The official 16:9 screen protest thread

2:1 here we come!

 

I seriously got scared for a second just thinking about that.

 

My lappy has 16:9, I LOVE IT, nice vision angles, better shape for the laptop but yeah this is my point of view.

 

Well its because you are new to laptops and dont have experience with other units....

 

I admire folks who stand behind their convictions despite the odds, but it's not healthy to waste so much energy on a lost cause. There comes a time when you must accept the things you can't change...such as the aspect ratio used on consumer laptops by the largest manufacturers around the world!

I survived the 4:3 to 16:10 transition, I'll do the same with 16:9 if there are no other options.....

If you want a 16:10 display, you can still get quite a few business models with the famiilar widescreen.

 

"we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air[...]
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, [...]"

Winston Churchill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Utv9rCHlpkM

 

"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"- William Shakespeare

I have no idea why that suddenly came to mind....BTW, I'm not calling anyone here an idiot!

 

i just dislike the funky resolutions they keep coming up with
physical proportions don't seem to vary too much

here is an example of two panels with a 15.9" diagonal (16:10 vs 16:9)


very close with 16:10 having slightly more area

 

Yes just LOOK at the difference. Its HUGE. You should add a 4:3 and 5:4 overlay as well just to demo the drastic and idiotic change that screen Mfrs are pushing on us.

This is a very serious thread IMO and we need to do something to stop these illogical Mfrs from ruining productivity and the WHOLE purpose of having a laptop to begin with.

Laptops are NOT portable movie players/TVs that can run windows OS. The stupidity of these screen Mfrs is inexcusable!!!!

 

Does it seem logical for a manufacturer to have a 15.6" and 16.0" version of the same system? Especially if both have the same 1366x768 resolution...I don't really get that.

These are so similar in size, I'm thiking that only one will exist eventually....which one is the NEW 15.4" standard- 15.6" or 16.0"?

 

16:9 vs 16:10 vs 4:3 vs 5:4 @ 15.9"

 

There are some oddballs- like the new Toshiba P500 - 18.4" (16:9) with resolution of 1680x945?! Where did they come up with that? And why not bump it up to 1920x1080 on a display that freakin' huge!?

HP came out with the first 17.3" (1600x900) when they revised the dv7t, but ASUS and Toshiba now have displays of the same size/resolution. It seems that this may be the 16:9 replacement for the 16:10 17.0" ("desktop replacement").

The 1600x900 resolution is now becoming a common option for 14.0" and 15.6" displays. But just to be different (difficult?), Sony has a 16.4" VAIO with 1600x900 resolution.

Sony just introduced their new VAIO NW series with a 15.5" display (1600x900)....not to be confused with the 15.6" that is semi-common!???

This is the most maddening part of the transition to 16:9- how many physical display sizes can they come up with?

If anything, I'd like to see a size that fits in between the 14.0" and 15.6". Split the difference and make a 14.8"? Then again, I haven't seen/used a 16:9 14.0" yet and it may be as large as I care to go...

 

a chopped-off 1680*1050 display?
i'm okay if the screens are just getting wider, but they are actually chopping off vertical space. the idea of an absolute loss is not good to me.

 

LMAO LMAO LMAO...

Dude seriously I had like 10 laptops before, Im not new, I know some stuff about laptops and electronic hardware .
compaq armada m700
HP dv1000
compaqv3317la
Dell latitude something
gateway something
Hp dv2000
macbook
asus eeepc
dell m1330
acer aspire one
gateway mc78
hp dv3
LMAO...

 

First and foremost, my personal preference for getting work done will always be 4:3. Most of my computer usage is writing, net surfing, and now that I'm learning it, coding. I need my vertical space. I've played around with 16:9 netbooks and the screen format just plain made me say a big fat 'no.' I have no qualms with 16:10 and I love my 1920x1200 M1730... I get the vertical space I need as well as the wide width.

