST buy, else the system collapses...

On that note - did Blacky ever get to set up that webpage?

 

You forgot to mention that 3 years ago a 1680x1050 22" display cost near $300. Now a 1920x1080 cost under $200. Yes, I prefer 16:10 but it's hard to argue that we the consumer aren't seeing some of this cost savings.

BTW, I recall when the first wide screen laptops were coming out HP was using 16:10 screens while other manufactures were using "proper" 16:9 screens. It appears that at the time the computer makers though 16:10 was better but only until lower cost 16:9 panels were in front of them!

 

Meh 2 years ago got a 23 inch Samsung 1680x1050 TV/Monitor with a tuner for 270, straight up monitors are always cheaper so alot of drop must have happened in that year lol. Mind you something that actually is worth having is still always too expensive

 

@DetlevCM

I'm currently trying to decide which hosting service I should use. Initially I thought of just using wordpress.com , but I don't think they allow me to customize the blog with different themes.

 

There are wordpress themes that I am pretty sure you can use.
Also, what keeps you from just trying? -> registering and seeing what you can change doesn't take much time.

But can you prove that this is due to the change in aspect ration?
I'd say that price change is more due to general cost reduction in the manufacturing techniques.

Account for inflation and the cars of today will be cheaper than the cars of 10 years ago.
Especially electronics get cheaper over time, another point to look at, CPU -> price at introduction, price 2 years later, and there isn't even wear on it, unless you overheat it, it's as good as new...

 

yes it is cheaper to make 16:9 compared to 16:10
but lets say that i want to buy a 17" laptop now and i have a choice for 2 exact the same configurations except that the first has a 16:9 screen and cost 1700 euro the second has a 16:10 screen (1920x1200) and that one cost me 2000 euro, thats 300 bucks more.. I will go for the 16:10 screen without blinking my eyes.. And i am not the only one willing to do that. So don't tell me that they then can't even earn more money. Even if the screen would cost them 200 bucks more to buy.. (which will not be the case)

If Apple can do it, why can't the rest of the world?

 

Purely capitalist decision -> the other aspect is that paying less for parts increases profit, don't expect a large price difference by switching to 16:9 from 16:10.
The company profit increases, the cost to the consumer stays the same or if it falls then only by the regular cost decrease will the price fall.

And that's all what business is about nowadays - short term profit... ironically it's family owned companies or companies owned by foundations that tend to do better as they think in generations, in decades rather than quarterly profits.

 

I would have to think long and hard about spending $300/300 euros on that upgrade. If the difference were less than $50, but $300? Also remember that most laptops are going to sell for under $1000.

 

yes 300 is no problem, and my laptops are never below 1700 euro, but they are bought for work, i am a programming i need pixels. those 120 pixels * 1920 lines is a lot in Eclipse (the IDE that i use), thats almost a complete view of information. I wouldn't mind if 1920 was loosing 120 pixels (or some more)
thats not important, but vertical resolution is very very important in everything i do, Browsing the internet, reading mails, developing software you name it, those 120 pixels lose is 10% more scrolling in everything i do..
Thats easy worth 200 to 300 euro's for me over the coarse of 3 to 4 years i have that laptop, thats just nothing.

And you hit exactly the sweet spot here, yes under 1000 euro/dollar laptops we can have 1080 or 900p screens thats fine, But i am in the 2000 euro/dollar ball park, why is it in that league also impossible to get the laptop i want?

 

I do somewhat understand as my main laptop has a 15.4 UWXGA screen. I do a lot of CAD work. Even though I prefer my UWXGA screen I could handle a 1080 screen if the price difference was much more than $50. In my office we have both older 24" 1920x1200 and new 1920x1080 screens. However, since I don't code I'm less sensitive to the vertical loss than you are.

 

Ok, I've registered sixteenbyten.com and the site is up and running. Hopefully these are not the worse 25 USD spent in my life. So who wants to contribute?

 

The old email would be something worth posting.

Also, have you thought what to use for contribution? Public email and blog?
Contribution platform?

And maybe a link in your signature?

 

No, maybe you want to write stuff on it ? I don't know. PM if interested.

 

I've got my university year heading towards it's conclusion.

