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

Now make a bigger 2560*2048 version and I'll buy 3.

 

that is still fairly pissy res

 

compared to 4k res yes per total pixels. You throw at me a 3200x2400 that is a big difference compared to what you stated above

 

Plenty of these actually: Dell Professional P1913S 19" Monitor Details

What we really want is this:
LG 24EB23TM Office-Monitor mit hochwertigem IPS-Panel (IPS)
or

Dell UltraSharp U3014 75.6cm Monitor with PremierColor | Dell

But in a 17 inch form factor for laptops.

 

It exists, 8740w.

 

How about 15"~12"?

 

I beg to differ. The 8530w didn't has the DreamColor, hence an IPS option, otherwise I would have been all over it. The only 16:10 IPS displays are THE 8740w (my favorite, I wont be able to buy it this year, but I will someday) and the rMBP. That's it.

BTW There's a new MEMS display technology around the corner, let's hope that it would make it in 16:10. Up to 300dpi, 150% NTSC, ~30% more brightness and contrast, less power consumption, don't know the response times though. It sounds promising.

 

No problem. If you Google "DreamColor 8530w" you'll come with plenty of places that state it's coming, but it didn't as it turned out Only M4400 came with the glorious TrueLife (RGB LED) that all of the owners rave about, but it's still a TN.

 

Delete it (this post).

 

Ultrasharps moving to UHD. - New Dell Monitors Deliver Four Times the Resolution of Full HD | Dell
I guess UHD on 16:9 is the future...

 

not unless if i get rich and i can throw money at LG to make 16:10 version. ONE DAY!!!!

 

This thread seems to be broken. Can't go to page 34.

 

You (and now me) are the only ones on 34...

 

?!!




Maybe someone reached P34 before but the post got deleted, leaving the server in a confused state?

 

I think the current market will dictate the demand for the aspect ratios, im inclined to think that in hindsight the most consumers also see the 16:10 aspect ratio as previous generation design so the manufacturers would rather "seem up to date" in the eyes of consumers. They would not want to seem left behind. I for one prefer the 16:10 aspect ratio and it was actually a major influence in my choice of laptop. But for next generation laptops i would purchase, i would rather get higher resolution (3k or 4k) than be concerned with the aspect ratio. I used to have a 2048x1536 CRT display for my desktop workstation (3:4 aspect ratio) , but i've come to accept my 1920x1200 screen because it's got enough pixels that enable me to do my work efficiently, even if it's got less pixels overall.

 

your comparing apples to oranges. Would you want a 2560x1600 or 2048x1536 or 2560x1440....i bet i now your answer. though if you ask me would i rather have 2560x1600 or 2560x1,920 i would be hard pressed to choose. I bet i would go with both for various reasons. For gaming and movies i'll take 16:10 but for productive work 4:3. If you compare 16:9 vs 16:10 vs 4:3. 16:10 and 4:3 win every time given comparable res like stated above in my examples.

 

Can average Joes really tell the difference?

 

I guess what i meant was, regardless of aspect ratio as long as the vertical resolution was enough to accommodate all the menus in my program that would work for me regardless of aspect ratio. The vertical pixel count is what matters for me. If for example we get to the point where our laptop screens options get to be 2560x1440 vs 2560x1600 the aspect ratio becomes less of an issue because the vertical resolution of 1440 would be enough to display all my menus without scrolling, and other factors would come into play like form factor size and cost. 2560x1440 would already work simply because it would have enough vertical pixels regardless of aspect ratio.

i was able to emulate a 2560x1600 screen with my old laptop so i know how it is to work with one, please check this link http://forum.notebookreview.com/notebook-cosmetic-modifications-custom-builds/690144-emulate-2560x1600-resolution-nvidia-gpus-14-inch-hp-dv2000.html

 

Yes, this is why I think the move to UHD screens for laptops is kinda going to alleviate some of the problems most of us encountered when moving from 16:10 to 16:9.
Still, 16:10 is overall a better option and to me at least, seems to improve productivity. Still, UHD screens are yet to become mainstream, most laptops still come with the ludicrous 1366x768 resolution.

 

Before pixel density reach the point where our eyes can no longer handle more, increasing resolution will always alleviate the problem somewhat.

Sometimes what we can handle goes beyond what we're used to. Thought I'd prefer 900p over 1080p at this size before buying my 13.3" W230ST. But its turns out I'm actually fine with it and I'm looking forward to the 3200*1800 upgrade now. It's still 16:9, but I'll have 1800 vertical lines.

 

ASUS unveils 28-inch, $799 4K display targeting price-sensitive pros

The dawn of 4K ...

Edit:

http://www.winbeta.org/news/ces-201...50-and-satellite-p50t-worlds-first-4k-laptops
4K in 15.6 inch ...

 

Sorry to disagree but, no, higher resolution does exactly nothing to alleviate the problem. I might as well tape over the sides of my 16:9 screen and call it a 16:10...

The problem is that the vertical screen real estate I value is taken away, and replaced by horizontal space I don't need. Funny, too, how we were told that this was done for cost reasons, while now, all of a sudden cost seems to be no object with manufacturers hell-bent on pushing those useless touchscreens on everybody.

 

somehow I missed this thread and created a new one, even though my search for 16:10 turned up nothing in like 5 pages.

