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

Another last-gen one is the HP EliteBook 8740w. Looks to cost a good chunk of change going by a quick eBay price check, but it would be a good deal more powerful than the 1530.

I'd thought all the last-gen EliteBooks were 16:10 but it looks like that one (the 17 inch model) may have been the only one. It's a sad day when there's so few 16:10 models.

The other option if you use your laptop at the desk a decent amount is to buy a 16:10 external monitor (of which there are still a few), and go with whatever laptop looks best outside of resolution. Not an ideal solution, but neither is going last-gen, buying a Mac to run Windows, or paying $$$ for a high-end EliteBook (unless that happens to be what you want overall).

 

I am at 1920x1200 and either I'll have to soon use a desktop or become a MAC convert when I have to upgrade.................

 

Look at this:
Acer showcases the new Iconia Tab A700, comes with a quad-core processor and a full HD display - GSMArena Blog

So tablets can have 16:10 and 1920x1200 but not laptops, no. Laptops have to have 1366x768 .

 

guys, vote here: IdeaStorm | Bring back the 16:10 screen format in high end Business laptops

make your voice heard

i'd rather keep using my old laptop than buy a new one until manufacturers begin to offer 16:10 again.

 

The number of people wanting 16:10 is remarkable.

 

at the very least, the business class laptops such as Thinkpads and Latitudes should come with this option.

 

Just to give my vote for 16:10 - BRING IT BACK! I need a better screen, so I'm looking for a good display upgrade and you could imagine how "easy" task it is. It would be easier to buy external, but it's not the same.

 

Bring it back!

 

So now the iPad has a higher resolution than any recent laptop.

The New iPad's Beautiful New Retina Display: 1,000,000 More Pixels than HDTV

Now to see if this transfers to laptops.

 

You guys sent a link to the Big Boys yet?

 

Let Apple work out all the kinks... then bring it mainstream. It would change how fonts scale and the general idea of resolution. With high enough resolution maybe we an make "low resolution" look just as good as the high resolution in the same way a CRT screen does.

 

Ya I definitely find it funny Apple can get a 10" QXGA+ Retina display, while manufacturers still pump out 12-16" laptops with 1368x768, disgusting.

 

try running current gen of windows or osx on a 240+ dpi screen... dang..

 

Yep. Kinda have to give kudos to apple for this. No wait I do. +1 apple

 

With a high enough res (higher than 1920x1080), I'd be happy with a 18.4" or bigger 16:9 laptop.

 

I know, it's ridiculous.

 

And Apple shows us that IT IS POSSIBLE:
Apple announces next-generation MacBook Pro: Retina display, 0.71-inches thin, shipping today for $2,199 -- Engadget

16:10 and 2880x1800 resolution - outstanding!

 

New Ugly Laptop! Yahoooo!

Ugly Laptop... When you think that wide is still not wide enough

 

That new Macbook Pro with the retina display is some ridiculous stuff. I'm glad to see that it is 16:10.

I'm gonna have to make a trip the Apple Store some time soon

 

So do you think other manufacturers will use the same panel and switch back to 16:10, or somehow turn it into 16:9? (Which would be (2372x1536)).

 

Theoretically they can use both screens. Many laptops on the market have the upper and lower bezels noticeably thicker. So it is possible to make room for both screens.

The question is... will they?

Personally I wouldn't mind that much if it was 16:9 and 2372x1536 , at least I get more vertical space in comparison to 1920x1200 vs. 1920x1080.

The move to 16:9 was almost entirely because it was cheaper for manufacturers, but if consumers start to demand 16:10 and higher resolution screens, things will have to change.

Generally I dislike Apple, but this time I have to give them credit, they really are moving the quality of IT products forward, albeit at a very high cost.

 

I just stumbled up this:
Intel: Retina laptop, desktop displays coming in 2013 - Liliputing

So here’s what Intel sees happening in the computer space over the next few years:

Phones and media players with 5 inch, 1280 x 800 pixel displays (this is already happening)
Tablets with 10 inch, 2560 x 1440 pixel displays
Ultrabooks with 11 inch, 2560 x 1440 pixel displays
Ultrabooks with 13 inch, 2800 x 1800 pixel displays
Laptops with 15 inch, 3840 x 2160 pixel displays
All-in-one desktops with 3840 x 2160 pixel displays

 

All I want is 1200p lol back.

Laptops with 15 inch, 3840 x 2160 pixel displays that is double 1920x1080p. Why can't they make 1080p more of a standard option instead of 1366x768 at the very least.