I suppose I can cook something up if you are willing to polish it up.
i.e. I do the rough work, you do the fine stuff and can then post it.

 

I won't blog on it, don't worry. Just a few pages, one of them being the letter and the list of OEM and ODM which to contact and their contact details. The rest we can fill in with arguments in favor of 16:10. Do you have a wordpress account ? I can make you a contributor to the blog, I am not so much concerned for its security.

 

Sorry, I don't have a wordpress account.

-> I'd actually rather not be a contributor, for one reason - If I am not I can rant a bit too - if I am a contributor I must weight my argument and be objective.
So having someone read my writings before they get posted can be a good idea at times.

 

Agreed. Going from WUXGA to 1080p was painful for a bit. I do most of my coding scripting in vim/emacs on my thinkpads and its OK with wxga+, but I sure do miss 1200 vertical pixels my vostro 1700 has! Makes me almost want to confiscate it back.

 

Just a little update... I love writing too much.... I just sat down and wrote a longer article... I'll PM you a link to it, a word document.

 

What happened to your Vostro 1700? lol

I mean it seems like all the new 17" mobile workstations have gone to the crapper by going 17.3" and 16:9. Disappointing to see M6600, 8750W, and W720 all only have 1080 vertical pixels.

 

I'll look into it during the weekend. Thanx a lot.

 

Have fun if you post it - please attribute by my username, thanks

 

This thread has spawned a website, congratulations to everyone who has contributed with ideas to it.

This is it:
Sixteen By Ten

Feel free to use it how you see fit.
There are still some things to fix, but it's pretty much done.

 

And just to make sure it complies with the Forum Rules I'll just repost the link in a quote just in case as I am not the owner

 

Yeah Blacky you might want to put the link in your Sig.

Good luck with getting attention to your site and cause. You're like the Greenpeace of 16:10 monitors.

The biggest and most lame excuse is that we are told 16:9 is because of computer users who watch movies. That's a small segment vs those that use their PC's for other things not related to movies.

A couple of months ago I purchased a 19" Dell Business monitor with 1280x1024 resolution. I love it and I prefer that for playing games as well and I even prefer that over my 16x10 19" Viewsonic monitor.

 

Thanx. I've already added it to my sig.
And it's not just my website, DetlevCM has made an invaluable contribution to it.

 

Well, I typed some of the text that you read through and modified slightly -> So all I did was take some work of your hands.

 

Late reply, but the vostro is at my parents house. I am lending it to my little brother until they find him or can afford a computer. Oh and yeah its ad seeing all those nice 17in workstations go to 16:9.

 

I just contributed a comment about the Golden Ratio. Or did you mean a monetary contribution?

 

I wonder if 16:10 is enough to satisfy the angry mob or do we need to go back to 4:3?

 

4:3 or 16:10 will work well. 16:10 allowed for full keyboards in 12in laptops which is a bonus, while 4:3 gives better vertical resolution.

 

When I went from 5:4 to 16:10 it did take a month or so to adjust. But it wasn't that bad, in fact I ended up liking the 16:10 more than the 5:4 aspect ration. To me 16:10 is just about right, almost perfect I might say.

 

16:10 would be the minimum, while 4:3 would be the sweet spot. After using my D600 recently, I enjoy my 1400x1050 resolution.

 

I honestly thing 16:10 was the sweetspot with the added keyboard bonus. But then again when I was using 4:3 and 5:4 laptops the keyboards were awesome too. I think that bonus may be with modern keyboard sizes taken into account.

 

I personally see not much difference between 16:9 and 16:10.. I pretty hapy with 16:9 and prefer not having all the black bars when seeing movies youtube etc.

 

-> So you are allergic against black bars? What's wrong with them? And will you accept a 21:9 screen, that's another newer film-format... I think there is a Phillips TV with those dimensions.

While you might not completely loose on excessively wide video, try watching some old 4:3 videos (yes, they do exist)
Also, compare reading text on those screens, print text on an A4 page in landscape and portrait orientation, tell us which is easier to read.

-> Try editing photographs, it's worse on 16:9 -> follow the link in Blacky's and my signature for a detailed explanation of the problem.

