The official 16:9 screen protest thread

no, there isn't. your friend got fooled from the industry as well into wide means better. it only means it on large screens, as we don't want to see humans much bigger than in reality => more content == more wide (as they normally not stand on top of each other often).

but for smaller, tv sized things, 4:3 is actually more useful, as it gives enough height mostly to see much, without being so wide that it gets into your way.

there are studies and technical reasons for one over the other. widescreen only matters after the screen got high enough, and that means too high to show useful content. this is never really the case on a pc, laptop, tv, not even on the fullhd beamer with 2m width i watch movies on. it could well be 1.5m high instead of 1.1m high.


there's one reason 16:9 came to interest at the time plasmas and lcds got hip: there, they reduced cost.

 

This post is TOO FUNNY and clearly posted by a teenager with no experience in the real world. From 4:3 having "improper viewing angles" (LOLZ!!!!) to playing video games on a laptop....simply too funny!

Improper angle on a 4:3??? LOLz!!!!

 

I want nap time back like I had in Kindergarten!!!!! it is un fair that I have leanred to be more efficent with my time and sleep like a grown up...

We should be wasteful and have an odd shaped screen becuase?

We read right to left... maybe if you are from another culture and read up and down.. I could see the arguement.. short of that..

So the real question are all the people complaining here enviromental terrorists and / or foriegn palnts who are trying to hurt the broader population?

Thats the quesiton.. https://tips.fbi.gov/

Just sayin...

All those Movie Watcher Haters... Damn you Movie people.. multi use for computers is a FAD.. it will pass..

Oops I had more but my sub woofer in my laptop was a lil out of the proper db range and I needed to adjust it.. Sorry.

Sincerely, JW

 

Do you only post on NBR after a trip to the dentist where he fills you up with a little too much N2O?

 

Sorry but the post I responded to was just so over the top...

 

JW got banned for that post?

Wow.

I have seen posts 1000000000 x worse.....

 

He wasnt necessarily banned for that post. How you came to the conclusion that he absolutely was Ill never know.

 

He was banned. But necessarily a pertinent ban.

If you look at the thread he posted in, he and another forum member were arguing and he wasnt exactly being the nicest possible. Why the other person involved didnt get sonething as well, im not sure.

But thats not my place, is it? No offence meant to either of them.

 

I know he was banned; as noted by the fact that is says he is banned along with the fact that his name is red. What I was saying was that, he may not have necessarily been banned for his post in this thread ( which he probably wasnt ).

 

Sorry.... I am not sure why I thought he got banned for that particular post.

Back to the thread!

 

Guys - isn't this off topic?

I suppose you can get used to everything...

I never liked 16:10 when my mother had it and I had 4:3 - on my Vaio I suddenly was OK with it...

If I were to get a laptop with 16:9 I'd possibly learn to like it...

Even if I call it bad now.

 

Not this time. Going back down to 768 vertical resolution is like going back to using CPUs from 5 years ago.

 

I agree with you on this - you loose space, and that's bad.

The problem is that once you have ityou somehow learn to live with it.

On the other hand - if you get say a Vaio Z you can ge 1600*900 - we can hope that such resolutions become more common.

However, some people find them too small.

 

not to be an agitator but the 16:9 serve a purpose they let you see multiple panes at the same time easaly for video editing, sound sequencing, and image/graphics related task. also they conform to the standard of movies (yeah its a laptop) but is it not better to have rectangle laptop compared to a square? or have a numpad?

 

I rather enjoy gaming on this thing at 720p.

 

Well, there is one advantage I can see in 16:10 - it fits better amongst paperwork.

A 13,3" laptop (VaioSZ) is nearly a perfect A4 size.
(yes, its a bit larger)

Thankfully I haven't had a 16:9 laptop yet.
But I do think it looks bad...

 

All I've ever asked for is a choice.

You can choose SSDs or hard drives in 1.8 or 2.5 inch form factors, DVD writers or DVD/CDRW drives or no optical drive at all, AMD vs Intel, ATI vs nVidia, black or silver or white or other colored cases, 4 or 6 or 9 cell batteries, glossy vs matte screens in a variety of sizes, but NO, there is only one screen shape permitted.

