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

Apple laptops still have 16:10 screen but I highly suspect that they are old stock of 16:10 screens and the next reincarnation of Apple laptops will go 16:9.

 

I'd agree the chances of Apple going 16:9 in the next round are pretty good. They've already done so on the iMacs and the 11" Air.

I think you're right James in that the actual cost probably isn't wildly more expensive, but I think there's a couple forces at work here. One is you want everything the same for production purposes. While the actual part cost isn't much greater if you've got two screen shapes you've got to design two notebooks and have parts for two notebooks, which is more complicated and expensive.

Two, LCD makers give the best prices on 16:9 LCDs. Since price is the preponderant buying factor for most, if a notebook maker can lower the cost $50, they sell a lot more notebooks. Being here sort of skews the perspective. The people here tend to be enthusiasts. They're probably more willing to spend more to get what they want, but we're a drop in the bucket in notebook market. I often get asked what's the best notebook to get outside of here. The first thing that usually comes up is cost followed by size and performance. Occasionally, screen quality comes up, but aspect ratio almost never comes up.

LCD manufacturing plants are very capital intensive ventures. I don't think it's as easy as flipping a switch to move over to 16:10 production.

 

I don't think anyone will argue what's more expensive because we have all agreed to say that it's 16:10 and some people wouldn't mind paying for that upgraded price either.

 

It's not just the physical size (material) that determines costs. LCD makers are punching 16:9's for the television market. Any other ratio (dimension) is an added manufacturing complexity cost - switchover of production lines, adding production lines, stocking extra SKU's for EOL requirements, quality control costs and so forth...

 

Those of you wanting 16x10 displays could cause a market shift but it is going to take a while. I much prefer 16:10 buying the NEC 2490wuxi2 for that reason and of course good IPS sRGB. I spread the word as much as I could about IPS and it now seems to be paying off as the ThinkPad X220 comes with this option. So ... if you're in this for the long haul just keep spreading the word about 16:10, but please do so with real images that support you're case.

 

I think what the poster meant to say is keep spreading the word about 16:10 screens and don't give up because that's what the poster did wrt IPS screens and now it's available for the X220.

 

The problem is its hard to illustrate this argument with real examples because the size changes have not been direct chopping off the top of a previous standard size as people seem to imply it was. Its not an apples to apples comparison.

Example - 14.1" used to be a common 16:10 LCD size. If this was shortened to 16:9 with the same width it would become 13.7". But no one sells a 13.7" laptop. Its usually either 13.3" or 14". The 13.3" of course its expected to be smaller, and the 14" at 16:9 is wider than 14.1" 16:10, so it doesn't look smaller, just "different". And on and on with other size ranges.

I havent' done the math on every known LCD size, but it doesn't appear to me there are two LCD's sizes that directly correlate from 16:10 to 16:9 where you can put them side by side and easily illustrate the two screens are exactly the same width but the 16:9 is 5/8" or more shorter. I lean towards this being a conscious marketing decision by laptop and LCD makers so it is difficult for the consumer to realize they are technically getting less screen.

 

Take that LCD makers: Taiwan panel makers suffering

 

You have just approved contrary thing 14" 3x4 will be much bigger than 14" 16:10 which in it's case is bigger than 14" 16:9.
Besides even if square size would be the same I would still say that it is smaller. Why? Because 16:9 has less important used space on left and right which I need and therefore It would be VERY important on the top of the screen.
Example. motorcycle is smaller than quadrocycle right? And therefore it is more dangerous. But if you will make a "limotorcycle" adding more to the front part of motorcycle it will not be better. All you need is to make it wider and add 2 more wheels. The same is with the screen. It will be narrowed but it will be taller screen.

 

Hopefully they have seen the light and bring back 16:10 or 4:3!

 

You can now consider the Dell Ultrasharp 2412M IPS 16:10 display ( here), it is 1920x1200. This monitor has 82% color gamut, look for the specs on the Dell product page.

