WIDESCREEN on notebooks makes no sense to me - it's opposite of business users' needs

Does widescreen make sense to anyone?? It is the opposite of what a business user, student, or anyone else using Word (or similar) would normally want. I need to see MORE of the page vertically, not less! This seems to be a gimmick for DVD watching, and my laptop is a business tool, not a movie watching toy. Unfortunately, all the manufacturers seem to be getting swept up in the widescreen format these days - it's the latest stupid gimmick, IMHO. But I admit, I don't have a widescreen, so does anyone have any explanation of the rationale for why a widescreen is better, assuming that I am working and not watching movies? Thanks!

 

I would say you're approaching it wrong. It's not a question of having less vertical display, but rather just having more lateral. The vertical area viewed is the same.

The best part in my oppinion, is not that I can view movies etc in widescreen, but that I can have many more windows open at the same time, and not have to tab back & forth between them as often.

With my widescreen notebook, I am now able to keep 4 seperate applications running and visible on my desktop at the same time, in the same dimensions as maximized windows on my prior screen.

Just my take on the subject. Now that I've experienced widescreen, I'd be loath to go back.

 

For me, a widescreen is beneficial because you can get a relatively small screen so it's light and portable and still have a fullsize keyboard.

 

I think it just depends what kind of a user you are...
I can imagine a Graphics expert making maximum use of the widescreen ...
I personally would not go for the widescreen... I am an avg user.. would use a notebook for surfing the internet, mail, chatting, may be a little development, little gaming and quite possibly watching movies...
My laptop should be small but not too small, should also be big but not heavy... I think I like the 15-15.4" screens...

 

The widescreen is nice for programming and other tasks, where it's beneficial to have side-by-side comparison windows and such. And when you add widescreen movie watching, you add value to after-hours use, making the laptop more useful overall.

 

Thanks Lacessit, that is quite helpful feedback.

The thing is, if you have, say, a 13.3 inch screen, the widescreen (1280 X 800 or similar proportion) would be 11.28 inches wide X 7.05 inches high (calculated using the Pythagorean Theorem, given that the screen size is the diagonal), where a regular (old-fashioned) screen, which is always a 4:3 ratio, would be 10.64 inches wide X 7.98 inches high. Thus the 13.3 widescreen is .93 inches less tall, vertically, than the regular screen of the "same size," while being .64 inches wider horizontally. This is not a worthwhile tradeoff, in my opinion. I would miss the almost-inch vertically, more than I would enjoy the 2/3 inch horizontally.

Again, however, I am really interested in others' opinions, since it looks like I might be almost "forced" into a widescreen when I replace my notebook soon. Thanks!

 

By the way, I do understand that a widescreen would be nicer in coach on the airplane! Anyway, this is an interesting thread - hope to hear from more of you on this. thanks

 

Quoted for truth. How else are we supposed to properly stea... uh... copy-paste... uh I mean reuse code?

 

ROTF.

I LOVE my widscreen notebook. I have a 15.4 widscreen. The size is awsome. I rarely watch movies on this laptop but I do play plenty of games. It really is cool to play games in widscreen.

Oh and if you don't want widscreen get the business models of notebooks. I don't think any of them are widscreen.

Tim

 

Let's start off by saying that I am a student. A widescreen allows for a more generous keyboard layout and moves the touchpad closer to the the keyboard. I like the clean, sleek look my widescreen gives with the touchpad right next to the keyboard. I also like that it is easier to type on with a more normal sized-keys and the oversized text-editing keys. A big bonus is that it fits in my backpack much easier than a 4x3 would. My widescreen 14" actually has less depth than a 12" 4x3.

Presario V2000Z, 14"-16x9:
depth 9.1 inches

Latitude D410, 12"-4x3:
depth 9.4 inches

A 14" 4x3 would be too tall to fit. Widescreens allow for easier portability without giving up screen real-estate.

 

i'm not sure where you get the idea that you get less of the page vertically. if you compare non-widescreen resolutions to widescreen resolutions, not a single one has less vertical space.

for example: xga has 768 horizontal rows of pixels and so does wxga (in fact, some wxga lcds have 800 horizontal rows meaning they have MORE vertical space than xga). you can extrapolate the same for sxga+ / wsxga+ and uxga / wuxga.

your assumption that w/s displays have less vertical space in mistaken.

 

Widescreen is better for movies. Simply because more movies use the widescreen format.
Standard screen is better for games. Simply because few games feature widescreen resolutions.

As for screen real estate, well, it depends solely on the resolution.

Compare SXGA+ (1400x1050) to WSXGA+ (1680x1050) and yes, the wide resolution basically allows you to have the same vertical space, with extra horizontal space. But compare WXGA 1280x800 (present on some 14" widescreen models) to SXGA+ as it is present on some 14" standard screen models). You get more horizontal space and more vertical space.