Argh !

 

How many times need we to repeat that everything you can do on the 16:9 standard you can do on the 16:10 standard as well.

The width is the same, it's the height they are cutting into.

Again:

16:10 (1920x1200) -> 16:9 (1920x1080)
16:10 (1680x1050) -> 16:9 (1600x900)
and the list goes on.

This is what it means moving from the 16:10 to the 16:9 screen factor. Same width, less height!

 

Ok I just want to clear something up...

1280*800 became 1366*768 right? So less vertical, more horizontal.
1680*1050 became 1600*900; so less vertical and slightly less horizontal.
1920*1200 became 1920*1080; so less vertical.

What happened top 1440*900 basically??

Oh and I completely agree with spaceman, choice would be the best thing. We should have the choice of any screen size we want in the best of worlds. That way, we could have 5:4 screens if we wanted them!

I suppose people do care about wide to an extent since 4:3-->16:10 eventually did get general acceptance(even though in that case they added pixels horizontally rather than remove vertical ones).

 

I think 1440x900 became 1366x768.
Because 1280x800 became 1280x720 (this I know well).

EDIT: I think this change in screen resolution should be put in the first post, to make things a little more clear for everyone.

 

Just to further add, it is precisely because there is no clear preference that applies to everyone that a choice is needed.

Screen shape clearly is a personal choice. We might as well be arguing what our favorite color is.

 

I for one like 16:9. I'm a lover of HD content, and it is best viewed with a 16:9 screen.

Though I see how many people hate losing the vertical space, myself included. We just have to make sure we get a 900p or higher resolution so we are losing our space!

 

Idk if it's the recession or if people just got way cheaper than before, but if companies sincerely wanted a more wider screen, they could've done like 4:3-->16:10 and added more pixels horizontally(that way no vertical space would be lost).

I mean, to be technical, 16:10 cost more to make than 4:3 in most cases right(think the exception is
1280*1024-->1280*800)??? So were they not cheap back then and they turned cheap now?

 

In 16:9 aspect ratio you can have quite plenty resolutions
I can pickup or change in this config. below picture left. (HDMI) (16:9)
and simply look on your resol. setting in win 7 or vista , xp
slide in all resolutions and look on monitor will show you which resol is for 4:3 and which is for 16:9 (middle pic.)
remember i can have 4:3 in mine 16:9 display but you cannot make 16:9 from 4:3
of course I will be cut off from some height but if I can go slightly more narrower with wideness than 4:3 I can almost reach it
with 16:10 will be much better ..

 

I've got something for fans and lovers 4:3 screen
you got something from Japanese they didn't forget about you
you might love them they made something for you here below :
it's recent NEC .. that vaio is gonna be slimest lappy in the world .. looks like

 

How dare you introduce logic and reasoning into this debate? You're online for god sakes. I petition to strip you of your moderator status, you obviously aren't ready for those privileges.

 

Thanks, Lithus.

Just to add . . . I didn't mean to kill this thread. I still prefer screens with more vertical space. And I want my voice heard. But no way would I try to rationally argue with a die hard 16:9 fan about something as subjective as screen shape.

 

Fact is, these screens offer excellent image quality--albeit typically at a smaller in size.

 

I personally find it illogical to support the situation in which laptops are being cut out 10% of their height in screen size and resolution. Either way you take it you are left with less screen size and I don't see how can that be a benefit for the final consumer.

16:9 means less screen size and less vertical space than the 16:10 screen forwhich the width of the screen remains the same.

The only way I would see the 16:9 standard as ok, is if laptops with 16:9 resolution would be cheaper than those with the 16:10. At that point I could say that there is a matter of choice for consumers. Some may prefer superior displays with more resolution, while others that don't need vertical space can opt for the 16:9.

This thread is a thread of protest against the imposing of the 16:9 standard without any real choice, at least this is how I see it.

 

As a counterpoint to your logic, Beta had a higher resoultion than VHS; and there are still some music purist believe vinyl records have superior sound than CD's.

Sometimes it's not just about the technical aspects of a product, rather, other things people like about it. For the record, there's nothing sacrid about a 16:10 aspect ratio or the television screen we've all grown up with.

