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

What about the Mac retina display ?

And this now... http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/lenovo-working-on-super-thin-macbook-pro-with-retina-beater

Check this out: http://www.panelook.com/LP154WT1-SJA2_LG Display_15.4_CELL_overview_19251.html (In production).
This... In production: http://www.panelook.com/R300M1-L01_Innolux_30.0_LCM_overview_2234.html

And this is all I could find still in production for 16:10.
http://www.panelook.com/modelsearch...low=11.0&aspect_ratio=1.60&production_state=1

Looks like the only 16:10 panels for laptops that are still in production are for Apple.
Oh well....

 

I'm not a Mac guy, never was. Nothing wrong with those LCDs, though.

Lenovo lost my business when they changed the keyboard layout. Never, but NEVER shall I buy a ThinkPad with the current keyboard layout.

I'm aware of it. Got nothing to install that screen in, though, and the scaling issue remains...

 

I don;t know why you have so much hate for Win 8. I moved to Win 8, installed "StartisBack" and I don't want to go back to Win 7.
In my opinion, overall, it's a more polished version of Win 7.

 

how doesn't Win scale well with 1024x768 on a 2048x1536???

I loathe Win8 as well. I liked XP more than Win7 but not like i can actually use xp now. Win 7 was pretty much 3 steps forward and 2 steps backwords....that one extra step is barely enough to make me use it. Win8 is 2 steps forward and 3 steps backwards. I would probably use XP of Win8. Win7 hacked oput so many useful day to day Win navigation features.....so sad. Try double clicking on the network icon....does nothing -_- @$^@# Try to use control panel in a list....it uses the worse list format ever...why? Try searching for something in the start search that is in dropbox....won't find it. You have to go to dropbox folder and due a search. Try doing a complex search for a specific file that you can't really remember anything about the name but you knew it's size, extension, and general location...maybe a couple other features. Yea Win7 made that a total beotch. Try to figure out all the weird extensions you need to do that when you need to do that once in a while.....not worth it.

Also do a search

How can i go up one folder??? can't Win7 sucks
http://imageshack.us/a/img843/4606/uwn.png

so what folder is it in....beats me. You obviously can find out but it is just another example on how MS has screwed over everyone with a less functional OS that takes a lot more time to do basic crap because MS sucks

 

Almost.

Panasonic CF-52 is also 16:10. They are actually the only laptop manufacturer that maintains 4:3 and 16:10 ratios along with omnipresent 16:9

 

Why would I want 1024x768 on a 15" LCD? 1600x1200 yes, but then what's the point of having 2048x1536 to begin with?

I know what my eyesight is capable of handling, and 1920x1200 on a 15.4" is about the limit. That leaves me with MBPr (sorry, no) and Panasonic CF-52 which is a great machine in its own niche but not necessarily what I'm looking for right now...

 

my point was with 3840x2400 it has perfect scaling for 1920x1200 when you don't want/need higher res. That is the beauty of that res. So Win scaling isn't an issue

 

Understood. The bigger problem is that there are currently no 3840x2400 laptop screens to be found from what I know. And if I'm scaling back to 1920x1080 (which would be an option with some of the upcoming machines) I'm likely better off with a panel that runs that resolution natively...

 

how would you be better off? I can think of plenty of things i would like to do with having the ability to run 4k on a 17-19 laptop. Granted i rather have it on a monitor but i still wouldn't turn it down on a laptop

 

If those 4:3 machines still come with up-to-date processing power...

@HopelesslyFaithful
It's another example that GUI front end should be clearly separated from base system back end.

 

Let's just say that not everyone has the same needs, priorities and applications when it comes to their hardware and/or software.

 

Well, the only 4:3 laptop in existence (Panasonic CF-31) doesn't have a problem with lacking processing power but:

a) It's heavy as sin. I should know since I've been dragging it around for several weeks after Sandy beat the living daylight out of NYC's East Side...

b) The resolution is measly XGA (1024x768) on a 13.3" panel...

A stunning piece of engineering that one is, nonetheless...

 

huh? Not sure what your referring to

 

Well on a 15/17 inch .. any higher than 1920x1200 is hard for me to see,
Also What is the point of a double pixel panel other than to waste graphics resources to scale.
I would rather have a native 1920 x 1200 panel.

 

As I see it, scaling is the underlying end goal of most high resolution advocates. The common example that people use is the Retina Macbook Pro, which uses 2:1 scaling to make images appear sharper with a 1440x900 workspace. The problem with this is many programs do not scale properly in either OSX or Windows. When a universal scaling system is introduced, then we will be able to really take advantage of the higher resolutions. Until then, I'll stick with my current 1920x1080 screen.

 

Indeed. Thanks for explaining the issue at hand better than I did.

 

Shrugs i can think of tons of games and pictures i would rather have 4k for. It would be sooo much nicer even on my 17 in laptop. :/ I guess i am one of the few.

 

As GUI systems push forward to vector based solutions, we're see good global scaling when most of the legacy apps die out.

 

Maybe.

I expect to be retired along with legacy apps, though...

 

blows my mind away win8 still uses non vector based gui -_-

 

Well, as least Mac OS and some FLOSS DEs are vector now.

Give Microsoft some time, they'll get there.

 

yea after they continue to milk everyone dry.....Win8 could be miles farther if MS actually cared to be even remotely competitive.

 

They will do something effective, albeit at the minimial tolerated rate.

