The official bring back 16:10 thread (part 2)

Given that the previous thread was closed. I've decided to start a new one.

I would like to avoid bashing so much the 16:9 LCDs and focus more on what can be done to get back 16:10 LCD screens, especially for the professional and gaming market segment. Yes 16:9 screens are cheaper but there are enough of us who would gladly pay $30-$40 for the extra height.

For now I've started a website where the issue is being discussed and where there is a letter of complaint.

But maybe someone else has better ideas.

 

This is a new 16:10 thread; the old one has been closed.

 

To continue this thread on a positive. I would be willing to fork out $100-150 extra (depending on screen quality) for the option of choice to buy a 16:10 laptop if it would help out with allowing us a choice.

 

I'd go $500 premium for a 17" 1920x1200, IPS and 120Hz...............

 

Oh yeah, i'll see you then raise you $100.

 

Gaming isn't the only thing that people use computers for.

 

Oh, how i loved the 15" 1920x1200 matte screen on my retired HP Compaq nw8440.
Im no professional user but i like having high resolution screens even if it hurts gaming performance.

So yes, i would in fact blast off extra cash if i could get a high end notebook with 16:10 screen.

 

Thank you Charles. It was indeed needed.

 

A gamer could simply switch to a 16:9 resolution while playing games that don't work well under 16:10, then switch back to gain more room for website browsing, Office, programming....

 

Excellent website Blacky. Really good read. I support the cause all the way!

ps: sure it doesn't matter lol but saw a typo on "the problem" page: second heading you wrote "weight each argument" instead of "weigh"

 

All the game I own are pretty old, with the average copyright being 2003-2004. My newest PC game was copyrighted 2007. If I had a 16:10 display, I'd love the extra room I'd have.

Well, if Indrek and Blacky are willing to pay extra money for a 16:10 laptop, why should they be stopped? It's their hard-earned money, let them spend it any way they feel like. After all, we live in a (supposed) free market where the customer ideally can have anything they desire (for the right price).

This thread is for people to talk about how much they like 16:10, not to debate if 16:9 is better than 16:10 and vice versa. Ask Charles how the first "Bring back 16:10" forum was closed...

 

thanks for getting rid of the troll.
.
.
.
i'm more than happy to pay several hundred dollars more for a 16:10 screen option. i prefer a 12" form factor and 1366x768 just doesn't do it for me.

my x220 w/IPS screen just came in this afternoon. abhored the fact that it's a 16:9 but wanted to treat myself to a nice IPS for a change. it's a small difference but the 16:9 screen on this looks a bit strange after using a x201 for 8 months.

i'm disappointed with the IPS however. the viewing angles were good but i found the display to be disappointingly dim in all most of the adjustment range...i expected better.

 

I honestly can't really tell much of a difference XD My desktop's screen is 16:9, while my laptop is 16:10.

-shrugs-

 

The unfortunate problem is that offering both 16:10 and 16:9 would be detrimental to companies who make the screens/laptops, and would ultimately affect consumers in a negative way :/ Essentially, we would be stuck with one or the other.

Although yes, in an ideal world, we should be allowed the option to get 16:10 monitors. Personally, I would stick with 16:9 for portability (14" notebook with hardly any room to spare) and gaming (Starcraft 2 ), but I can see why people want 16:10.

 

Much more so than the resolution, I'm just happy to have a good screen from the factory without having to get a tablet or perform surgery on my laptop. I don't really see 32 pixels making a larger difference.

 

No one is saying 16:9 should not exist, that is not what this thread is about. The thread is about giving the option, for a premium, of 16:10. What do you not get about this? the thread without a doubt is not, or ever has been, kill 16:9!!!!!!!!!!!!

essentially you are becoming the new troll. If you want put up a counter thread to kill 16:10 and keep only 16:9, then you will be on topic, but wait hasn't that essentially already happened??????????????

 

Well I don't know about the better or worse for gaming, but I'll say this. For anyone doing any kind of productivity work like graphics, spreadsheets, or coding, the vertical space is MUCH more valuable than the horizontal.

The problem is the 16:9 ratio is its happening along with the race to the bottom to 1366/768 res, which is now common even on higher end 15.6 laptops now. 768 is so little vertical resolution, with newer programs Like Office and websites where there are banners, menus, and ribbons taking up a lot of space, you can barely see any of the content. You are constantly scrolling up and down.