 

I don't particularly mind 16:9, I just want more vertical resolution. So, drop this 1366x768 rubbish -- start packing more 1600x900 displays, or even 1920x1080.... the former would be brilliant on a 12-15" display.

 

I agree. I actually like the 16:9 ratio better, I just don't want to lose vertical space by going from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080. Make it an upgrade, such as 1440x900 (16:10) to 1600x900 (16:9), like 2134x1200.

 

Dont be ridicolous.

Going from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 is your choice. If you want to upgrade go 2560x1440.

It has to do with resolution, not aspect ratio.

 

+645698741321654136241651654

1920x1200 to 1920x1080 is not an 'upgrade'...lol. Manufacturers simply lop off horizontal resolution to go from 16x10 to 16x9. Its leading to large bezels and wide laptops.

Almost every 16x9 laptop I've seen has PLENTY of room to fit a 16x10 panel.

 

Most of the time there is, that's why I don't see how manufacturers can't put thicker bezel for the people want 16:9. But also from manufacturer stand point, if everyone is going to 16:9, everyone is going to 16:9, even Apple has bowed down (iMac and MBA 11 are 16:9), and I highly suspect the next reiteration of Macbook Pro, everything will be 16:9.

 

I would prefer 16:10 to be the standard.

 

I almost forgot about my vendetta. I was busy for the past few months with other more important things, but I will get back to it immediately .

I am starting to think this whole 16:9 is not related to laptop producers but to LCD producers. I remember a few months back that LCD producers worldwide were fined by the EU because they got together and fixed LCD prices worldwide. This whole move towards 16:9 might be the result of similar talks between LCD producers.

As I said before. We are consumers and we see this from a consumer perspective. But I know for certain that for businesses, changing the aspect ration of screens is something which in many cases can't be done very easily (specific software, work space, resolutions, etc.). Just think of how hard it was to migrate from WinXP to Win7, it wasn't something that happened overnight, it took years even though Win7 is clearly superior to WinXP. One would expect the same to happen in the case of LCDs, but yet it didn't, the aspect ration and resolution literally changed in a few months, which to me indicates this was a supply driven decision.

 

I used two 16:10 laptops and currently using 16:9 laptop.
16:10 is way better resolution.

 

I feel as if I'm not vertically cheated as I am with 16:9 screens. Comparing my brothers Samsung R580 with mine, granted he has better parts and faster memory, I'd still choose mine over his simply because of the screen.

 

Funny you mention that, I had an option for Windows 7 on a G72GX which was only 30 bucks more than the G71GX I bought, but it had a 16:10 aspect ratio and Vista, but I still choose the 16:10 for a possible WUXGA swap.

 

I've been shopping for a notebook for school lately, so this sort of thing has been on my mind.

I prefer to not spend more than $1000, way less than $1000 if possible. So far I've bought one $700 machine, returned it because it turned out not to have USB 3.0 (long story), and bought a different $700 machine today, which I may have to return also because it seems to have a defective cooling system (sigh!). Both are 15.6" size class, which I chose because I wanted the keyboard to have a dedicated number pad, but the 17" ones are just too big. Both also have the increasingly ubiquitous 1366x768 LCD. Unless I want to spend far more than $1000 I seem to have no choice.

It doesn't make sense that my brand-new 2011 laptop has no more vertical screen space than my 2001 laptop did (Compaq Presario 710, 1024x768). Only in the modern, HDTV-obsessed market could 1366x768 be considered "high resolution." Lopping off 30, 120, or 150 lines and then daring to call your CRT "high resolution" would have earned you nothing but derisive laughter in the 1990's.

This forced adoption of 16:9 screens on laptops is a subset of a larger problem with display technology stagnation or even degeneration. You can still get 16:10 and even sometimes 5:4 or 4:3 desktop monitors - for now - but forget it in the mobile computing market. I do not own an HDTV and I don't like being forced to accept a downgrade in resolution. I still use a 21" CRT running at 1600x1200 as my primary monitor. The 1080HD resolution LCD next to it is only for watching DVDs.