 

I had to work from home during the transit strike, and having a WS display was really nice. When you put documents side-by-side, they end up being pretty square, instead of really long and thin/short rectangles, which is annoying. I have a 22" display at work and a 17" Fujitsu N6210 at home. Ahh such eye candy...

I also love it for word processing - you can magnify the document like 150% so you can focus on one paragraph at a time, with all the characters looking super smooth. A full screen is too distracting.

It's a bit annoying for most websites, since they end up longer than intended, so I have to resize the browser so that it's not fullscreen, and it never aligns perfectly, and if you're a perfectionist... Yuck. But that's the only thing.

Typing is awesome, too. I don't know what I'd do without a numpad.

Malia

 

If you work with spreadsheets, i.e., MS-Excel, you'll understand why a wide-screen is must better. Less scrolling, more data on screen.

Even stacking two spreadsheets horziontally one above the other on a wide-screen is just great.

 

Yes it is true that the vertical resolution is not less (e.g. 768-800) but he is right that the vertical size of the screen is significantly shorter (e.g. 15" 4:3 is >.8" taller than a 15.4" 16:10).

This means the screen data will be smaller as with any higher resolution (DPI adjustments don't fix all programs) or more vertical scrolling if DPI adjusted to be of comparable size.

Also the web/many websites, argubably the most important app, is still not optimized for high resolutions or widescreen. I've seen many websites (poorly designed IMO) take 1/3 of the width of the screen with high resolution widescreen LCDs which is annoying. Hopefully standardized code will optimize better in the future to client screen (in the meantime I have 4 different browsers-most allow quick font size increases & even graphic zooms for high res).

Many business lines (e.g. ThinkPads, HP) continue to offer 4:3.

I love multimedia & big screens but I try to put the least amount of accommodative stress on my eyes so I hope Vista will indeed better support high resolution displays than XP so I can crank up DPI (even if I can still read tiny print perfectly doesn't mean it's good for your eyes all day long).

Personally I think I still prefer 15" 4:3 for the extra vertical screen space (i.e. 9"), I would have to get a 17" widescreen for that height. Also a lot of my videos are still 4:3.

Of course a lot of people like smaller notebooks & widescreen allows a larger keyboard.

Others feel free to share their perspective but I think that's where he gets that idea.

P.S. - I find the glossy-glaretype screen finish instead of anti-glare matte trend far more annoying but I think both finishes & aspect ratios should continue to be offered as people have different needs & preferences.

 

the difference in vertical screen size is negligable. i just measured a toshiba satellite (model number unknown) 15" standard screen. the vertical height of the screen is 8.5 inches. the vertical height of my 15.4" widescreen is 8.25 inches. a quarter of an inch is a dealbreaker?

also, the existence of poorly coded sites is going to influence a 4 digit purchase?

 

Using the pythagorean theorem (unless specs are lying they must conform to it) with respective aspect ratios:

15" = 12" x 9" ; 12/9 = 4:3 (mine is 9" tall)
15.4 = 13" x 8.125" ; 13/8.125 = 1.6 or 16:10 (these are rounded hence why I don't say .875")

Thus >.8" in height.

There are a lot of poorly coded sites (e.g. http://www.bestbuy.com ) try that in IE with a high res widescreen.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widescreen

Widescreen a scam?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widescreen#Criticism_of_widescreen

 

I like the wide screen (10:16) because you can have a sidebar open (Google search in IE, Research or Help or whatever in word, etc.) and still have as much document visible as on a 3:4 screen.

 

Just wanted to thank everyone for all the comments in this thread I started yesterday. This forum is a great help for exchanges of ideas like this, pros and cons.

Though I now understand that with the resolution of widescreens I might be able to get the same number of lines of text on a screen that is not quite as high (tall), it will also be the case by definition that each line of text will be a little smaller, so that the same number of vertical lines can fit into a smaller vertical space. So, e.g., in Word, in order to have each letter be the same physical size I would need to increase the zoom maybe from 100% to 105% or some such number, which would reduce the number of lines I can see.

Anyway, this sounds like the typical no-free-lunch trade-off. I would like to stick with the traditional 4:3 ratio screen, but when you look at a typical website ad or Sunday newspaper ad it seems like 9 out of 10 are widescreen.

Anyone have any further thoughts on this?

Thanks all.

 

Well, duh, it's all the same cr ap anyway. Widescreen is new, so it's a selling point. I'm more used to standard screen and would rather stick with some horizontal bars in movies than vertical bars in games.

 

My thoughts, at first I wasn't too keen, but not that I've used one I like it, I like being able to have two windows side by side for doing two things at once.

I agree, initially it made no sense, but now I've used it I like it.

 

Just got a Latitude D820 and like the screen. I can now try out running Outlook 2003 the way it was designed - with the reading pane on the right. Still haven't gotten used to it yet, but there is finally enough screen real estate to try it plus have the Google sidebar active.

