The official 16:9 screen protest thread

Have my choice? I would like a 14" Sandy Bridge notebook with 16:10 or 4:3 aspect ratio screen. Go?

 

My favorite form factor is the 4x3 14" laptop. I loved my Inspiron 5100

 

You have some interesting perspective on having a choice. Personally, I consider the transition to the 16:9 aspect ratio as progression, then again I have been rather quick to adapt to new things.

This thread should have included a poll vote. I wonder whether the transition to the 16:9 aspect ratio is something that consumers want or something that firms are forcing on their customers.

As mentioned above, the only thing I would like to see is high PPI LCD displays with software being resolution independent. That would be awesome!

 

You make us sound like computer cave people

 

If have ever used a SXGA+ or a WUXGA+ screen for productive work, going to 1920x1080 or 1600x900 is a complete step backwards.

Sure average joe schmoe who wants to do email doesn't need such high resolution screens, so let them get the crummy 16:9 screens and leave business notebooks alone!

 

Wouldn't 1920x1080 is technically a step up from 1400x1050?

I'd prefer 1920x1080 over 1400x1050 because I'd be able to fit two windows side-by-side without sacrificing any vertical space, but I'd much prefer 1920x1200 over either, and 1600x900 is definitely a downgrade from 1400x1050.

I don't hate the 16:9 aspect ratio, just the death of 1600x1200 and 1920x1200 equivalents. 2048x1152 in a laptop and I'll be satisfied.

 

I can discredit your argument by saying that 1920x1080 cannot show you more. Its physically impossible! there are the same pixels horizontally and more vertically meaning that the 16:10 screen will view the same side to side but more top to bottom. I cant see how you dont understand that more pixels = able to view more.

Makes about the same sense as saying you can see more out of a smaller window.

Build me three boxes one thats 16in x 12in, on thats 16in x 10in and one thats 16in x 9in and see which one holds the most stuff within its boundaries. Let me know what you find.

1920x1080 would be the equivalent of 1920x1440 in 4:3.

Think of 4:3 as being 16:12 without simplification. So it will offer more vertical pixels at the same horizontal pixels.

 

Please stop to read. I said 16:9 would have more viewable space then 1920x1200 when formats are in 16:9 or cinematic mode for videos.
Use the website I linked. It is easily possible as 16:10 would create massive black boxes, trust me I've seen cinematics on 16:10 it literally looks like 30% of the screen is unused.
It isn't about physics.
Here's a comparison between my Envy 17" and my Previous Dell M6500


16:9 17.3" (viewable area in in² for videos in said aspect ratio)
16:9= 127.8 in²
2.35= 96.8 in²

16:10 17"
16:9= 116.75²
2.35= 88.43²

 

When watching 16:9 movies on a 16:10 screen, I'll usually crop them to 16:10 using VLC Media Player.
When watching 21:9 (or some other excessively-wide aspect ratio) on 16:10, I'll leave it like it is because I'll still get huge black bars regardless of whether the screen is 16:10 or 16:9.

 

So you are cutting out a massive part of the video. I'd rather just stick with a 16:9 and get the whole picture not part of it.

Btw you are cutting out a considerable part of the movie due the aspect ratios being vastly different in the way the dimensions are spread, but that goes without saying.

 

Are you guys that worried about how movies look on your laptops? I mean I can understand on a TV. I wouldn't prefer a 16:10 TV but really, on a laptop I want what works best for the work I'm doing on the computer. If I bother watching a video on the laptop most of the time it's not great quality.

A guy I work with just got a new Thinkpad W520 today. In theory it's the same size as my 15.4" Dell. The 1080 screen on the W520 seems larger but I know mine actually has the extra dots. Personally I prefer the apparently smaller size of my computer (it isn't as wide though it might be deeper) and the, to me, more pleasing ratio of width to height. 16:9 screens just strike me as either really wide for an acceptable vertical size or to short for a good width.

 

Which doesn't really matter because all the important stuff is going on in the centre of the frame anyway.

Films are wide because of periphal vision on a wide screen - not because they need to be that wide.

