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

Ay, that's why it should be standard on all business class laptops. After all, the 16:10 screens are just 10% more expensive. Right now a 16:9 1920x1080 screen, with 72% colour gamut is about $145. I am sure that for 1920x1200 few will mind paying a bit extra.

 

I would pay an extra 100 bucks if i could get a laptop with 1920x1200. I looked at microcenter and the 2560x1440 i just can't stand so damn wide it is annoying. I think i prefer 1920x1200 over 2560x1440, which is just sad. I wish you could get a 27 inch 1920x1200 :/ I would love to get the 2650x1600 but for 1100 bucks i'll pass. I wish a Korean company would make cheap 2560x1600 :/

 

While still not cheap the 27" 2560x1440 panels are newer and usually LED. Since proccessed under newer tech they are usually cheaper than the 16:10. The 2560x1600 are usually older tech panels and CCFL back lit. This is a disturbing trend as since there are no real new tech IPS led 2560x1600 this may be a dieing breed as well.............

 

16:9 in high resolution: Samsung smuggles new Series 9 prototype into IFA: 2,560 x 1,440 on a matte display (hands-on) -- Engadget

 

Blacky,

Now this is something I want to see more of!

I wonder if the text is sized at 1.25, 1.5 or 2x?

Also wonder how a Windows 7 setup would handle this kind of resolution on such a small (13") display?

 

I don't think it will work very well at such a small screen and high resolution. The important thing is that this is finally an upgrade from the 1920x1200 resolution that I have been using for such a long time.

 

Blacky, the link you gave is a 13" system - seems to work pretty good there (with Win8).

 

Yes, in the Win 8 tile view it works great. But when you go into desktop mode you can see they can't even zoom in to show you where it writes the resolution, cause everything is very very small. On the other hand, at such a high pixel density you can easily move the resolution down a little and you shouldn't notice the quality of the image to degrade.

 

No, I wouldn't be interested in changing the native resolution, I mean do you know if they're using Custom DPI of 125, 150 or 200%?

 

I've been using laptops with the 16:9 ratio for two years and I simply can't get used to it. For god's sake we want 16:10 back.

 

Apple shows us that 16:10 is possible... AGAIN!

13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display reportedly seen with 2,560 x 1,600 LCD, dual Thunderbolt ports -- Engadget

 

I finally gave in and got a 16:9 screen. It is a 120Hz screen and the lower eye strain is somewhat worth the lost real estate...............................

 

Lower eye strain?

 

The 120Hz screen is much easier on the eyes. This is not true for everyone. Some people see no real difference. The way to know if it would help you is look to the side wherethe screen is well visible in your periphial vision. The screen should have a mostly white background too. Now if at 6oHz it appears to have a slight flickering or pulsating effect the 75-120Hz most likely would help you. You may not even realize you have an issue until you have tried a high refresh screen for a good length of time.................

 

Browsing the web on a 1366x768 screen is excruciating.

 

if i am web browsing i want either 1920x1200 or 1600x1200. 1920 can be a little annoying with how wide it is at times. I love the 2560x1600 screens but web browsing can be kinda annoying.

 

It seems that Apple are the only ones that care about the consumer, and the experience (s)he gets. I'm postponing the purchase of new notebook as much as I can just to see if the industry is going to change its mind, which with every passing day, seems HIGHLY unlikely. My next one would be either second-hand 8740w, or MBP. I wont give 16:10 anytime soon. Now we have 21:9... 10 years from now the knights would return, as we're going to have spear-like 999:9 uber-widescreen notebooks.

 

How about 4:3? What happened to that ratio? Do manufacturers think we watch movies all day long?

 

And so... it begins: Toshiba's Kirabook rocks a 2560 x 1440 display, arrives May 12th starting at $1,600
It was about time!

 

that is 16:9....

 

It's still better than 1920x1080. I can live with 16:9 as long as we getter upgraded resolutions, not downgrades from 1920x1200.
Still, the best aspect ratio remains 16:10... Only one company seems to get that.

 

psh...i still will wait and shell out the money for the baby of a 4:3 and 16:9.

If 4:3 and 16:9 could have a baby it would be 16:10 and it would be awesome

 

There's a reason I'm not moving from this R2 I have.

I'll upgrade this machine until the moment I can't anymore and it dies. :3

 

Wait... I just had a thought!
I was thinking of dumping my laptop this year and getting a new (Clevo of course).
But you are saying I could get... an Alienware M17x R2 with 16:10 ... basically the best 16:10 laptop out there ?

 

your in EU so it might be an issue but dell outlet has them for 1k on and off. Then you can get 3 year warranty ^^

 

Seriously? I need to start watching the outlet regularly then.

 

that is including the 25% off coupon or whatever

 

I don't need the warranty. I am gonna mod the hell out of it anyway.
But I think I know where I can get one.