Another thing that gets overlooked is 16:9 - 16:10 changes the whole form factor of the machine, so these can't be option within the same model. The less square the shape gets - and 16:9 is less square than 16:10 - the less surface area you get given the same diagonal dimension. Its geometry. For a 14" screen, 16:10 is 11.87" wide x 7.42" tall and 88.08 sq. inches, but 16:9 is wider at 12.21" but less tall at 6.86" and only 83.76 sq. inches.

There is no reason manufacturers can't offer a separate Productivity line with 16:10. There will always be steady demand from business and enterprise for these if given a choice, which would negate the argument that manufacturers can't offer both 16:9 and 16:10 at fair prices. I don't know the sales numbers for Apples but they offer 16:10 LCD's. I would be very surprised if the big players HP, Dell, IBM were offering 16:10 models that their collective demand to LCD suppliers would not be comparable to Apple's purchasing power in terms of keeping the prices reasonable. And people who know enough to want 16:10 for their needs are willing to pay a fair premium.

 

Nonsense. There is no disadvantage, of any kind, for gaming.

 

You can still buy an HP EliteBook 8740w. 17" 16:10, IPS, 1920x1200, RGB LED, matte finish, 10 bit color (=1 billion+ colors displayed). Gamut profile switching software included.

I purchased an 8740w late last year and have been extremely pleased. None of my photo projects would have come out as well as they did had I not been able to use a monitor like this. It is simply a fantastic screen.

The 8740w's replacement has recently been announced. Unfortunately, like Dell's Precision M6600, it went 16:9 and we are stuck with just 1080 pixels of vertical space.

------

On the topic of bringing back 16:10 - the reality is, 16:10 has been dead for about two years at this point. With the exception of the new Apple MacBook Pros, no one else has 16:10 anymore. If I had to buy a notebook right now, the MBP 17" would be it.

As stated, 16:9 doesn't make much of a difference on the low end. Complaining about losing 30 some odd pixels from 1280x800 > 1366x768 ... that screen resolution is low to begin with. Noticeable to some, perhaps, but forgettable. Move on.

Now on the higher end it becomes a more noticeable issue. From 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 - losing 120 pixels on the vertical. A row in Microsoft Excel at 100% zoom is about 20 pixels high. You lose six rows of space.
Additionally, when editing high res photos, you can see 10% less detail since there are 10% less pixels.

For gaming, etc ... 16:9 is not much of an issue IMO, pixel count isn't super important like it is for productivity. With the console-ization of gaming, I've seen several games that prefer 16:9. Mass Effect 2, for example - works in 1920x1200 beautifully, but all the cutscenes are 16:9 no matter what res you pick. That's disappointing. Regarding an earlier comment - I too don't see how 16:10 is detrimental for gaming. At all.

 

Actually I find the worst is going from 1680x1050 to 1600x900.

Any progress on that letter to screen manufacturers?

 

I would pay 100$ more for 16:10 too.
The problem is that my eyes say that on SONY site pictures of laptops are NARROWED! So people do not see that sausage-laptops before buying them. Seriously it reminds me a sausage! I even put a task panel on a right side while I have NEVER thought I will ever use it this way. That is the same you drop drinking bear and start drinking shake cocktails because it is easier to open a bottle!
Besides it is a torture to look at 4x3 pictures on this widescreen.

PS Maybe someone make an online petition where we will sign it?

 

I'm going to have to agree with you, my cousin's laptop is 1600x900 and by no means is that any thing I would like to conform to in the coming years. It's so pointless that I'm actually looking to build myself my own Dell Studio 1535, as that was the last model that had 15.4" (i.e. 16:10 ratio). As I'm not a fan of putting the standardized film based resolutions onto laptops and a great deal of this happened because of onset of bluray drives.

Absolutely agree, but I think he meant to state that since the resolution would be lower the FPS could increase. But I'm not sure if that's correct or not. From my understanding (and I could be wrong) lower resolutions do provide better results for gaming or at least I heard that somewhere. But the difference between 16:10 and 16:9 should be all but negligible.

 

No, since you would simply switch resolution (actually, the game would be configured to do it automatically for you), there would be no difference at all.

 

Not a gamer, so I really wouldn't have figured that.

 

The difference as stated by the guy above, Pirx, is negligible if any does exist between 16:10/16:9, most resolutions of games re-size to fit the screen anyway. My big issue with 16:9 is that I don't really want a universal tv standardized for my laptop, plus if you think about it, we have less options when it comes to screen sizes, well primarily we only have 2 options and only some offer a third option. Granted both ratios offered a selling standard adjustment in resolution sizes, where they picked something and increased from there, I definitely don't like the new 1366x768, but perhaps the reason why I tend to dislike it is because 1366x768 isn't a true 16:9 ratio...