I have cash in hand for the first MFG who can give me an i7 4700mq, gtx 780m, 16gb ram, 128gb ssd & 1TB hdd, and a wqxga matte screen in a 15.4" laptop--for $2500 or less.

 

You mean the MSI GT60 20D won't do for you?
XOTIC PC | MSI GT60 2OD-261US

WQHD+ (2880x1620 - more than WQXGA 2560x1600), i7-4700MQ, GTX 780m, 16GB DDR3, 1TB HDD 7200RPM, 128GB mSATA ~ $2100

Just not matte, but screen protector for $20 will take care of that.

 

This is the "bring back 16:10 thread".

 

I know, but when you have 2880x1620 vs 2560x1600 it seems a bit silly. When it comes to 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 for example, I understand the concern and appeal of 16:10. But in this case, you have the vertical real estate you need and then some. You'd pay $400 more for less vertical real estate and less pixel density?

 

Already have a GT60 on order. did you miss my signature?

And no, I don't care if WQXGA is lower resolution than MSI's 3k. It's still substantially better than 1080p or WUXGA, and I'd happily sacrifice a few pixels so I can have my golden ratio back, TYVM.

 

I have signatures turned off atm TYVM. To each their own. I have been a strong advocate for 16:10 primarily because they killed a significant portion of the vertical resolution with the standard resolutions available at the time.

 

HT,

I didn't know we can turn off sig's - TY!

Any other tips to speed read the forums?

 

FF, ABP, Ghostery...and if you're desperate, NoScript

 

You can turn off avatars, signatures, and I assum you're using VB4 default style (lower left pull down)? I usually have sigs and avy's on, but I turn it off during the week because I don't want them showing at work, just forgot to turn it back on.

 

Yeah; VB4 default style is on whenever I even visit NBR from another (not my own) computer - otherwise, the site just looks wrong!

 

I just went ahead and ordered a refurbished M17x R2 from Dell (it has i7 940XM CPU).
I hope this Alienware will be enough until they decide to have higher resolution 17inch notebooks on the market.

 

They still have M17x R2's ? Even refurbished? That's like going on four years old now isn't it?

 

Yes. They have a few every month.

I mean, the R3 is relatively easy to find: http://outlet.us.dell.com/ARBOnline...x?c=us&cs=22&l=en&s=dfh&brandid=2201&fid=1760

But once in a while they get an R2.

Hopefully it will be ok. Comes with 12 month warranty.

 

I got my R2, except for some minor scratches on the bottom of the laptop. The laptop looks brand new.
It seems to have new motherboard and CPU.

 

I have renewed the domain for website: Sixteen By Ten | Because wider is not better…

 

They say money talks, but so far...not one single laptop MFG--other than Apple--is willing to deliver 16:10. I guess "cash in hand" means nothing to them.

 

I don't think that the companies producing hundreds of thousands of new laptops every year care about the feelings of a dozen people on an internet forum.

 

I guess we have no other options than to build custom laptops out of old scrap, components from new damaged notebooks and scotch (both the whiskey and the tape).

 

Oh but they should. We're the only ones who are laptop loyalists. The run-of-the-mill consumers are abandoning ship for tablets and smartphones. The loyalists are the ones who will be around buying laptops for years to come. Everyone else will take what is being spoon-fed. Dictates should be made by those who do have a dog in the fight.

 

Panasonic CF-52 is 16:10.

 

A core 2 duo, DDR2, and an integrated graphics card? rofl. Terrific for durable computing. Way less power than even my 2009 Sager.

 

You're dead wrong about the specs for the latest one: try Core i5 and DDR3 RAM.

http://www.panasonic.com/business/toughbook/semi-rugged-laptop-toughbook-52.asp

 

Its price is somewhat abusive for such specs.

 

That's because it's meant to be abused from here to eternity and take it with a smile on its display...

Definitely not a machine for everyone and their seventh cousin.

 

I like it...it's just obvious that Panasonic is using "older" tech to cut down on costs. And that's fine...but it's not progress. I'm still holding out for WQXGA or better in 15.4" (and a top-end GPU).

 

What do you mean by "a dozen people on an internet forum"? Are you trying to say that all the people who want 16:10 visit this very forum? There are many, many professionals who want the 16:10 screen. What's even worse, the 16:9 disease has also infected the PC tablet world. In those cases, a 16:9 ratio is complete and utter idiocy for anybody who is interested in using a tablet for anything but movie watching. Specifically, trying to sell a "professional tablet" (viz. Surface Pro) with a 16:9 screen is the height of stupidity. If I want a tablet for work, I'd get a 4:3 iPad. Not surprisingly that's what the rumored iPad Pro is said to be. And Apple will eat Microsoft's lunch once again in the tablet market...

 

Panasonic has always marched to the beat of a different drummer, so to speak.

One doesn't install "the latest and greatest" technology in machines which are literally designed to be abused.

On the other side of the coin, they are the only laptop manufacturer that offers BOTH 4:3 and 16:10 aspect ratios, along with the godawful 16:9 like everyone else.

But I hear the "progress" part nevertheless. I'd love to own a 17" ThinkPad with a conventional 7-row keyboard and a WQXGA 16:10 IPS LCD, serious GPU and 32GB of RAM...

Did I just see a purple pig fly right outside my window?

Yeah, that's what I thought...:hi2:

 

I want a 18" 16:10 notebook... srsly!