 

MAN I feel so lucky that I have the m17x-r2 with rgb screen! BRING BACK 6:10!!!!

 

why would the lcd producers want to shift to 16:9 ratio?

 

Lol perhaps read both threads (part1 and 2) and you will know exactly why.

 

Same!!! ! 16:9 is for TV's not for PC's!

 

Ok, I've sent the letter of complaint to all LCD manufacturers that I could find. The list has been updated on the website ( Sixteen By Ten)

I doubt anyone will answer, but at least I am trying...

 

Write all the letters you want. The all mighty dollar is what really speaks. As long as the companies can make their money with 16:9 screens that is what you will see and where the market will go.....................

 

Honestly, they need to do something because 1600x900 is the only real screen size or 1920x1080 left, when purchasing my Dell I was able to choose between the following:

a. 1280x800
b. 1440x900
c. 1680x1050
d. 1920x1200

As you can see so many more options and the quality of screens was far more reliable back then as well. I'm not saying that the LED screens are worse off just cannot even watch a movie with two people without having to fight over the screen as to where the perfect viewing angle is. And let's not even mention the material the laptops are made out of back then.

It's just really disgusting what has become of the notebook community, every feasible laptop has some type of really sinister drawback. I'd buy the Beats Edition HP Envy 14.5" however, they don't even offer 1600x900 for the bloody display, forget FHD. If I look at a Dell XPS 15 the issue I run into is that they only offer 8GB of RAM tops and not mention a very outdated video card.

 

Does the thread have something against Dell Ultrasharps? I have mentioned that the 2412M was 16:10, this proves that 16:10 is not necessarily dead option with Dell.

 

There is some good news. I have actually got back from a few companies regarding my complains. Some of them gave a different address to contact, others said they have forwarded my message to the appropriate department.

I suppose if more of use contacted them we might make a difference. I know some of you think this is useless, but it's better than sitting idle and waiting for a miracle.

 

Good work Blacky, but the way things are proceeding, there are no 16:10 laptops anymore besides Apple and I highly suspect they are going 16:9 fully within the next refresh. I may just buy last generation notebooks to get 16:10 screens and just deal with 16:9 laptops when my needs of a faster CPU/platform exceed 16:10 by buying higher resolution panels as business laptops still offer them.

 

I will change the complaint letter a bit. I think it's way too long right now.

 

I've been compelled to write a letter about this letter mostly inspired by you, so I'll be writing a vague letter directed to all companies, generally the big ones (Dell and HP).

 

It will go unread and unacknowledged. Your time will be wasted....sad, but true.

 

Well not all of them, that's why you have to spam it in there, you can't just send one. You have to send about 100 of the same letters to multiple locations especially considering the junk mail they get, perhaps even 500. Someone will read it eventually.

 

.44 x 100 = $44
.44 x 500 = $220

I'll tell you what, paypal me the $220 you'd spend on stamps, and I'll send you the reply you'd get...I'll save you the time, paper and envelops.

(Hint: I wont respond)

It sucks, but major companies dont listen to consumers...they just dont.

Look at Apple, people have been railing on them for certain features...they ignore it. They develop a phone with a defective antenna design, they ignore it. They have a very nasty virus attack a few months back because they have no defense...they ignore it.

Where did ignoring customers and problems get apple? The #1 spot on the most valuable company list....

I don't like it, but:

16:10 is gone.

 

I am curious how Apple is still offering 16:10 ratio panels for their 15" and 17" Macbook Pros? They offer 1440x900 and 1680x1050 for their 15".

They offer 1920x1200 panels for their 17" Macbook Pros when the PC world has sadly all but given it up for 1920x1080.

I guess Apple still abides by their slogan "Think Differently". But this is one of the times its a good thing.

I actually prefer the 16:9 ratio over 16:10. I just don't want to go from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080, a downgrade. Can we see higher resolution 16:9 ratios such as 2133x1200? Well, maybe 2133 is a weird number but something along those lines.