Now, with 16:10, the options for screen resolution were very abundant as the selling low-end laptop standard was 1280x800 and it gave other options of 1440x900, 1680x1050 and 1920x1200. In the current market, I've only seen either 1366x768 as the new low-end selling standard or 1920x1080 as the FHD version. Very few companies offer 1600x900 and 1440x900 might as well be extinct, because if it existed it would 1440x810 and I haven't seen that resolution yet and we probably won't ever.

 

Homo_habilis(I couldn't turn your username into a nickname without it sounding bad ), the reasons you state for 16:9 being superior in gaming is simply because it's the current standard, not because of any particular advantage in the ratio itself. If developers started making game interfaces with 16:10 ratios in mind we'd have the reverse situation. So yes, your case works given the current realistic trends but only so because 16:9 is now a nearly global standard of screen resolutions. Back in 16:10's "heyday", games fitted that resolution optimally.

However fact of the matter is that in a purely theoretical sense, 16:10 is superior to 16:9 by a simple numbers game. No matter how you slice it, if you compare 1920*1080 and 1920*1200, the latter gives you a good 120*1920 more pixels to work with as a developer. That could mean a menu bar or some extra options or whatever you want.

In the theoretical sense, the only "advantage" 16:9 would have in terms of gaming would be less pixels to display and therefore a smaller stress on the GPU.

 

Widescreen just doesn’t make sense. When you spend most of your time working with spreadsheets, text documents, and web browsers, you want a higher resolution with a longer page. I have been searching for a 4:3 Laptop for AT LEAST 6 months now. I am so frustrated and irritated that the “Market” has been forcing widescreen on EVERYONE! The 16:9 “widescreen” isn’t really wider; it’s just shorter. So people prefer to watch a film on a “widescreen” because instead of having two strips of black pixels on top and bottom of the image they have a strip of black plastic at the bottom. How moronic is that? I've just created 'like' page on FB for 4:3, so if you fill the same please join Bring Back 4:3 Laptops | Facebook

 

Yes, I've read every post. Read the topic, "The official bring back 16:10 thread (part 2)" it is not "16:9 comaprison to 16:10" or any derivative there of. The topic is not to debate the merits, or lack of them, but for those who understand the merits and want 16:10 over other formats and are willing to pay a premium for such a product. For those that want or need this format your argument about gaming and the like is irrelevant to the topic.

I appologize you feel apparently bad about my post but you should keep to the topic! Again if you want to argue merits of format for gaming or other chores then open a new thread with a related topic..................

Yeah, I debated on the 8740w but my Gateway was alot cheaper to upgrade. I would have liked IPS but I can't justify the price to performance of just going to gen1 iCore. If they were SB macines it would have been a no brainer.

on the second point, the 8740W was just about the last horah for 16:10 in PC laptops. I guess that is the point of the topic, we would like to see OEM's put out a series based on the format instead of just the 16:9 machines available. Another point being is if you can show them there is money to be made, someone usually will fill the niche to make that money. For now though 16:10 for laptop PC's is dead and as you mentioned has been for a while.

 

Fully agree. The only thing I would like to add is that no one should continue this to criticism saying that square 1x1 format would be even better because same diagonal gives more square
Now serious. My 16.4" 16:9 monitor is not bigger vertically than my old 4x3 14"! This is insane! Maybe some when someone will understand that if my big laptop is not big enough vertically then how bad are 15 and 14inches notebooks!

Typo

You are DEFINITELY WRONG. If we write in this topic we may and can and even supposed to write about advantages and disadvantages of topic's subject. If we have smth close to compare with we can do that (16:9 monitors are the closest, you desagree?).
So if you believe that it is somehow limited thread or restricted access thread or you just want to put "Beware of angry user" tab here I believe you are wrong with a forum. With all due respect to people who gave you rep and even if you are/would be a famous 16:10 thread member I would say to you that freedom of speech is not canceled. Especially if it is on-topic speech.

 

1.) The merits of 16:9 to 16:10 have been well discussed in the past and through several threads. This thread is to ask 16:10 be brought back as an option!. No one has ever said " death to 16:9, long live 16:10". 16:10 has been esentially killed off by PC laptop manufacturers and myself along with others would like to have it back.

2.) The discussion of merit would be valid if someone asked "Im on the fence as to wether I would want this or just leave everything as 16:9, what are the merits and/or considerations?". Well no one has asked it and no asking it after the fact does not count.