 

Well 1.61:1 is the golden ratio :V

I don't have a problem with larger, high resolution 16:9s, when vertical space is adequate and there are gains to be had in viewing documents side by side. However, on lower resolutions like 1280X800, moving down any further really starts to impact on productivity, especially if you can't use your mouse to scroll. emacs, anyone?

 

Resistance is futile...

 

Not every resolution loses going from 16:10 > 16:9. 1440x900, for instance, becomes 1600x900.

1280x800 > 1366x768, which is a gain of 86 horizontal pixels and a loss of 32 vertical pixels.

 

Didn't 1680*1050 become 1600*900? I always assumed 1366*768 was the new 1440*900 and that 1280*720 was the new 1280*800.

Because idk what happened to 1680*1050 then

 

Nothing became anything else. We used to have 1280x800, 1440x900, 1680x1050 and 1920x1200. Now we have 1366x768, 1600x900, and 1920x1080. It's not like they took the old screens and said, "hey, let's chop this one short a little".

 

Actually thats exactly what they did.

 

WXGA (1280x800) was replaced by (1366x768)

WXGA+ (1440x900) and WSXGA+ (1680x1050) were replaced by (1600x900)

WUXGA (1920x1200) was replaced by (1920x1080)

Although WSXGA+ has been disappearing slowly over the last few years, before the transition to 16:9 started....

 

which is to bad, I quite like that rez...

ok I just bought a 22inch desktop screen at 1680x1050. I went with it because It had alot more screen area than the 16:9. very happy with it!

 

I dont know about anyone else but I consider this to be an EPIDEMIC not only for laptops but desktop monitors as well.

 

Unfortunately, the manufacturer's don't really care that you don't like 16:9. It saves them money, and that's the bottom line.

 

So far, I've only seen entry-level business notebooks transitioning from 16:10 to 16:9 (e.g. HP ProBook and Dell Vostro A860). The HP Compaq & EliteBook, Dell Latitude & Precision, Toshiba Satellite Pro & Tecra and Lenovo ThinkPad models still have 16:10 displays.

Will these business models continue to have 16:10 displays indefinitely OR will they soon have 16:9 displays like the rest of the crowd???

 

Actually, sales are the bottom line. Nevertheless, if they can do both at the same time...so much the better.

 

Nope 1280x800 became 1280x720 and as I said above
1440x900 - 1366x768
1680x1050 - 1600x900
1920x1200 - 1920x1080 .

However, some manufacturers, may opt for higher resolutions now instead of the lower ones used before... simply because the resolution is too small on the 16:9 standard. So it may seem that 1280x800 became 1366x768... but it's not, it's like they decided to no longer use 1280x800 and use 1440x900.

 

NOOOOOO STOP THE SPREAD OF THE 16:9 SCREENS!!!!! I HATE THEM WITH A PASSION! 16:10 ftw!

 

They said the same thing when CD's hit the market...and DVD's!...and flat screens!

In general, people seem to dislike many new technologies that they've become accustom to. In fact, when talking picture first replace silent film people thought filming making had become corrupted. Could you imagine what today block busters films would be without 5.1? Thank heaven for Lucas!

 

As long as the LCD quality is good, I don't care either way

 

LOLz.....What reality do you live in???

Everyone LOVED CDs, DVDs, Flat screens, ect when they came out....

What the heck are you talking about?????

 

Where have you seen a 1280x720 display on a laptop?

The WXGA designation, which was used for 16:10 laptop displays with 1280x800 resolution, is now applied to 16:9 displays with 1366x768 resolution. 1366x768 is the standard/lowest resolution offered on 16:9 laptop computers, so I stand by my earlier statement that it replaces 1280x800.

Even so, there is still a loss of 32 vertical pixels (which is equal to several lines of text on a web page), despite the increase of 86 horizontal pixels! It still sucks...

 

You and I do not exist on the same planet.

 

Stick with what you know...my Anne Murray 8-track tapes still sound wonderful, thank you! The hissing and squealing noises in the background aren't because of inferior technology...that's just how Canadians sound!