....

1920*1200 on 16:10
and 1920*1080 on 16:9

And you are telling me 16:9 has more viewable space? What?

-> Either polish up your maths or phrase whatever you want to say in a coherent way.
16:10, especially at 1920*1200 has more pixels than 16:9 with 1920*1080.
You cannot (!!!) have more "viewable space" (what is viewable space anyway?) on a 16:9 screen - it has a lower resolution.

Now if you want to say the screen is perceived to be used more extensively, then you are right. But that's doesn't make it any better - because the screen resolution was reduced to fit the video.

 

I have just read a thread on Lenovo Blogs, which is maintained by representatives of Lenovo, and the majority of the comments made on the T420s thread expressed disappointment with Lenovo’s decision to transition a business product to 16:9 aspect ratio screens, which is considered a consumer standard.

The representative of Lenovo had stated their reasons for the transition. Due to the widespread adoption of 16:9 aspect ratio screens the demand for 16:10 aspect ratio screens have become weaker and therefore more expensive to product. Apparently, the majority of their business customers are unwilling to pay this premium, which is approximately $100, not exactly expensive.

The Lenovo T and X series ThinkPads demand premium prices, this is compared to the hardware offered by its competitors, and customers have been willing to pay for them, so surely a mere $100 for a 16:10 aspect ratio screen is insufficient to deter them from purchasing business laptops.
I am unconvinced by the reasons provided by the Lenovo representative, and would be interested to learn the real reasons behind the transition. An interesting comment made in the thread stated that Lenovo is a ‘me too’ type of company, which is what I am thinking at the moment.

Any thoughts people?

 

No. You're not viewing more, the black boxes are bigger because there are MORE PIXELS vertically so you have the same picture but just more actual space so the boxes are bigger. Again build the boxes and you'll see, there is no possibility of a smaller ratio offering more space. Its a mathmatical impossibility.

Think about a one to one and do the ratios in your head and now picture a 16 pixel by 10 pixel screen and then picture a 16 pixel by 9 pixel. Now which one will show more? My money is on the 160 pixel screen over the 144 pixel screen.

 

Both comments make sense and do not contradict each other. There are two distinct points being made here.



According to the diagram, the 16:10 aspect ratio has more viewing area than 16:9, this is calculated using a simple mathematical calculation for area (Area = Base x Height). This is the point made by Sphinx and DetlevCM.

The dimension of a DVD picture is equal to the 16:9 aspect ratio and therefore fits perfectly on such a screen. However, it does not fit perfectly on a 16:10 aspect ratio because the DVD picture has a longer Base and shorter Height. Regardless of how the DVD picture is stretched, the FULL picture will never fit entirely, that is without any BLACK BARS, on a 16:10 screen. This is the point made by Crimsoned, and the statements made about ‘viewable space’ are in relation to this theory, which I thought were quite clear.

Therefore, both comments are correct, 16:9 has more ‘viewable space’, in relation to DVDs, and the 16:10 has more area in general.

PS: I hope the diagram was actually drawn to scale!

 

Well, I see your argument - but the problem is, that it implies a wider resolution on the 16:9 screen.
Comparing 1920:1080 to 1920*1200 this is not the case.

The argument makes sense for people looking through a cardboard box - simply because the human eye doesn't have a set resolution.

But with computers you are limited to the screen's resolution - and that's equal in width. Yes, the screen might be looking bigger, individual pixels might be larger, but it cannot contain more information.

That's also why companies generally state the resolution of their screen.
-> Look at cameras:
Imagine someone trying to sell you a 35mm sensor as opposed to a 21,875mm sensor (-> possibly 22 or 21mm in real life).

Does it tell you anything about the results? No.
The FF (35mm) could be 12MP, it could be 21, it could be 24.
The APS-C sensor (21,9 -> 35mm/1,6) can be anything from 6 odd MP up to 18MP.

It is the resolution that tells you how much information/detail can be displayed on a screen - no matter what size the screen is.