3.) Feedom of speech is never dead, post all you want within any topic as long as within the subject! I'll even be more than happy to participate in that, keyword being seperate, thread as long as it is kept civil.

4.) actually I'd prefer no one ever "REP ME" for an opinion or preference; and my preference is just that, my opinion. My purchase power though is based upon my opinion(s) so if OEM's want my money they should pay attention to them. More so they should pay attention to others, as I am just going to purchase one machine per upgrade.

5.) I am sorry but the "Beware of Angry User" reference escapes me. I am disapointed in no 16:10 options but not angry. As stated before it just limits my options as to what I can purchase or do about it, as in my next major upgrade will likely have to be a desktop. Since with desktops I'd rather build than buy it means OEM's such as Asus, Acer or the like will most probably loose some business.

I appoligize if some of this was/is off topic....................

Edit;

6.) yes if you want to discuss "advantages and disadvantages of topic's subject" what is then the disadvantage of an OEM offering users an option to purchase the "non media standard" 16:10 so long as it is advertised as such?

 

I want my right to choose laptop's screen I want too. But I do not stop people if they have an opposite thought. I can just not read it if I want but not stop them, at least until it is "civil".

 

I agree absolutely, nothing is ever learned unless all sides are considered. I am just stating there were other threads that delt specifically with the subject, just as there were many older dead threads about the 4:3 to 16:10 aspect ratio. If merits want to be discused bring back those threads or start anew. If someone disagree's with the option even being available that is definately on subject as this thread is in essence to bring the option back to the consumer from the dead......................

 

I see tons of threads about RAM. And while somewhere I see they are the same some threads are named little bit different but still I can find the same information in the middle of all threads. And some people from that threads are still waiting for an answer which is sitting in the parallel thread for years.
That is why I think that this thread is actually very similar to that you readdressed guy before.
Still Why? Look at the first post of this thread and follow a link on old thread which was continued by this one, look how was it named.

 

How is it a typo? Neither Dell nor HP support the 1600x900 resolution on any of their 15.6" models, both however support it at only on their 17.3" models, which to me isn't really considered a mainstream laptop, because most people tend to go smaller than 17.3". I was hoping that I could find it on their business line but still no such luck, because the only thing that offered that resolution was again another 17.3" Vostro 3750.

The point I was trying to make that 1366x768 is too small for the average person (none of their mainstream, 15.6" or lower, products support 1600x900) and the manufacturers have made that resolution a buying standard, thus pushing anyone and everyone that wants a true 16:9 resolution to either buy a 17.3" desktop replacement or to go ahead and waste around $200 on a 1920x1080.

I mean perhaps, if people were given a real option of the 16:9 resolution the outcry for 16:10 wouldn't be as a great as it is. Personally, I wouldn't spend money on anything that I can really work with, for instance, at the current moment if I want more screen space, my only really option is Dell XPS 15", which provides the FHD (1920x1080), certainly more than ask for but that's what I'm forced to do.

 

The only thing which makes sense as to why the 16:10 screens have disappeared is that customers just dont care (enough).

While for sub $600 laptops, cutting the cost down as much as possible makes sense, I am surprised that $1500+ business laptops have also swithced over to 16:9. I would have thought that at least professional people would have cared enough to raise a ruckus. I can imagine there are many engineers out there who would not strongly prefer 16:10 over 16:9 in their professional work.

It is a wierd situation, now the 16:10 option is not there..its like the laptop makers have decided en masse to cut $50 and go with 16:9 screens. A wierd business situation

 

There's a definitely a duality that exists here. On the one hand people say they want whatever part or feature and they're willing to pay for it. On the other everyone runs to slickdeals or wherever to get the best prices. You can't have it both ways. I'd say the number of people looking for the best deal greatly outnumbers the people who are willing to pay for what they get.

 

Brace yourselves: AUO's 71-inch ultra-wide 3D LCD panel eyes-on -- Engadget

21:9 in all its glory .

 

Oh NOW I SEE why should I be in love with my 16:9 screen! It is because I can watch Chinese Architecture!

 

The true letterbox screen has arrived!

Why not just make it 50:9 and be done with it

 

You know i've had a rethink. I now love the 16:9 format and with the introduction of the AUO 71" display, I can only imagine owning a 71" 16:9 laptop. Consider the possibilities. Imagine 4 keyboards laid out in front of you on your laptop while you multitask. I love it, sorry 16:10 there IS a better idea.

 

We, usual people, are not ready for it for now. Until such people like we who write posts in such kind of thread exist all humanity does not deserve for it.