 

After 139 pages has any awareness or progress been made with the screen mfgs?

 

if they would make a 2140x1200 for laptop displays I'd be happy with 16:9, till then...........

 

There he is, guys. GET HIM.

 

We are the point where we are sending letters to laptop manufacturers. When I get some official replies I will post them on the website. Until then, you can join the fun.

 

After using my X120e's 16:9 1366x768 screen extensively over the last few weeks, I feel like the shift from XGA (1280x800) to HD (1366x768) is largely overblown. Yes, I do lose 32 pixels, but I don't even notice it in normal use. In my daily usage (note-taking, word-processing, some Excel work, light C++ coding, internet browsing, PDF-reading...) it's pretty much identical to my 12.1" Averatec's WXGA display in terms of useful space. Definitely no complaints, especially since the wider display allows Lenovo to fit a full-size keyboard into an 11.6" laptop.

Even at 14", the 1600x900 new standard offers more usable screen space than the 1440x900 old standard, making two side-by-side pages in Word usable.

In 15" laptops, there is a much more common availability of 1920x1080 screens than there ever was of 1920x1200 screens, which I think is also a boon.

The only huge drawback of 16:9 displays that I really see is in 15+" laptops, where the old 1920x1200 standard is replaced with 1920x1080: no gain in horizontal pixels, but a loss of a significant number of vertical pixels.

 

Hmm, my old laptop is 1024*768 and I notice a significant difference in height between 768 and 800 pixels, also when it's in reality about 2 lines.
1600*900, well, there used to be 1650*1050
Also, very few laptops offer 1600*900, so while it does exist, it is hard to get.

 

Well Im glad that you can enjoy your movies while the rest of us that do more with computers then use them as DVD players get to suffer.

I think expecting to fight the market was an insane attempt and a test of futility to begin with. With laymen making up the majority of the market and OEMs saving money and charging more or the same it was literally an impossible fight.

I think the thread is more of a let some know and venting thread for those who are upset.

Id buy into that resolution as it would get me back to WUXGA vertical pixels. But alas I doubt they will offer anything better then 1920x1080.

 

The worst part is really business laptops and workstations switching to 16:9, these are aimed at people who will pay more for a better screen.

On that note - there is a "4k" screen, aimed at professional video editing, the downside: it costs 50.000 or 60.000$ - i.e. a "little" bit too much.

 

*sigh*
This laptop was 2048x1152's only hope of seeing the light of day. If HP can convince LCD manufacturers to use a completely different LCD technology (IPS) and such a high-gamut backlight (RGBLED), why can't they at least convince them to use a non-standard resolution?

 

The worst change is WSXGA+ (1680x1050) going down to 1600x900, you lose 150 vertical pixels.

I don't know why manufacturers still couldn't have left 16:10 alone and offered thicker bezels for the dummies who want 16:9.

 

Good question, also considering 16:10 at 13,3" works perfectly with a full size keyboard (look at the Sony Vaio SZ)
Considering that 13,3" is also very similar in size to standard A4 paper (a tad bigger) it's the ideal office-on-the-go format.

 

Dont forget the 80 horizontal as well.

 

If you directly and only consider that change, then yes, it's a pretty bad transition from 1600x900. But, remember that in 16:10 15.4" laptops in the past, most maxed out at 1680x1050 resolution--now, however, most higher-end 15.6" laptops come with 1920x1080 screen options, and if you compare those two formats, you gain 240 horizontal pixels and 30 vertical pixels.

Yes, before someone says it, I know 1920x1200 is the 16:10 version of 1920x1080, which is why I say it's very unfortunate for those with 17" laptops, in which 1920x1200 screens were commonplace. But you have to factor availability into the picture to: yes, we lost resolution if you're comparing a 15.4" 1920x1200 laptop to a 15.6" 1920x1080 laptop, but there are many more options of the latter than there ever were of the former.

 

Well I'm gonna get a 1920x1200 screen for my Vostro 1500.

Alot of 15.4" business laptops offer WUXGA, sad to see 1080p.

Point being, yes it is partially about 16:9, but moreso the resolution. If they offered higher resolution I guess it would be okay but I still like 16:10/4:3.