Another problem I have with a shrinking vertical form factor is the fact that on smaller notebooks there's less palmrest. I hate feeling like I'm getting a flattened out, unergonomic typing platform... as I said before, I write quite a bit and typing comfort and feel mean a massive deal to me. The M1730 works fairly well simply because it is huge... its bulk gives me a good palmrest to work with.... however taking a 15-pound, 17" DTR with a 45-minute battery life to school daily isn't going to happen... so I needed another notebook to supplement it.

I say I got extremely lucky and managed to find a great deal on what was pretty much the last, nicest 4:3 machines out there: a 15" Thinkpad T60 which was refitted with a UXGA IPS panel. This is what I'm going to be using for serious work... I will eventually have to cave in and go 16:9, but with these fairly powerful 16:10 and 4:3 systems I've pretty much ensured that day will be very long in coming.

I'm not going to troll on the people who like 16:9, but I can just as easily watch movies on my 16:10 XPS... and I don't give a care about HDTV or blu-ray viewing... I just don't watch movies/tv enough for me to really need to pay the premium for HD content. What I do need on a personal level is vertical working space... I work with my machines, not just play.

 

So, I just received my replacement laptop from Dell after months of issues with my defective 16:10 Studio 1535...they gave me a Studio 1555, which is basically the same thing but in 16:9.

It's going to take some getting used to, but...I think it's not quite as bad as I feared. It's not like I suddenly have no ability to write papers or read webpages or anything like that.

I'll give it a chance for a few more days and decide whether I want to keep it or not.

 

the problem is that 16:10 just so happens to be the golden ratio.

why stray from perfection?

anyway, 1680x945 is exactly 16:9, but it sucks because they literally just chopped off the top and bottom of a perfectly good 1680x1050 screen. It really should be 1866 or 1867x1050, so you just gain additional horizontal resolution (like 1920x1200 compared to 1600x1200)...

or at least they could have compromised. 1760x990? oh well.

 

I've seen laptops with 16:9 screens in IT shops. Those 10% in minus are really really bad for the usage of the laptop and the way you browse for information. It just sucks....

 

Glad to hear that you finally got them to replace your 1535, too! I still get quesy when I think about my 1535 from hell!

I was impressed by the build quality of the 1555, especially compard to the 1535! I sold the 1555 earlier this week, but it was a decent system and a huge step up from the 1535!

Mine had the 900p (1600x900) LED display, which one do you have? Going from a 15.4" 1440x900 to a 15.6" 1600x900 is one of the few instances where there's no loss of vertical pixels. It just grew horizontally by 160 pixels.

I sold it because I had no use for it. When the 1535 debacle began back in January, I bought a Latitude E6400 so I'd have something reliable for work and home! The 1555 would've been wasted, so I decided to make some cash off of it!

Then I ended up buying an Inspiron 1555 a few days ago, which was totally unplanned. My sister has been using an old Toshiba hand-me-down (from me) and the display has been dying slow, annoying death. So I decided to buy her a new one....well, a Certified Refurbished one....but it looks new!

It has a 15.6" 1366x768 LED display, which is fair to average in most ways, not bad for a $350 laptop. But I personally wouldn't want to use a 16:9 display with that basic resolution. Again, I paid for it, so she can deal with! :confused2:

 

What 4:3 option is still out there?

 

just stopped by to give all my fellow 16:9 owners a high-five.

 

Haha, get out of here 16:9'er.

 

I haven't read all 18 pages of this thread, but count me totally in...!!

I've used over the years an Inspiron 4100 (awesome), a HP ze5165 (total crap) and now a Dell Latitude E5500 (thanks for the help :-D, very happy with it) !

4:3 is awesome for getting work done. the vertical space is especially important when debugging complex projects and I need to keep several files on top of each other, or reading long PDFs and spec sheets !

When I went from 1280 x 1024 and 1400 x 1050 to 1280 x 800 I felt totally ripped off and angry at those mindless Hollywood-worshipping idiot LCD mfgs ! (especially here where 1440x900 15 inchers are very rare, except for the 7 figure MacBooks here :-(), so now they're trying to shove 768 pixels at me !! *arrrhggghgh*. At least keep it for the consumer models.

