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

Well there were like 3-4, maybe even 5, at various state of tune, but they're all gone. My brother was looking for one, hence I was checking.

 

More high resolution screens on the way: Samsung hyping new 3200x1800 LCD display for future notebooks - Neowin

 

and still 16:9 -_- just give me 3840x2400 and call it a day. perfect res. you can get super high def. run 4 windows on the best aspect ratio ever. it scales 100% to 1920x1200. so you can play games at 1920x1200 or 3840x2400. Too bad these hair balls that are in charge are too dumb to make the perfect screen.

 

Am I the only one still loving 2048*1536, 2800*2100 and 3200*2400 4:3 screens? (For notebooks. For desktops I'd rather go for 8:5 or 16:9.)

 

I almost forgot about this guy:
Chromebook Pixel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2,560 × 1,700 (239 ppi)
3:2 (1.5:1) aspect ratio

 

'dat feel when using 16:10

 

Yep, love it! And I'm pouring silly money to do so

 

Just a short list of high resolution laptops:
Battle of the ultra-high-res laptops: Samsung Ativ Book 9 specs vs. the world | PCWorld
and of course, the king of them all:
the MSI GT60 3K edition

 

get back to me when we have 3,840x2400 yea yea yea i know i am a broken record ^^ But at least this stuff is promising. Some day everyone will rock a FHD/FHD+ screen. They really can't die soon enough

 

Just sharing info with those interested. Right now I have a plan to cram a 16:10 lcd in a 16:9 chassis :-D.

 

I know i was giving you a hard time ^^ Hence the ^^ If you do and pull it off post a guide or whatever. I like the idea. Would be awesome to see someone put a R2 1920x1200 RGB screen in a newer model ^^ I think though the connectors won't work or something like that for those models though. It'll be interesting to see what you do with whatever laptop you do it with

 

RGB LED, no. But I can put this: LG LP171WU6 - TLB2 - 1920x1200 , Antiglare, 275 cd/m2, 700:1 contrast 72% NTSC

 

Why not the RGB LED? As far as my research goes, M4400's RGB LED doesn't require any additional cables for the back-light, but then again it's Samsung and this is LG, so... Anyway, kudos for trying it out.

 

The connector is the same, 40 pin, but the connection type is different.
Normal screen use a 40 pin connector (2 chan. 6-bit)
RGB Led screens use a 40 pin connector (2 chan. 8 bit)

So I am not sure the laptop will work with the RGB Led screen.

 

It looks like 16:10 won't come around any time soon.

I am pretty sure at this point that the future is UHD...

 

and 16:10 can't be in UHD?

 

But his point being that does anyone mind if it's 16:9 if you have a 4k display?

 

I'll know it's there. You see, back in the 4:3 era I needed more room. Then the mighty 16:10 savior came. I had/have just enough space everywhere. Now they are pushing for 21:9, which is ridiculous. OK, fine go ahead,... but on TVs. On my PersonalComputer the only aspect ratio would be 16:10 and that's IT!

 

yes!!! I get more pixels for the same space...it doesn't fix the problem that a 27 inch (16:9) takes up the same space as a 30 in (16:10) Plus it makes work less convient. I will never have enough pixels. hell in some areas (select few even the vertical pixels in a 16:10 is not enough...granted i just rotate it but the point is 16:10 is by far the most productive and versatile screen. You sell a 1920x1080 and a 1920x1200 and a 2560x1440 and a 2560x1600 and a 3840x2400 and a 3840x2400 which one do you think i will buy? Which ones do you think are better?

I would love to see what the real costs are. If a 3840x2400 was produced would it only be 10-20% more if made on the exact same scale or almost the same in price? I would love to see a company try a crowd funding of a 4k 16:10 screen in a few years when prices are reasonable. I bet you could get a 3840x2400 screen for only 10-20% more if they actually did a decent run and that would be worth it without questions!!! Give me a couple years and i would even be willing to pay 50% more for it. $1500 for a decent 3840x2400 (50 in) would be no issue to me and that could be in the next 2 years.

Hell 4:3 is actually an awesome res assuming it is high enough or you have multiple screens. For FPS i personally would take 16:10 any day but for web broswing 4:3 is bomb. For excel 4:3 FTW RTSs on a 4:3 FTMFW! I mean seriously imagine having 4 4000x3000 screns in the same space as 3 3840x2400 or more like 2.5 3840x2400. That is a lot of room to work and VERY little SPACE! I personally would love to have 3 3840x2400 with 1 4000x3000 screnn. That would be my ideal desk. None the less i am a dreamer i know


note 3840x2400 vs 3840x2160

3840x2400 has nearly 1 million more pixels!!! (921,600 to be exact) That is nearly 1 million more reason to have 16:10. And that only gets worse as we get higher res screens!!! a million more pixels and a bigger screen in the same space!

11.1% more pixels 11.1% bigger in the exact same space...no amtter how you spin it 16:10 is a million and more times better.

 

We are talking about notebooks on this forum, which have very limited space. As long as the physical pixel density is high enough for the human eye, the only thing that matters is aspect ratio.

The common 14"/15" 1080p panels and the old 15" QXGA panels I used to enjoy on the some ThinkPads are somewhere near the limit of what my eyes can handle. Making the pixel density higher may make the picture look a bit smoother, but from a productivity prospective there isn't much, if any room for improvement given the limited space. (Personal performance do vary, but I doubt other humans have dramatically better eye function than me.)