I think this is my next laptop.

EDIT: This is for Europe: http://outlet.euro.dell.com/Online/InventorySearch.aspx?brandId=7&c=uk&cs=ukdfh1&l=en&s=dfh
Unfortunately no M17X R2.

 

Yeah the R2 would be a decent upgrade for you. I'm running a 6970M at the moment and it's crazy quick. And yeah I'm running the 1200p RGB screen everyone loves. ^_^

 

if the CPU isn't an issue than get a new GPU :/ is the 920xm really much better than a QX9300?

 

I was looking at the 940XM - I could get one rather cheap.
But from the benches I've seen, the 940XM is around 10-15% faster than the QX9300.
So technically, I won't be gaining much with the CPU, but at least I can upgrade the GPU (not sure what upgrade paths I can follow... but oh well).

 

you can't upgrade your GPU? You can get two 680ms in an r2. That is basically 100% maxing PCIe 2.0. Also you can reach 3.2-4GHz on an 920/940xm fairly easily....no battery life but fast.

 

No. I said I can upgrade the GPU... I can't upgrade the CPU much beyond the 940XM.
OCing is not a problem, since when you need to be on battery you can force it to always run at the slowest clock possible.
I will look into this, but it seems to me that this is my next laptop and I will try to hold on to it until higher resolution laptops start to crop up.

 

You might consider 8740w as well - same CPU option, 17,1" Dreamcolor IPS (1920x1200 of course), single MXM-B, and the rest is person to person (design etc.). It's not dual-GPU monster, but it has the only 16:10 IPS screen (of enough real-estate that is*) as far as I know (LP171WU8)! Even the M6500 and W700 has a TN panel, same as the above mentioned M17X-R2 (LP171WU5). Rare thing, indeed.

*It means that I don't count sub-15-inchers.

 

you missed what i was asking. Why can't you upgrade your GPU on your clevo? if the 920xm is only a bit faster...is the CPU that much of a deal?

 

Cause my model is MXM 2.1 - it already has the best thing I can throw in it.

I see, I will look into this model as well. But is the HP GPU upgradable ... or not ?

 

It isn't all about resolutions to me. It's still a 16:9 13" display in the physical world, which is going to be less tall than a 16:10 13" display. So unless you can read really small text at the native 2560x1440 resolution, you're still going to wind up with less real estate at a readable size than you would with a 16:10 13" laptop.

 

what i ahte about high res 16:9 is it is so dang long that it takes up desk space. You can fit 3 30 in 2560x1600 in the same space as 3 27 in 2560x1440....which is an epic fail to me. Looking at a 24 in 1920x1200 compared to a 1080p 24 in i feel like it is an odd shape and huge...in awkward ways.

 

I'm checking the owner's lounge every now and then, and there are people with the latest Quadros - K5000M. I'm not sure how it goes with consumer GPUs, though.

 

I want to buy it on my company, with invoice. I found some R2s to buy like that as refurbished for around 650 euro - 800 euro including VAT.

 

what i have always wondered is how and why is the 30 in 2560x1600 so much more than the 27 in 2560x1440.....what make sit so much more money?

 

I think it's because 16:10 have become somewhat of ... business / professional kinda of monitors and those usually come at a premium. Not many ODM companies are still making 16:10.
I do believe 16:10 will either make a comeback but in 2-3 years or 16:9 will get higher resolutions.

 

nope 4k....16:9...we are screwed

3840×2160

give me a

3,840x2400 and we are in business...I can have 1 opera windows open at once with 4-16 tiles mmmmmmmm that is 4-16 tabs open at once

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

or worse yet the new movie formate -_-

4096 × 2160

and

4096 × 1714


Now on the bottom of the chart they have the storage formate mmmm ~4:3 i can dig that

 

Well, it's up to you in the end. I just gave you an option, an IPS one. I know which one, I'm going to buy later this year

 

Here is another high-res: Asus launches 15.6-incher with Retina class display

I guess this is the trend now... 2880x1620.

BTW triturbo, I am pretty set on getting that R2, just need to find a good deal.

 

sigh what a waste....i wonder how much it would cost for LG to make a 16:10 and how many would need to be bought to make it profitable. Something that i would love is a 27 in 1920x1200 i find 24 inches a little too small for my eyes and keeping a good distance.

 

This is the closest thing to what you want: Dell UltraSharp U3014 30" Monitor - Large Screen Monitor

 

i know of that monitor but i am just saying having a pure 1920x1200 one would be a lot nicer and cheaper and easier to use because trying to play with DPI in windows is a pain from what i remember when it comes to having multiple screens

 

There were a handful of nice specked R2s (RGB LED) in the marketplace, but since you want to put it on a firm, it would be a bit harder.

 

I've only seen one for $1000.