 

I wouldn't pay a ~10% penalty to have a 16:10 screen nor would I take a 1440x900 vs 1600x900 for otherwise equal money (figure the 16:9 savings buys the extra resolution). $100 is a lot when you are talking about a feature that many people won't notice and when you consider how much the computer costs.

 

Except that 16:10 would have gotten you a 1680*1050 screen

-> There are more resolutions in 16:10 than 16:9, or alternatively the map needs to be redrawn.

16:10
1280*800
1440*900
1680*1050
1920*1200
2560*1600

16:9
1024*600 or 1280*720
1366*768
1600*900
1920*1080
2560*1440

Notice something? All screens loose resolution when lined up properly.

 

Can you please explain what you mean by 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 not being the case? I've owned multiple laptops, and I own multiple monitors, I am pretty much 100% positive that my "theory" is correct.

Actually that is and is not correct, while pixels will tell you what resolution it is they will not determine viewable area, keep in mind pixels are for the sake of argument uniform and of same sizes and distances from each other (technically they are not but I am not getting into that discussion).\
A 1600*900 screen that is 23" diagonally will produce same same viewable area as a 1920x1080 screen when viewing 16:9 video.
Also
Keep in mind 1920x1200 is a resolution that follows the 16:10 ratio therefore would fall under the same theory I mentioned regardless, and depending on the size screen it follows a constant pixel pitch (dot pitch).
Think of it this way, instead of measuring the screen by using inches let's use pixels as the measuring unit.
So let's do it: 1920 pixels in width using a 0.191mm pixel pitch and 1200 pixels in height using a .191mm pixel pitch would result in the same thing as measuring with inches, which would be a 17" 16:10 LCD. Of course these calculations are rough and are subject a under a percentage in error (>1%).

Hope that makes sense.

 

If you use the same pixel pitch, the 16:9 screen will be smaller than the 16:10 screen.
And larger pixels don't help - unless your eyesight is very bad.
My old laptop is 1024*768, my current 1280*800 - my SZ has 113dpi my old one something lower - yes, everything looks bigger but also edgier - the screen might be the same area, even slightly bigger, I never compared - but it shows less information.

With 16:9 you might have a screen that is wider than 16:10 with the same diagonal - but you will also get larger pixels -> they don't show any more information.

It doesn't matter if you stare at a billboard with 1920*1080 pixels or a 17" screen with 1920*1080 - they both show you exactly the same.
-> Any a 16:10 screen with 1920*1200 has more pixels, hence can show more information.

Of course if you want to lean back 2m away and view the screen you need a big screen, but then you should buy a TV and not a laptop.
-> A laptop (or desktop) meant for work will be at most maybe 60cm away from you on a desk - you don't need huge pixels that looks somewhat sharp two metres away.
In fact, you might even want smaller pixels so that the image looks smoother.

 

Pixel pitch is dependent on screen size and resolution which is dependent on the aspect ratio, so no you can't do a 16:9 1920x1080 at the same pixel pitch as a 16:10 it just is not a comparison at all because the end result would be a smaller LCD, and vice versa for the 16:10 it would be a larger LCD.

Actually a 16:9 will show more information then a 16:10 because by theory you would have approximately 8%-15% more pixels used in a 16:9 screen while using sources of 16:9 or Cinematic 2.35:1.
Not sure what you are getting at but in terms of playback for 16:9 or wider videos, 16:9 is the undisputed king.
Also keep in mind 16:9 was pushed since 1980's if I am not mistaken by a well known media expert. The reason for pushing it was the insane versatility of 16:9 in use with various aspect ratios from 4:3 all the way to 2.35 and wider. It offered the best balance for multimedia usage.

 

16:10 is 1920*1200
16:9 is 1920*1080

Are you really claiming that 16:9 will "show you more"? It CAN'T it has fewer pixels, it can resolve less detail.

-> And the only real comparison is with equal pixels - and yes, that will give you a smaller screen because you LOSE resolution.

And to come back to films - in CINEMAS periphal vision is a part of the experience.
So when they next push 21:9 or 21:11 or whatever it is, will you support that too?