Due to the physical keyboard getting in the way, notebooks have much less flexibility than desktops when it comes to screen aspect ratio.

 

I also still believe that 16:10 screens are the best. And yes, making them is about 10%-20% more expensive than 16:9.
But since we won't see them return any time soon, our only option is to live with UHD, be it 3K or 4K. (Probably 3K for 15 inch and 4K for 17 inch)
Keep in mind that Apple still has 16:10 laptops, in case you are really desperate.

 

50% over priced and os x -_- Plus not 17/18 in and no good GPU :/

I honestly don't lnow what possed dell to drop the 1920x1200 RGB screen -_- They had a real marketing differentiation (see i can learn new things from school) going on there :/

 

After doing some math, it seems production 15" screens were a little bit bigger when using 16:10 ratio as opposed to 16:9. 15.4" screens at 16:10 had approximately two and a half percent more area than 15.6" 16:9 displays do currently.

 

Because everyone else was changing, Dell isn't going to buck the trend. That and when everything went even wider (M17x R2, M6400/M6500) all went from 17.1" to 17.3" so to accommodate that, they went to down to 1080p.

 

All hail 8740w.

 

obviously....doesn't mean they couldn't just switch the name to that res....wouldn't be terribly confusing. or UHD+ -_-

 

I don't think naming should be a problem. It's just the will to make 16:10 screens for laptops.
The problem with laptops is that once you go 16:10, you also need a different chassis, so making 16:10 laptops along side 16:9 or having a model with 16:10 and 16:9 screens can be really problematic.

On the other hand, I am pretty sure all this move to 16:9 has been due to some agreement between the top LCD producers. It happened too fast and too well coordinated to have just been a random thing. This is against market rules, but it also means that since the LCD producers don't want to make 16:10 screens, then we won't see any in the foreseeable future.

At this point, I am thinking of writing on this matter to the appropriate institutions responsible for fair competition and trade and make them aware of the situation.

 

not really...my R4 has PLENTY! of space for a 16:10 18 in screen!

 

Are you sure?
I know from my calculation that 16:10 screens which were 17.1 inch were 1 cm less wider and 1 cm taller than 17.3 .
I will have to look up the exact size of the panels.

 

i have enough room for 2-3 cm taller screen So a 17 in could easily fit if not maybe even a 18 in...and they originally had a 17in 1920x1200 than they changed the case to this crap -_- The old m17x was a far better laptop from what i have heard.

 

Hey, if we are gonna bring back 16:10, can we bring back the nineties too? I miss those

/Sarcasm

 

If 16:10 comes back, I will welcome it like a dear old friend.

Bringing back the nineties would not be equivalent: but if you could take me back a quarter century (not just time travel, but actually take off these last few decades from my tired bones); I would crown you king of the world.


16:10 is still useful today in many fields... the 90's? Not so much...

 

Bring back 4:3 as well... Bring back 4:3 as well... Bring back 4:3 as well... Bring back 4:3 as well... Bring back 4:3 as well...

 

You can place two 4:3 windows next to each other, and it still has descent height, hence why 16:10 makes more sense for a comeback. 16:9 with 5 rows of tabs in Firefox, and I can barely see anything.

 

I was talking about notebooks which have very limited space and having multiple windows mighty not be appropriate.

If you have 5 rows of tabs in FF, you really need to start using tab grouping.

 

I see, it makes sense. I really wish to have the option to choose, like it was with the T6x - you can get 16:10, or 4:3.

They are even more, but I've limited the visible to that much. TabMix+ is all I need

 

tab grouping sucks. I use 3-4 windows...faster easier and offers better organizations especially when you click around a lock. open and closing groups is annoying

 

You are talking nearly 6+ years ago, and ThinkPads are completely different market compared to consumer computers.

 

I guess Apple is living in the 90s ? BTW 16:10 is 2008-2009.

 

you forget EU is always 10 years behind US in style ^^ 90s for you was our 80s I kid....sort of

 

Check this out: AMD GPU 14 kicks off, for real

It seems 4K screens are on the way for everyone. Get ready!

 

16:10 started really in like 2005-2006+ for consumers and business until about 2011. Pre-2005 was almost all 4:3..

 

and than some decided to set up 16:9 as a standard and ruin computering and productivity....think of the global GDP lost from crap screens!!!!


*cough* So why is that word not filtered.....

 

this, exactly!

 

Think about global GDP boost from consumers replacing their 4:3 and 16:10 screens for "new tech"!

 

think about the GDP going form 1920x1200 to 3840x2400 and up

 

All jokes aside, I wouldn't be able to handle 3840x2400 even on a 17" screen...

 

why? just scale it to 1920x1200

 

More from fudzilla:
UHD monitor prices to go down in 1 to 2 years

Given how things are evolving, I think 3K will become highest resolution for 15 inch notebooks and 4K for 17 inch notebooks.
I think 4K is an upgrade over my aging 1920x1200 laptop, although it would have been better if they retained the 16:10 aspect ration.

So here comes : 3840 × 2160
and
2880 X 1620 for 15 inch.

 

I've had 2048x1536 on a 15" LCD, and was not impressed by scaling in W7.

If I have to start using W8 in order to properly work around the high resolution of these new LCDs - thanks but no thanks.