We've seen 1280x768 replaced by 1366x768 and 1440x900 by 1600x900. The 16:9 ratio is fine IMO but we just shouldn't lose any pixels over it!

 

LMAO...you're too funny. Well, It's true that 16:10 is gone but I'm not really after 16:10 as much as screen space. I'll gladly welcome 16:9 as long as I don't have to sacrifice screen space for it. Meaning companies would have to put out a screen with a resolution greater than 1920x1080, preferably something that doesn't make me feel like I've downgraded from 1920x1200.

I am currently using 1920x1200 and I'm so reluctant to get the 1920x1080 "downgrade" in the new laptops especially since most of my development I'd be doing would be for resolutions greater than mine to about a third of my resolution. In my honest opinion, they should just get rid of 1366x768 and provide a better alternative perhaps 1440x810 and work their way up from there, because 1280x800, the previous standard would not be entirely compromised or feel like a total downgrade.

And as for higher grade resolutions, I don't think it'll happen just like that, but perhaps something a bit more even like 2250x1266 would probably be a more reasonable upgrade. But they'll probably charge the hell out of us for it though. I don't know, my greatest beef with the 16:9 ratios was only because they highest resolution available was a downgrade for me, if they fix that, I'll have no problems with 16:9.

 

Likely Apple is still using a stockpile of older 16:10 panels, but I HIGHLY suspect most of their line will go to 16:9 with the next refresh.

The MBA 11" and iMac are already 16:9, showing not even Apple is immune as there are no more 16:10 panel manufacturers anymore.

 

I find this funny:
Acer Iconia Tab A701 with 1920x1200 LCD, Tegra 3 leaks out | Electronista

It seems tablets are all gonna have 16:10, but laptops and PCs are still stuck with 16:9. Maybe this year manufacturers will bring back 16:9, I read that for them it is 5% cheaper to cut panels in 16:9 rather than in 16:10.

I also found this in the news: http://www.pcper.com/category/tags/ultrasharp-u2412m

Is this... what I think it is? The first 16:10 LCD monitor to be released after 2010?

 

^ Just to add to that, one of the Samsung tablets, I can't remember which one but I think it was the 6.1" was able to support a 2560x1600 resolution, which is also 16:10.

 

iPad is 4:3 XGA, while standard resolution monitors have all but disappeared.

 

http://www.fudzilla.com/notebooks/item/25157-samsung-reportedly-working-on-2560x1600-tablet

16:10 ... They can make them for tablets but not for laptops...

 

I knew the next post in this thread would be the 2560x1600 16:10 tablet.

Hopefully, this "retina display" trend catches on for laptops.

 

I want to see some "netbooks" using the now common tablet 1280x800 10" IPS screen, its not that much more and would make a world of difference in overall quality. (hint to anyone at lenovo reading...)

 

At least someone is getting the right idea:
http://www.fudzilla.com/notebooks/item/25213-apple-working-on-uber-hi-res-macbook-pro

Macbook preparing super 16:10 screen.

 

Sheesh that's crazy resolution on a notebook, I wonder who manufacturers the panel?

 

does anyone here know of any current 16:10 laptops? i just maxed out my dell xps m1530, and i don't know where to go next.

 

12" Fujitsu P771/P701
12" HP 2760P tablet
13" MBA/MBP
15" MBP

Last gen:
12" HP 2540P or Lenovo X201
14" Dell E6410 or Lenovo T410

I'm fond of a 16:10 13.3" Dell E4300 myself. It's P9400-2.4 overclocks nicely to 3.16Ghz as detailed. Quite a light chassis and is readily available on ebay for low $$. eGPU works great on it too as shown.

I too am disappointed with the long and narrow viewport a 16:9 LCD offers. Manufacturers try to mask it by putting a wider bezel on the top and bottom. Pls bring back 16:10 instead of those silly bezel tricks.