I don't need a glorified DVD player - I want a laptop that can be used for PRODUCTIVE uses (as does anybody else who buys a business orientated machine or workstation) - these people don't give a damn about videos, they want to do WORK on their machines and a LOSS of resolution is a LOSS.

 

No matter how you slice it the amount of pixels determines what is viewed. Size of pixels matters only in visibility (1920x1080 in a 15.6in vs 1366x768 in a 15.6in) and does not determine what is visible on the screen.

Lets take a 720p movie. Thats a resolution of 1280x720. Now watch them on a 1280x800 screen. There will be black bars on top and bottom that measure 1280x40 each. Now watch the movie on the higher resolution of 1366x768 and youll have bars that are 1366x24 on top and bottom AND bars on the sides (the indent would be 43pixels per side). This is why I used the box analogy as its the same concept. Think about a the boxes again (one 16in x 10in and the other at 16in x 9in) now build a second 16in x 9in box. Put the 16x9 box on top of the other 16x9 box and youll see it fills it entirely. Now put it on the 16x10 box and youll see that you can see the exact same but you have extra space. That extra space are those black boxes you see in a movie, but as you can see you dont lose ANY view with the 16x10 box.

The second 16x9 box represented a 1080p movie and will show you that 16:10 in equivalent resolutions will view MORE.

If thats not enough we can all at least agree that the FHD+ resolution is 1920x1080. A 1920x1200 (16:10) screen will view 100% of the movie with 2 black boxes representing the extra space at 1920x60 pixels on top and on bottom. You're not viewing less because of the boxes, your viewing the SAME just with space to spare.

That is comparing a higher resolution 16:9 screen to a lower resolution 16:10. The only way to truly compare is to match the horizontal resolution. and compare the vertical resolution. To draw it to scale take out a ruler and draw two boxes using a 1:1 scale. Use cm or inches and youll see16:10 will be the same width but taller then 16:9.

 

Here is a scaled 1:1 using centimetres.

 

Ok I dont understand how this is a hard concept, but apparently it is. BOTH wuxga and FHD use 1920 horizontal pixels. Meaning that BOTH will view a 1080p movie to its fullest side to side. The height of the movie is 1080 pixels where FHD screens will view it to its fullest, BUT so will wuxga as it has 1200 pixels with space to spare!

The box analogy is actually spot on as if you take the actual ratios 16:10 and 16:9 in their purest form (each unit is a single measurement) you will see that 16cm:10cm (the ratio with assigned measurement values and 100% valid) can do everything that 16cm:9cm can do and more, including viewing MORE content.

 

Well of course. The Z series (now dead) was the first widescreen ThinkPad. Unfortunately with the start of the T6x series, they moved from 4:3 to 16:10. Probably why the Z series died, but they realized that their competitors were moving to widescreen format too, so Lenovo had no incentive to stick with 4:3 and there was no way to cut costs by moving to widescreen.

It's unfortunate that business notebooks are being hit with the flood of cheapness. Business professionals do not mind paying a premium for the notebook. If you are spending 1000-1200 already, what is another 100? If SXGA+ was available on 14" and it was 250 more, I would pony up for it.

Again yes it's not that I "hate" 16:9 but it's the terrible resolutions and just a sense of cheapness that is now associated with it. Now you see monitors selling 16:9 aspect ratio and I really find it hilarious because now you are getting less pixels for the slightly less money. And I hate how manufacturers put an HD resolution sticker on a laptop that has 1368x768, that absolutely disgusts me. And it seems that the 16:9 craze has decimated the monitor market as well. 18.5-19" are now 1368x768 when they used to be 1280x800. You can hardly find a 1920x1200 monitor these days without paying an arm and a leg.

 

@ Indrek

Actually in wider screen formats like 2.35:1 or even 1:85:1 video aspect ratios a 16:9 screen will still show more than a 16:10. Basically anything wider then 16:9 is better seen on a 16:9.

Have you ever seen a cinematic movie on a 16:10, trust me it feels like you are loosing most of the screen.