Still would prefer 16:10. Manufacturers don't realise people like the old resolutions more. 1080p at 14" laptop should have been what they are aiming for not these 1366x768 standard and rare 1600x900 screen.

We have seen vaio z and asus zenbook get 1080p panels so why not get 15.6 res 1080p standard and watch 1080p movies on it.

 

16:10 is the absolute perfect aspect ratio for computing, especially for content creation. 16:9 is terrible. I absolutely dread getting new mobile workstations and high end monitors with 16:9 aspect ratios, I seriously miss 16:10 too.

At least offer an option for 16:10 screens, I don't even mind paying extra, who are the idiots bringing 16:9 to mobile workstations? They make doing CAD and video editing more of a chore than is needed, I want to minimize scrolling up and down as much as possible.

 

I'm pretty happy with my 15" 1680x1050 matte. 16:10 for the win.

 

I like my 17.1" 1920x1200 LCD thank you very much! Also liking SXGA+ 1400x1050 on 12" on my X61 tablet. I also have a Sager with 1080p on 15.6" it's close to 1200p on 17.1". I'm about to do a WUXGA swap into my Vostro 1500, we'll see how that goes.

 

Your conclusion does not support your premise: Video editing is supported by 16:9 aspect ratio.

And there you have it. Buy up all the MBPs and when the industry sees there's still support for it, you'll get your 16:10 back. Dollars speak louder than words.

 

Irony, I hope?

 

16:9 is great for me, if you want more vertical screen size why not as to bring back 4:3 screens.

John.

 

There is a Harkonnen among us.

 

Allright, allright. Cut the crap - even if all of the market that buys Mac bought a new one with a 16:10 screen -- how would that make it an economic necessity that larger screens will turn up?

I mean, this is about establishing a trend in spite of how it makes no economic sense. Not saying it's not possible - iPhone buried Palm, UIQ, Symbian in particular and smartphones in general - because of this irrational crazy stuff about Apple.

But it's not an economical argument or mechanic.

You can't even argue that you would want to buy a more expensive screen, and that the market should adjust - because the screen itself isn't actually more expensive to make. Or exclusive to expensive products.

In fact, buying Mac religiously - if it affects anything at all - contributes to increasing the prices of hardware, without that actually reflecting how expensive the product was to make. I mean, that's Apple in a nutshell now, specially after they kicked PPC.

 

iPhone.... iPad.... iPaid

 

Hah. See that around campus as well. People "buy their own" mac, and get their parents to pay their rent and paper-fees.

It's some sort of highly sophisticated social statement, I think.

 

I find it interesting that people think that a apple pc is more than a pc, your response is one that validates that, you can reinforce this positively or negatively, your is just the latter.

Is panasonic still doing 16:10 toughbooks? Otherwise there is only apple

 

I think the consensus pretty well validates that. The only question remaining is, is it worth it?

 

16:10 suddenly is more than just a resolution aspect as well, I guess.. That will either force black borders, scaling artefacts, or a cutoff on the sides, when watching a 16:9 film.

And no, buying Apple isn't just buying hardware. You're buying a package with complete lock-down of access, no real choice of programs, positively hostile 3rd party development opportunities, and consistently overpriced standard pc hardware that generally won't work with any other OS than MacOS. In return you get a set of very well made office and multimedia-programs. Apple also used to have very stable programs, superior battery life, and consistent and prompt response times in the programs. Which has gone out of the window together with PPC, non-replaceable batteries glued to the inside of the casing, and the abandoned 64-bit land.

So arguably it's a PC and a /tool/, like any other PC, with it's upsides and downsides. But it's not just PC hardware like any other PC on the market. Apple made sure of that, to a degree that makes WMI look pretty casual and whimsical in comparison. It's also done that way very deliberately, in spite of the fact that the processors and the mainboards, etc, are identical between a standard i7 setup and a Macbook pro.

But never mind that. I'm just wondering why 16:10 is such a good idea. If you want more desktop space, you can just increase the resolution. We don't live in 2001 any more - you don't need to see each individual pixel (like certain companies make a huge number out of, along with holding large lectures about "visual science"). So why not increase the resolution and simply allow the aspect rates you would like to fit on the same physical area, with as small borders as possible..? Let resolution choice be a question of response times vs. desktop area, rather than "OMGOMGRETINAMACBOOKOHMYGAWWWHDD!!" vs. "Everything else"? ..you know..

 

depends on the model, that is if you are talking about apple.

 

I must say that for the first time in my life I am jellice to everyone who has macbook wih Retina display...

Because someone in Apple understood that it is not just about resolution... it is about resolution AND Rtatio.