 

This strongly depends on what the user uses the machine for. I use mine for games and entertainment, and it's great when compared to my 15inch tft. However, I would not get a widescreen if it wasn't for entertainment.
Although at times I do find widescreen useful when I have to view multiple windows (for example code on one half and the compiler on the other) next to each other (but not as useful as having 2 non widescreen monitors - then again, if you're stuck somewhere without a spare monitor at hand widescreen would be your best choice).

 

They are very business oriented, I'm like you, I mainly use my laptop for doing work (though having the ability to play when I want to is nice). Also like you I didn't like it at all at first, but it becomes one of those things after you get use to it you can't live without it. Like moving to a smaller screen resolution, everything looks really small at first, but once you get use to it, try going back, everything looks way too big and goofy).

You just need to readapt how your using the change. Now you can work in your Word Doc on the left side of your screen while reading your reference document on the right. You can also copy paste between two different documents without having to keep toggleing back and forth between them when one is instead got to be on top of the other. Also, if you use Word, you must also probably be using Excel from time to time, nothing beats being able to see the entire spreadsheet without having to scroll left and right constantly to do so.

Writting code for like web page development is a lot nicer as well. Before, I use to just buy a hard copy book with my reference information and lay it on my lap so I could read while typing. Now I can put my reference material on the computer in the Window on my right and type in my file on the left. Before, switching back and forth was too much of a headache (the reason I'd just buy a book before).

What annoys me is when I do decide to watch a DVD, even when the movie is in widescreen format, I still get those annoying black bars across the top and bottom of the screen no matter what I set the aspect ratio to in the DVD software.

 

I don't know if this has been mentioned already…. But with a widescreen notebook (in smaller notebooks 12, 13.3, 14) it is much more likely that you will find a full size keyboard! And that is a very important part of your laptop. You need to be able to type on it easily.

 

You are limited vertically a little bit, but you can also get a high resolution screen so you still have a lot of vertical area to read long papers and such things.

 

Along with what everyone else has said...

1. Our eyes are made for wide views. It's easier to look side to side than up and down.

2. Long webpages are common. Just scroll down. Super wide pages are a pain.

3. It's easier to split the screen for multiple windows or toolbars. I typically have a web browser dominate one side of the screen while I watch downloaded videos in a smaller window in the corner and a chat window sits on the remaining space.

4. In Word or Adobe Reader, you can view pages side by side.

5. Horizontal layouts are very calming for the soul. Just ask Frank LLoyd Wright.

6. Widescreens make you look thinner by comparison.

 

^ exactly, human eyes are better suited for panoramic views than vertical

LOL @ 5 & 6

 

this is the main reason that widescreen is becoming popular and is the reason that makes the most sence

 

To play devil's advocate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widescreen

"A widescreen image is a film or television image with a wider aspect ratio than the standard Academy frame developed during the classical Hollywood cinema era. Silent film was projected at a ratio of four units wide to three units tall, often expressed as 4:3 or 1.33:1. The addition of sound caused the frame dimensions to standardize by 1932 to Academy framing, which is actually 1.37 but often erroneously called 1.33. Wider aspect ratios were developed in the 1950s in a vain attempt stop the fall in attendance due, partially, to the emergence of television in the U.S. (Television used the standard 4:3 ratio as well.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widescreen#Criticism_of_widescreen :

Criticism of widescreen

One rationale for widescreen is that, since the human eye has a field of view that extends farther to the sides than it does above or below, a widescreen image makes more effective use of the field of view, thereby producing a more immersive viewing experience. Critics of widescreen point out that the human field of vision, based upon the angular ratio of our fields of view (180 degrees horizontal, 135 degrees vertical), is in fact closer to the older ratio of 4 to 3, and not widescreen ratios such as 16:9 or 2.35:1. Also the area of the retina used for detailed vision is circular, not rectangular. Consequently, large-format technologies like IMAX favor a 4:3 format.

<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ec/WideScreenFormats.png/300px-WideScreenFormats.png"
"Comparison of three common aspect ratios constrained by the screen diagonal size (the black circle). The smaller box (blue) and middle box (green) are common formats for cinematography today. The largest box (red) is the format used in the cinema and television before the development of widescreen. Enlarge

One can further criticize the superiority of widescreen by calculating the area of different aspect ratios that have been constrained by the size of the diagonal and not the vertical.

That is, if you compare rectangular shapes with the same diagonal size, the aspect ratio of 1:1 will have the largest screen area. In more practical terms, a typical 100' diagonal projector screen in 4:3 format is measured 60' by 80'. The same 100' diagonal screen in 16:9 format is 7' wider, but 12' shorter which results in a 15% smaller viewing area."

BTW, I encourage anyone with access to IMAX, to check it out http://www.imax.com/