Also full 1920x1080 video on a 1920x1200 video would be pushing all the pixels out, kinda. From my understanding 1:1 pixel mapping is key here, otherwise you can end up with a pretty bad image.

 

I agree. I think alot of professionals would "pony up" too and I would be one of them. Now if they started offering higher then 1920x1080 in notebooks I would be happier. If I could get closer to or at 1200 vertical pixels I would sacrifice size for that at the risk of my wife maiming me.

As for the cheapness Ill agree on that front too. But will also say that things did start getting cheaper feeling with the switch to widescreen. I would say mid 2000s is around when things started getting cheap so 16:10 is to blame for some of that too.

HD stickers on 1366x768 laptops drives me nuts too but technically its a HD resolution (1280x720 is HD). But that doesnt stop people from bragging that their screen is HD and mine isnt. Even though they got duped by a marketing scheme and my WXGA+ is higher resolution.

 

That is the point, you think 16:10 can do anything the 16:9 does but other users, such as Crimsoned, does not think the former is suitable for viewing DVD because either black bars or zooming. Therefore, the opposing view to your opinion thinks that 16:9 is perfectly adequate for everything they need it for and even displays DVD pictures property, which means filling the entire screen.

So there are three types of opinions so far: those that want 16:10, those that want 16:9 and those that prefer to have different screens for different uses. Well, anyway, 16:10 appears to be going the way of the Dodo (I wonder what they tasted like, chicken?)

 

Except Professionals will not be pony-ing up $100 for 16:10, they are ponying up paying $2,000+ because they need professional graphics, reliability, and business class support/warranty NOT because they need a 16:10 screen.

I think I already discussed this, I myself have bought a workstation in the past, as well service workstations as well as business class laptops from all brands: Lenovo/HP albeit we haven't gotten a Dell workstation to be exact. I interact with the owners, I can assure you the 16:10 aspect ratio was the last thing in their mind and mine when they made the purchase. Most say quite simply: They cannot afford downtime. That is the #1 reason I have heard businesses say when they purchased a business notebook.

Anyways I am out. You guys have fun discussing what does not matter, 16:10 will be dead soon enough and will become like 4:3 in a few years. Forgotten.

 

You cannot compare sizes as they are diagonal measurements. You have to find the "common denominator" and that is the horizontal pixel count. Comparing actual screen dimensions with pixels is comparing apples to oranges. The only way is to find that denominator.

Again, 16cm x 10cm is a 16:10 ratio just as 16cm x 9cm is a 16:9 ratio. Again you cannot compare actual screen sizes until you find the common denominator. My analogy is the same as if you found 2 screens with resolutions of 16x10 and 16x9. Same concept.

I have and Ill say yet again that the viewing is the same. The boxes are there because the movie cannot and does not take up the full screen space. There is nothing being "pushed out" or changed. Just that the movie does not take up all the screen.

 

There isnt zooming. If they are allergic to the black bars, fine. But spitting misinformation because of said allergy is wrong!

 

Well the last glimmer of light is Apple who for now is still 16:10 but I highly suspect it is old stock of 16:10 panels and with the next generation I am almost certain they will come out with 16:9 notebooks too.

But yes for almost every single manufacturer with the launch of Sandy Bridge is all 16:9 now. Which is why except for the x220t, I probably will be buying older 16:10 notebooks.

 

Fine let's be realistic and avoid points like the plague.

With the money I save getting a 16:9 laptop instead of a 16:10 laptop I can put that money up and buy 2x 21.5" 1920x1080 E-IPS monitors then hooked up to my Envy 17 SB put them both in portrait mode and call the 1200 vertical pixels on a TN panel a laughing stock compared to two eIPS 21.5@ 2160x1920+ my 17" 1920x1080.

End story.

 

Where is the 'misinformation'? The use of a laptop has an evolving defintion which ultimately depends on the current generation of users. I am happy to read you opinion, but if you are trying to force your opinion on me, save it!