 

It's already been said probably, but I'm positive that the Alienware crew would love to have access to that gorgeous RGB screen like I've got in my R2, in their next machines.

I'm all for this. The only monitors I buy for the desktop line are 16:10. I won't settle for anything less than that. My last monitor was 1680x1050 and it was beautiful. I miss it to this day, two years later.

 

Asus has a pad that is 10.1 1920x1200 IPS but Tegra 3 and Android. Hopefully Win8 RT version will show up. I have been playing with the idea of a win8 tablet, even though Win8 will never see my PC.......................

 

Would it be bad to say the only deciding factors to make me want a MBP is for the trackpad and 16:10?

 

I agree that a 16:10 aspect ratio is great and that the touchpad of the MBP is the creme de la creme of touchpads (but that's not saying much even then...).

However, if productivity is your end goal - the MBP's touchpad is as conducive to 'precision' as OS/x is to (most) professional software support (compared to a mouse (or Lenovo TrackPoint) and Win7x64 Ultimate, respectively).

So, if you want/need to do 'real' work with your new setup, then yes, I would say it is bad to say you WANT a MBP for those superficially 'better' things.

Sure, there are reasons to buy a MBP - but not for just the reasons you state.

(Battery life, build quality, light weight, monitor quality and dumbed down usage scenarios are all reasons to buy one. OS/x, keyboard, touchpad and Apple limited hardware configurations (via hardware and software blocks) are examples of why they're not setup for maximum productivity results (even forgetting the ridiculous Apple tax...).

 

In that case, why not go all the way and get a CRT? It's better still, and is still superior in displaying blacks. You're not the first group to pine for yesterday's technology, and you won't be the last.

It was never suppose to be a perfect fix. Rather, the best compromise among the various aspect ratios available. There has never been a perfect ratio.

 

The problem is not the tech, it is the configuration of the screen. No one here is against LED LCD IPS high res touch screens or the like. We just want the tech configured to our use for our systems not towards media use.................

 

Ehhhm. How can you argue telling someone what HE sets as the only reason to choose smth??? When both me and him told that real reason is exactly The One. Specifically the screen which definitely overweight to MBP.

This reminds me a Moldavian guy who told me... that I (Ukrainian) can read Ukraine language but still neither speak nor know it. HE told ME what I DO like he really knows better. .

 

James, we're all just giving our opinions here, right?

And he did ask for it too...

 

Exactly this. It has NOTHING to do with "yesterday's tech" at all. Form factor is all about the media / content being used. Unfortunately we're all subject to the bottom line dollar and because of this we'll be stuck with 16:9 for quite some time.

 

LG preps 21:9 aspect ratio EA93 and WQHD EA83 series IPS LCD monitors for debut at IFA 2012 -- Engadget - because wider is always better /s .

As I said before I suspect a few things:
1. The speed with which suppliers (we know now that this ratio change was because suppliers refused to offer 16:10 screens anymore to OEMs) was so fast in comparison to other LCD aspect ratio changes that I suspect they had an informal agreement between each other to move to the new production process. I know it sounds crazy, but it has already been proven they had a price fixation agreement right about the same time (see EU anti-trust cases).
2. The 16:10 aspect ration should have been kept on all business class laptops (we are talking about 1440x900, 1650x1080, 1920x1200 resolutions here).
3. The 16:10 aspect ration is between 5-10% cheaper to manufacture. This is normal since we are losing about 10% of the screen's height.
4. 16:10 screens can still be made if the OEM company can specifically request for it, Apple proved that, since they are keeping this ratio even on their latest Retina display.

 

With the 1920x1200 I prefer this over most 4:3's of old as two pages of documents can be displayed at the same time. If 16:9 2560x1440 were offered on a 18.4" I would like that too. According to screen clarity I may even like it on a 17". 1080 Height just does not cut it for me, and while the 1440 would be a bit much I am sure I could survive it. We could always add extra tool or info bars.

I can deal with just an adaquate CPU, GPU, HDD and other components. I deal though 100% of time while on the computer with the screen! I need more than just adaquate real estate there. I need completely funcional space and 1080P, or worse 768P, 16:9 screens just do not cut it.

For this reason my 3+ year old Gateway has been upgraded to the hilt and I am hoping now for another 4 or more years out of it. in that same time frame I would normally have purchased 2-3 new systems for my own use. All of those sales are lost and I am sure I am not alone in this thought proccess. This could well be another reason PC sales have stalled, less and less reasons to upgrade.....................

 

Most consumers don't care about the aspect ratio, as long as it comes in a fancy case. Anyone that does real work on a monitor all day, though, will quickly notice the difference with the extra vertical height.