Especially the advertising is infuriating, oh now you get FULL HD.....

Millions of people who are really trying to use the damn thing properly should NOT SUFFER for the sheepish majority of the (omg!! ponies) mindset...

I am sure the LCD mfgs won't stop until the damn screen is a 2 inch long, 30 inch wide thin strip that you wear over your eyes , and then they're going to market it as (oooooohhh immersive ..) bleh....

 

16:10 doesn't count, right?

I'm happy with 16:10, and yes I do agree 16:9 is not that good for screen below 17''

 

16:10 For The Win!!!

 

i like 1:1...

 

Those people that don't want a 16:9 screen don't have to buy a laptop with one For me 1680x1050 is perfect and I have it on a 15"er

 

i think 16:9 for <15 inch

16:10 for >15

 

and in some years sour laptop got old and you want a new one.. TADAA say hello to the 16:9 screen.

it's just a matter of time. i would have liked to stick to 5:4 which was awesome, but got dropped. next time, i could only get 16:10, which was a huge step back (but i still love my tablet anyways *hug*).

i lost 120 pixels width, and 250 pixels height. the height was feelable. now imagine my laptop lasted longer (means no nice girl pours a drink over it..), i'd still have it, and would have to switch in a year or so to a 16:9 variant.

i would have lost 120 pixels width, 330 pixels height. and it would still be about as wide as before in real screen dimensions (i don't want more wide as it gets unportable then in my bags).

so in only some years, for the same width, i've lost about 30% pixels.


now guess what? i can't just "not buy a new one" when the old one dies. or the hw specs don't fit my sw requirements anymore.

 

no, more or less the other way around. the smaller, the less pixels high the screen is, the more and more and more you need to scroll (as taskbar, titlebar, menu, top-advertising, ribbon, statusbar, what ever, stay at their size (or grow like the taskbar in win7 )).

so, no, we should start to define a minimum height for an os or app to work well, and it should be > 720p

 

Question.. Are most PC games not being developed for 16:9 games these days anyway? Since console games are? I have to say, since having my Studio 1535 also replaced with a 1555, 16:9 is nicer than 16:10 for some games.. Such as Race Driver GRID.. And watching blu-ray films or tv programs, no black bars at the top of the screen (I have the LED 1366x768 screen).

 

I have a 16:9 TV and I still get black bars on DVDs. As for Blu-rays... they are still a long way to go.

Games are not developed for a certain resolution, in PC gaming you can pretty much put any random resolution you want.

 

I see your point. Hopefully once I have a Q9650 and 8GB of ram onboard it will take several years at least to go out of date Vidock can take care of graphics..

 

16:9 isn't supposed to eliminate black bars(although it does in some cases). It has something to do with the resolutions at that aspect ratio in comparisons with the resolutions films are shot at IIRC. I'll have to re-read the article about the transition on 16:9 HDTVs.

And yeah, games will be made for any resolution that's in the market at the time. We have games that range from 5:4, 4:3, 16:10 and now 16:9 resolution aspect ratios so they'll just code it in whatever is good at the time.

 

I have yet to find a game that doesn't fit my 720p (1366x768) display, going back to the original Halo for PC, Medal of Honor Allied Assault, Half-Life 2, TF2, Left 4 Dead, Crysis, Oblivion, CoD4, and a few others.

The only ones that don't work with my 16:9 ratio are games that never supported widescreen at all (not even 16:10), like the original Call of Duty, Battlefield 2 and 2142.

 

Act of War: High Treason supports 16:10 but not 16:9.

 

I have a 4:3 TV, a 4:3 monitor and my 16:10 laptop. I am used to seeing 16:9 movies on my 4:3 TV with black bars, so I prefer to see black bars on movies. I don't like to see no black bars at all. And I have games that can only run on a 4:3 resolution and some Vert- ones, so on 16:9 I lose lots of space from them. That's why I prefer 16:10 and 4:3.