 

If they introduced higher PPI density in monitors, would that be any better for you? This would make the fonts smaller and easier to read? I don't know, I don't use my laptop for business, but I do find zooming in Word makes the font a too large.

 

The price of 16:9 laptops vs 16:10 is minimal at best. You could however use that argument for 4:3 vs 16:9 as that change was significant. I paid $1050 for my t400 with upgrades and accessories. A t420 similarly equipped costs $1500. So where is the savings from going to 16:9? Its minimal at best and sometimes an increase in price.

Fin.

The misinformation is saying that a higher resolution views less then a lower resolution. Its 100% wrong.

Im not referring to users and their uses at this time, merely correcting the wrong that crimson is speaking. Lower resolution will never view more then a higher resolution as long as youre comparing actual comparable resolutions.

 

You aren't making any sense at all....

ANY video watched on a computer will normally be 1:1 with respect to pixel mapping - if it's not on yours then get rid of the rubbish software or change the setting.

ANY FILM by DEFAULT will be 1 pixel in the video = 1 pixel on the screen.

Yes, you can obviously stretch video to fit the screen - it has been possible for ages (even back on 4:3).

BUT you do NOT gain anything on 16:9 over 16:10 - so what are some black bars at the top & bottom? -> They don't matter.
But if you suddenly loose the equivalent of several lines of text or a full toolbar it does matter.


If you are trying to justify wasting money on a 16:9 screen - try it with logic, but you aren't making any sense at all.

Fewer pixels = less can be shown/less detail can be shown. PERIOD. (and that is a fact)

-> 1920*1200 has more pixels than 1920*1080 - that's another fact, if you don't believe it, go into a maths department and get lynched.

Now you are claiming you can see more on 1920*1080?

 

I need to stop replying to this thread.

 

He?

-> ANY laptop in our family - from mine the most expensive to cheaper laptops, a video will show 1:1 if viewed at 100% - no stretch distortion etc.

I'm not entirely sure where you live or what kind of stuff you buy but I have NEVER seen a screen that will not show 1 video pixel as 1 screen pixel.
-> Of course, if you force a lower resolution onto a higher resolution screen that won't work (i.e. display 1280*800 on a 1920*1200 screen) and also if you otherwise distort an image, but in any case where the computer is CORRECTLY set up and set to the screen's resolution 1 video pixel = 1 screen pixel if viewed without magnification in the player.

And what screen you use doesn't matter there at all.

 

I don't recall 1680x1050 screens on the 14" laptops. The T410 was capped at 1440x900. The T420 is 1600x900. So the 14" models are better in my view but the 15" models regressed as UWXGA was replaced with full HD.

How do you define "properly"?

 

You have to line up the old resolution to the appropriate new resolution.

Not go "my old laptop was 1280*800 the new one is 1920*1080" an "upgrade.

You have to compare the same "resolution class".
On that note - most people compare 1280*800 with 1366*768 - but that's an incorrect comparison.
It is 1440*900 to 1366*768.

That's what I meant with properly - in fact, the best way to do this is to work backwards from the highest resolution.

And the fact that you didn't get a high resolution screen in the past is more a development over time than an achievement of 16:9.
-> The 13,1" (13,3" 16:10 = perfect & lovely) Vaio Z has a 1920*1080 screen, I don't anybody else made them "before that". It's not because of 16:9 that it got such a screen, just because technology advanced.

 

I did. In the 15 in size I used to be able to get 1920x1200 but now I can only get 1920x1080 thus those are the top resolutions in that line. The mid range for a 15" was 1680x1050 vs 1600x900 today. Only in the base 1366x768 vs 1280x800 can we claim a 16:9 has more resolution than the old standard but in the base models we are now dealing with a trade off. I preferred 1280x800 myself. However, in the 14" range the old top of the line Dell, HP, Thinkpad was 1440x900. Now it's 1600x900 so in the 14" class of computers it was a gain in resolution. Sure there were some odd ball machines that had very high resolution small displays but they weren't common. Latitude, Elitebooks and Thinkpads are all common thus a good point of comparison. Again, in some sizes we lost out in others we gained.