 

4K in 15 inch ? That's madness...
Sharp Sampling 4K IGZO Displays for 15.6-inch Laptops

 

sounds like progress. Now i hope cheap crap laptops start getting 1080p min....768 has lived too long. I think it out lasted how long 640x480/800x600 did -_-

I also will say it astounds me how long it has taken resolution to make progress....it wasn't even one that really needed to take anywhere near this long to improve. We could have had 1080p/1200p be a standard 15 years ago but for whatever reason it'll probably take 20 years for it to be standard. The technology has been around for it to be affordable standard for that long easy.

 

Which is exactly what should happen. As we get closer to the saturation point, progress slows down.


The overall progress is indeed too slow. And that means:
1. Consumers simply don't care.
2. Business people believe that people don't care.


Speaking of the advancement of screens, how close are we to pure LED panels in notebooks?

 

what do you mean? Like OLED? Whenever anyone wants to loose the battery life running an OLED and pay samsung the money i guess.

 

Something like AMOLED. But the current day implementation doesn't cut it.

I simply want to get rid of the backlight-filter setup, and get a real active matrix made of whatever that is efficient enough for the job. I look at graphs and tables way more often than pretty pictures, and work outdoor a lot, so an active LED matrix that's good enough for watching movies should run cycles around any LCD in my work as long as I switch to a bright-on-dark colour scheme.

 

I have three letters for you - SED. Of all the technologies I know, it packed quite of advantages. It's fast, it's resolution independent, it has quite of a gamut and so on. Sadly it wont come to consumers anytime soon, if at all.

 

I like 16:10 for office work, my documents fit better on the taller screen.

Actually, my tablet (Nexus 10) is 16:10 but that's a different matter, I'd rather it be 4:3, it's just easy to hold a nearly-square tablet.

 

XPS 15 Touch Screen Laptop Details | Dell

.... QHD making into more laptops.

 

with 2400p?

 

3200 x 1800

It's still 16:9.

 

I don't think we will ever see 16:10 back in laptops. I fear that even Apple may move to 16:9.

 

than i dont care

 

Bring on the 21:9's!

 

Here you go: Toshiba Satellite U845W-S410 Ultrabook specs

 

well i got another u2412m

 

Apple is still hanging on to 16:10, as is Panasonic with its CF-52.

Unfortunately, that's it.

 

And the fact that Apple still offers 16:10 is the only reason I might buy an Apple laptop. Although they'll have to keep with 16:10 for a few more years... at this point I'd be more likely to just buy a used non-Apple laptop with a 16:10 screen. Nonetheless, I hope they stick with 16:10.

And in standalone monitors, yeah... if I'm reading about one and see it's 16:9, I stop reading. Fortunately there are still some new models coming out with 16:10. I've been pretty with my 16:10 U2412M so far. I've considered buying one for work just because the consumer-grade 16:9 TNT Dell S-series external monitor I have there is not very good. It wouldn't even be very good if it were a 16:10 monitor, though.

 

If you have a large high pixel-count desktop monitor, aspect ratio should not matter. You have enough space in both directions anyway.

On notebooks, where space is very limited, aspect ratio becomes much more important.

 

nope......again let me quote myself...searching.....searching.....searching.....HFed!!!

Boom....*big evil grin*

 

Screen size has ZERO to do with what you can fit on the screen. Resolution determines that. My 14in 1080p laptop, 15.6in 1080p laptop and my 22in 1080p screens all have the EXACT same ability as far as what can be fit on the screen. The only draw back is you need better eyes to see it with the smaller screen...that is it. My 22in doesnt fit more applications on it compared to my 14in screen, nor does it induce better productivity or heck effect productivity at all. Granted this might change when my vision degrades from 20/10 and Ill then just move back to 15.6 or 17in. Until then Im equally productive per screen despite the size.

 

That makes sense.

I know this is not what you want, but in the mean time you can buy a 16:9 screen with vertical resolution no lower than what you want, and set output to 16:10 with scaling turned off. It's an ugly fix, but better than nothing.

Until it gets too small for the human eye, which can only be so good. Extreme case: what if instead of a 14" laptop you get a 4" 1080p phone, and a phone only, no external screen available?

There's a transition of bottleneck happening. Traditional low-res screens and GUI systems are made to utilize all pixels efficiently, under the assumption that your eyes can always recognize those pixels (like you said). New high pixel density displays are made under the assumption that you will not be able to tell individual pixels apart. Screen size has zero to do with what you can fit on the screen until the pixel density is high enough to reach the eye's limit, and some high-res laptop screens today already go beyond that limit. 1080p on a typical laptop is still manageable, but 1800p or higher?

When this transition is done, pixel density will no longer matter from a productivity perspective. However, aspect ratio will still matter, making this thread's topic more important than ever.

 

That is why FHD+ screens of that size use pixel mapping. Where, for lack of a good ratio example, 4 pixels =1 actual. This leads to much smoother images and while the screen is 1080p actual, pixel mapping makes it lower actual resolution. Its the reason why a 1080p screened phone doesnt show more "stuff" then my 1280x720 screened phone....rather its just smoother looking then mine.

There is always a point where things get too small even for some one with good vision. But 1in or 100in 1080p can fit the exact same stuff on it no matter the physical size.

 

or its called a higher DPI......

 

than i have big gaps in between displays -_-

I swear my keybard keeps getting stuff in it from my wife....something gets drifting in the back that makes keys sticky and mushy....it moves between keys ahhhh

 

Obviously...

 

than why use pixel mapping...trying to sound smart aren't you

 

See:
The Return of the 1280x1024 Monitors... But With Touch!


They're baaaaakkk... :^)


(But they're ~$1.1K USD... ouch!).