I don't like the 16:9 1366x768 resolution. It is not perfect 16:9, a little bit wider, the perfect 16:9 resolution is 1360x765.

 

Just for the record, for my new laptop, I am opting for a Sager over an Asus becauase the Sager has 16:10, Asus has 16:9....

 

Good call!

But sager's next generation laptops (W870C and W860) are also 16:9, they no longer support 16:10. (

 

I even Clevo is utilizing 16:9 in the future, there must be a reason? Besides cost saving..?

Maybe it's to keep everything standardized, I don't know.

 

I wouldn't mind owning a 16:9 as long as they would put a res that would be like 1650x1050 on a 15.6". This 13... is too low for me.

 

well, it will be like 1650x1050, just 105 pixels less in height one tenth gone..

 

Manufacturers are changing because LCD manufacturers who provide 16:10 are becoming rarer. The "cost saving" factor is really for those companies and not laptop manufacturers. Therefore, 16:10 screens in general are becoming a rarity(just as 4:3 LCD screens now are very rare).

I have a random question while we're on the subject. Since this "cost saving" factor seems to be so important to LCD companies, would you rather they do 16:10 LCD screens for both laptops AND HDTVs(and therefore they'd keep their cost saving principle of making the same aspect ratio fr both screen types)?

 

yes, i would. as, that way, you'd have a tiny border for 16:9 material, or just zoom in and cut leftright a bit of (it wouldn't be much).

for 4:3 material, you would have only small borders left right, or just zoom that in.

it would be the perfect balance between older 4:3 material and newer 16:9 material. movies are often even wider-screen => there, it doesn't matter anyways. i thought i made once the calc and 16:10 loses the same area to black borders for 4:3 and 16:9 material => it's the perfect balance. but i might have been way off

 

ok, i've redone the calculation.

16:9 on 16:10 = 10% black border (2x 5% height)
4:3 on 16:10 = 16.666% black border (2x 8.333% width)

 

The borders aren't just a question of aspect ratios though as even 16:9 HDTVs sometimes show black bars depending on the movies. It has something to do with the resolutions the movies are being shot at and then scaled to fit a 16:9 HDTV.

I've honestly always hated black bars on the sides. On the top I suppose I've gotten used to, but when I watch non-widescreen stuff on an HDTV somewhere and black bars show up on the side I just find it horrid lol

So am I the only one who loved 4:3?

 

So maybe it's good I'm getting this laptop now! However, what does this mean as far as future repair support? If I bust my LCD will they be difficult to find. I plan on an accidental warranty of some sort, either through xoticPC or squaretrade, but if they're hard to come by, it may be difficult to get the screen replaced.

I really don't care for 16:9. I was a huge advocate for 16:10 over 4:3 for obvious reasons. What's next 2.45:1?

 

no, hence this thread as i said, i'd like 1:1, that would've been progression to me. a 30" 1:1 screen with center at the height of my eyes, having 2048x2048 pixels, it would be gorgeous.

 

btw, i just went over my math knowledge:

a 30" 1:1 screen would have the same width as the current 24" 16:10 screen that i use at home. both are at around 20-21" screen width.

but it would have about twice the height, going from 12" to 20".

yes, i would love that screen very very much. huge amount of space to work on, horizontal and vertical, good overview, too (but the keyboard/mouse should be higher than the screens bottom, so you see the fullscreen only because you sit higher, too).

great for coding, great for browsing (i would use firefox zoom all the time, hehe), great for lists, in excel, in databases, great for music production (there, both width and height help), just great for about anything..

it could be 1920x1920, too.. but i'd prefer 2048x2048 for being able to see that common image size (for textures and such) 1:1 mapped.

 

For the reasons you mention, I wonder if any 1:1 monitors exist for professional development reasons. Granted it would cost a fortune, but some places do crazy things in the name of productivity.