Claiming we need to keep the same vertical resolution is understandable but when you take an older 14.x" 1440x900 screen and up the horizontal resolution without dropping the pixel size you would almost have a 15.6" screen. At that point the two displays aren't comparable.

The standard resolution for budget machines used to be 1280x800 but now its 1366x768 thus they are comparable. I personally liked the old 1280x800 better so I see that as a loss even though the total count is about a wash. Overall I preferred the old 16:10 but along with 16:9 screens we now have cheaper desktop monitors and at least in the 14" range an increase in resolution vs a drop.

 

What does this format (1024 x 600) fall under or is it a new format?


edit: nvm I just saw a few post up that it's 16x9.

 

It is technically 16:9.5 - however it never existed before 16:10 and is closer to 16:9 than 16:10.

With a horizontal base of 1024 pixels, the heights are:
16: 9 576pixels
16:10 640pixels

 

DetlevCM,
Do you see my point about what resolutions are comparable?

 

Not really.

Display size in inches (stupid measurement anyway - the sane world measures in cm, I have no idea why that antique measurement is used on screens) is a useless measurement if you change the aspect ratio.

You switch between aspect rations, diagonal lengths and resolutions, trying to prove something (and I have no idea what).

You say "lets keep the pixel size and make the screen wider" (1440*900 to 1600*900), "this makes the screen larger".
Then I say, why not keep the screen size and change it to 1680*1050 - yes, that makes the pixels smaller, but upgrades both - vertical and horizontal resolution. If it's too small for you, up the DPI.
-> The result is still a screen with more resolution than a 16:9 screen.

Additionally, your aim is to keep the screen's diagonal the same - why? It's an idiotic measurement for screens because it doesn't consider the aspect ratio (as you showed yourself).

The measurements used should be width * height, that would be clear. If you use that, you can compare screens based on width or based on height between aspect ratios. With the diagonal you cannot do this because it masks the fact, that the area of the screen is reduced (irrespective of resolution)
A square has the largest area in proportion to the diagonal - a rectangle that isn't a square will have a smaller area for the same diagonal.
Therefore a 14,1" screen in 16:9 is smaller than a 14,1" screen in 16:10 or in 4:3.

-> Then, size alone isn't important, form factor is too.
A larger laptop that is the size of a lever arch file or an A4 page is far more useful than one that is narrower than an A4 page or wider - it just fits better into a bag between files - ironically, that's the 16:10 aspect ratio.

 

It's rather simple. Look at the 14" Dell Latitude line over the years (D600, D610, D620, D630, and what ever the new numbers were). It started as a 4:3 with XGA or 1400x1050 options. When it went to 14.1" the computer's shape did change. It was now wider but shorter. The change was enough that depending on your needs the new size may be better or worse for you. I found the tall screen made the D610 just as hard to use on an airplane as the newer, 15.4" D820. The weight was about the same across the D6x0 and later 14" range. When they went wide screen the new screen options were 1280x800 or 1440x900. I considered that a loss as compared to the 1400x1050 screen. The D610 had basically more pixels than the higher resolution D620 (the reverse is true for the base versions).

So what about the move from 16:10 to 16:9. Well the last 14" Latitude was 16:10 and had a 1440x900 option. The new one is 16:9 but will offer a 1600x900 screen. So for basically the same size computer (and a 14" 16:10 laptop is about the same size as a 14" 16:9 computer) you get more resolution. I don't prefer 16:9 but I would rather have 1600x900 vs the older 1440x900. Sure I would take 1680x1050 if it was offered instead.

I get your point about comparing based on horizontal resolution but the reality is in a ~14" class laptop anything other than 1280x800 or 1440x900 was VERY VERY rare. Now the choices are 1366x768 or 1600x900. I don't like the new base resolution but the upgrade resolution is a clear winner to me. So it is incorrect to say that the "correct" pairing is 1680x1050 vs 1600x900 as 1680x1050 wasn't offered on a 14" Latitude.