 

Well in conclusion of all good jokes above manufacturers must hang a sign nearby this monitor: "BTW it really improves Your mood!" and they should not forget to add fine print: *As long as you buy it for your enemy

 

Yeah, but I cant imagine that the cost differential would be that much between 16:9 and 16:10.
Now, I can accept that in the mass consumer segment 16:10 is a lost case, but I gather that business laptops constitute a large segment of revenue, and THERE there are no slickdeals. Businesses pay for good build, better warranty support etc, so why has 16:10 disappeared from there too?

 

I love my 12.1" 16:10 1280x800 AFFS+ screen on my Tablet PC -a laptop with a swivel around screen (it is a HP Elitebook -the one in my sig) 16:9 would be a terribly stupid move for such a device, and leave it to Lenovo to do it on their X-series tablet (the X220t) which means that portrait mode is a real pain to use (note taking, drawing, web browsing and more are great to do on a 16:10 or 4:3 tablet, but on a 16:9 it rally becomes a pain)... I envision keeping this gem until the day I can no longer keep it in running order, it is just such a great device (mostly due to its great screen!)


But 16:10 isn't entirely dead yet (not in Tablet PC's anyways)!!
The models that will have full voltage Sandy Bridge processors, and great looking AFFS+ 16:10 1280x800 [Wacom Pen, or Wacom Pen + Touch enabled] displays are the HP 2760p, Fujitsu T731 & T901 [13.3"], and in all likelihood the SB update of the ASUS EP121 (save the EP121, these are all true 'business class' laptops that have the added ergonomics and functionality of a Tablet PC)

I know it doesn't seem like much, but they are great devices, and worth a look by most people


Long live the beautiful 16:10 screens!

 

On this point I think you're wrong. Businesses argue over a $25 increase in unit cost. They care most about cost and compatibility. The days of corporate buyers spending big on notebooks is over. This is how you end up with notebooks like the X120e. It's functional and it's cheap. I've always said give me a good screen, which means a high contrast ratio and wide viewing angles, and I'm good. I don't care what the resolution is. My X200t was 1280x800 while my X220i is 1366x768. I don't see 32 pixels making a huge difference on way or the other.

 

It really depends on what you are doing, I am Freelance Web Designer and I would sooner throw my notebook into a trash if I was to be stuck on 1366x768. Photo-editors and developers need that kind of resolution because it's absolutely ridiculous not to have it. I really hope they at least re-introduce it business-line wise, because eventually this will create problems. However if you are simply using your laptop for basic word processing, surfing the web, chatting, programs with work (non-artistic/development related), then for you perhaps a smaller resolution works best.

However, take my resolution for example, 1680x1050 (16:10) to 1600x900 (16:9), that's a 80 pixel by 150 pixel difference, that's enough for menu bars and enough left to optimally have working room. Now when you are left at 1600x900, you start from pretty much in your working area and have to make adjustments around it. Everyone that has photoshop knows how fat those menus are, especially the Brush menu! Don't let me get started with InDesign, Paint Shop Pro and Vue Infinite.

Now from a designers point of view, if 16:9 ratios (1920x1080, 1600x900, 1366x768) are becoming the new standard for all laptops, then shouldn't we be using at the very least 16:10 (1440x900, 1680x1050, 1920x1200) resolutions to properly develop for 16:9 screens? I can understand eliminating them from consumer laptops or charging a heftier price for it to them, but they should really leave it in the business line.

 

I can't argue with a thing you've said, but I just don't see it happening. LCD makers give notebook manufacturers the best prices on 16:9 screens. For most people when buying, price is the preponderant factor. Though there are some people who'd probably pay more for a 16:10 screen, there's no enough of you to move the market.

 

Actually I am not quite understand why it is more expensive except usual marketing?

 

As I understand the process and it's not real well, LCDs are made by cutting them from a larger LCD. Cutting them into 16:9 LCDs yields more LCDs than 16:10, which is why they're less expensive.

 

Like cpu's crystals. But I also heard that 16:9 LCD is made from 2 pieces of almost squared smaller pieces. So I believe You are correct but it shouldn't be much more expensive to "delete" 16:10 at all no matter if they are made from 1 or 2 pieces.
However if I am not mistaken Macbook has 16:10 screen. Maybe that is one another reason of so big demand. But even with good screen I don't want it. Also heard some gaming Toshiba Cosmo have 16:10 but not sure if they still exist. Besides they are sick. Well I believe that producer who will bring back 16:10 will have better demand but looks like neither Sony nor HP needs this.