The exact screen size of "15 inch" laptops certainly has changed as well. My old 4:3 Compaq wasn't too wide but was quite tall. Anyway, in Dell's line the 15.4" D820 has been replaced now with a 15.6" computer. The D820 was offered with a 1920x1200 screen. The new computer tops out at 1920x1080. So the 15" class computers lost resolution. I would certainly argue that the correct successor for the D820 is a 15.6" Latitude, not a 14" or 17.x" computer.

A few other comments. I don't know why display sizes are in inches. When I was in Japan they referred to TV sizes in inches?! Hell, tires are measured in a combination of inches AND metric. Regardless, that is off topic.

I only switch between aspect ratios because we have to. After all isn't that the point of this thread? We can try to hold something else constant (pixel size, diagonal, vertical or horizontal size). It doesn't mater, in the end we have to change something. If we hold vertical pixel count constant then a 16:9 screen always has more pixels. If we hold horizontal constant as you are suggesting then it always loses. I'm holding the "class" of computer as defined by the manufactures constant (14" Latitude, Thinkpad T410 to T420 etc). I can't specify the exact size screen I want. I simply get to chose among the available computers. It used to be the common "main stream business" models from Dell and others were the 14.1 and 15.4 models. Now they are 14.0 and 15.6. So in each range I ask if we gained or lost resolution. We gained in the 14" line but lost in the 15" line. In the 14" line the computers stayed about the same size (more bezel on the top and bottom of the new 14" models) but seemed to get noticeably wider in the 15" range. Oh well.

As I said before, I think 16:10 was the better ratio for basically everything. 14" was the only "winner" in the move to 16:9.

In my argument I hold the "class of computer" constant, not the aspect ratio or exact diagonal measure.

I'm sorry this has been a hard concept for me to explain but I don't think it's hard to grasp.

 

-> Your "argument" hinges on the suggestion that screens would not improve.

Can you come along and say that you know that a company will not offer a higher resolution screen in a smaller laptop in the future?
If I came along 10 years ago and said "computers will always be something for nerds & geeks, they don't look pretty, have a minimalistic interface and cost a lot", then the statement wouldn't be too far off the mark, although 10 years ago the proliferation of computers had started with Windows 95 and 98 about 16 & 13 years ago.
-> And look at the computer today.

It would be very likely that resolutions would have increased - that's just normal technology. In the same way that now 3 years on my 2,5GHz Core2Duo is ancient technology.

And what you need to remember that his trend goes through all screens - i.e. today's products have become worse. On the past you got 2560*1600 as the maximum resolution, no it is 2560*1440. On the laptop it used to be 1920*1200, now it is 1920*1080.

-> You completely ignore general technological advances.

 

Um, my argument is based on what I could buy just before and just after. That is all we have to go on. When I bought my M4400 it was clear the models were moving towards 16:9 but Dell's latest CAD laptop was still a 16:10 model. I was OK with that. When we got a coworker's HP 8440W it was that or a Thinkpad T410. The Elitebook is the same size yet offered a 1600x900 screen, the T410 only offered 1440x900. I can't speculate on the future when buying today. If and when things change my opinions will also have to be reevaluated.

I've never had the option of a 2560x1600 15.4" laptop nor a 1560x1440 laptop. If you comprehended what I was saying in the post I quoted I think it's clear I would PREFER the 2560x1600. I did say I preferred the 1920x1200 15.4" computer to the new 15.6". I don't have the option of getting the latest CAD laptop in a 16:10 in screen anymore. I regret that. However, in a 14" computer manufactures weren't offering 1680x1050. Maybe they could have in the future but they weren't last year. So last year when we were shopping the choice was 1600x900 or 1440x900. Which would you pick? No, you can't have 1920x1200 in a 14" Dell.

It's great that you are thinking of possibilities but don't ignore realities. I'm picking a preference based on what I could buy at the time. It isn't that hard to understand.


I really don't get the rest of your post. It doesn't make much sense to say I ignore advances. You were arguing that I should only compare screens based on horizontal pixel count but now you are saying I should see what comes out in the future?