Why I'm happy with a 16:9 LCD (and not broken up over it not being 16:10)

I work with text.
Thus, I like vertical real estate.
I was quite unhappy with the move from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080.
So why am I happy with my 1920x1080 laptop?

1. Its 18.4". The physical screen size is more.
2. It sucks that the LCD is glossy; but under ambient light conditions, its gorgeous, very crisp. As a result, I have been running it at 76 DPI. The text still appears better than on my older 1920x1200 screen. And at 76 DPI, I can fit more text on the screen!

Laptop: HP DV8t

 

Well with a loss of 120 vertical pixels I can tell you I wouldn't be a happy camper..

 

I thought the same too, but the increased crispness of the screen makes up for it.

 

On an 18.4" screen 1920x1080 is a must! the drop from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 on a 18.4" screen is insignificant IMO.

 

I think the only form factor in which I am very happy with the switch to 16:9 is in 14" laptops. The 1440x900 to 1600x900 switch in 14" laptops resulted in a gain in horizontal pixels with no loss in vertical pixels, albeit with higher pixel density (which I actually like).

I also appreciate the change, with some reservations, in the 15" platform. Although there is a loss from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080, more manufacturers are now providing 15.6" 1920x1080 screens than they did in the past with 15.4" 1920x1200 screens. So, although the 16:9 variant is not quite as desirable, there are many more choices, so I suppose I am happy.

In the 13"- ultraportable segment and the 17"+ desktop replacement segment, however, the 16:9 screens result in a lackluster 1366x768 standard and the loss of vertical pixels that had once been commonly offered, respectively. In the 13" segment, however, if more companies offer up laptops with 1600x900 displays similar to the Sony Vaio Z's, I will be a happy camper.

 

You cant fit more in a 1920x1080 screen no matter what its size if your comparing it to a 1920x1200 screen. There are less pixels there and thus less space.

The only advantage I can think of for 16:9 is for native 16:9 content like games or movies. Not having black bars on the top and bottom of your movie means the image is larger than it would be on the same size 16:10 screen, also some people find the black bars off putting.

 

Either way, if you are forced to go from 16:10 to 16:9 you will find the change jarring at first but you will also adjust quickly. After a while it just becomes normal.

I notice the same thing with sound. You can adjust incredibly quickly to loud continuous noise like traffic and you just tune out. When you get home and turn off the engine, the comparative silence is jarring, if pleasant but you quickly adjust again. So much so that come bed time, the sound of a dripping kitchen tap will drive you mad.

In sensory terms, we are very adaptable. We are also creatures of habit so if you use a 16:10 monitor every day, the thought of changing to a monitor with less vertical height feels just "wrong", until you do. If you have a choice in the matter, then you will naturally just stay with what you know and like.

 

Portability. I can open my 15.6" 16:9 in an airplane seat. If it were 16:10, I wouldn't

 

Aspect ratio does not effect size, you can have the same size screen in both aspect ratios.

Just a matter of bezel size, pixel density, etc. You can use more than one method to make them take up the same physical size.

 

I fixed this for you. Stockholm Syndrome really is interesting.

 

Though I only own 1 notebook with 16:9 LCD (My Latitude 13" 1368x768), I knew it was a 16:9 but this was a non-work computer. It's an acceptable resolution for a 13.3", but nothing larger. We see 15.6" and 16" notebooks with 1368x768 resolutions and it is absolutely disgusting.

Ideal resolutions: (not including netbooks)

12.1-13.3" - 1280x800

14.1" - 1440x900

15.4-15.6" - 1680x1050

17"+ - 1920x1200

Business professionals and work computers don't need widescreen, I don't plan on watching movies at work. I want more vertical real estate, not horizontal. Makes for more web browsing space, and if you are a programmer (I'm not personally but I used to do coding) you will greatly benefit from vertical real estate. If all business notebooks are going 16:9 then I hope they don't cut vertical real estate and just add horizontal pixels, seeing 1368x768 resolution on a 14.1" makes me want to vomit.

 

Aspect ratio most certainly affects size. My 15.6" Envy is as tall as my 14" Compal HGL30. It doesn't affect the diagonal, but the absolute vertical height of a 15.4" 16:10 is always going to be higher than the absolute vertical height of a 15.6" 16:9. That's just trigonometry.

 

Na its just how they manufacture them.

Our laptop screens are not just screens, they are also surrounded by a bezel and hinges and things like that.

If you take into account those factors you can make a laptop screen the same size just be reducing the bezel if you change the aspect ratio.

If it was just a screen and only a screen then sure math applies and a wider rectangle would be shorter than a more narrow one with the same diagonal measurement.

You are talking about laptop height though and I have never seen a zero bezel laptop, there is always distance on all 4 sides of the screen that make up the actual size of the laptop lid and thus the laptops size and formfactor.

 

From what I've seen, bezels are comparable on 16:10 and 16:9 laptops, so Pitabred's point is quite valid. Bezels aren't necessarily going to be larger on a 16:9 laptop versus a 16:10 laptop (and thus negating some of the difference).

One example:
The 16:9 T510 is only just barely taller than the 16:10 T410 when opened up, however, the 16:10 T500 is nearly an inch taller than the T410.

Another example is my 16:10 T500 compared to my dad's only 4:3 14" T60. With the screens opened, the two laptops are exactly the same height.

 

I've also run on a 16:9 led screen now (See my signature). The best thing with this over my 17" 1440x900 was that the blackbars on bottom on top of my screen when I watch movies is off.

But, I've have plans to upgrade it to 1920x1080. It is a 15,6" laptop. What do you think?

 

same diagonal will have less screen AREA, though.. the more square, the more area per diagonal. the more wide, the less.

 

Although I don't see how being 16:9 or 16:10 will allow you to open it up on an airplane seat or not, if it's a 15.4" 1680x1050 or 15.6" 1600x900. My Sager NP8662 is 10.6" deep, the Sager NP8690 and new NP8130/8150 are 10.1" deep. If 0.5" will matter whether you can open your laptop or not then the seats are reclined waaay back. To be honest last time I was on a plane you couldn't open anything larger than a 12" netbook anyhow.

 

I have been able to pull up a 15,4" laptop just fine and watch a compleate move

 

Must be nice. Last airplane I went on too, I couldn't even sit with my legs straight in front of me, I had to spread my legs or put them to the side. And when the idiot in front of me reclined his seat I only had about 9" to the stupid seat in front of my head. I'm not that tall, 6 ft and a fraction.

 

You're tall (coming from someone at around 5'7"). For a given size, I don't think footprint changes much (in terms of screen height), so a 17.3" 16:9 screen isn't going to be that much different from a 17" 16:10 screen. I still say resolution trumps aspect ratio though. I wouldn't complain about 16:9 if they had higher resolutions than 16:10, but my biggest gripe about 16:9 is probably because they came with a general decrease in available resolutions. Apart from 1440x900 going to 1600x900 (which I accept and admit is a very good thing), 16:9 came with the growing absence of screens other than 1366x768 on most notebook models. Now, intellectually I can sort of accept that this trend is not the fault of the shift to 16:9... except that I can't help feeling that it is (not specifically because of the shift to 16:9, but because of the mentality behind the shift to 16:9, i.e. the "price trumps quality" mentality).

 

The absence of any other available resolution is because it is cheap and cheerful. People scream for faster laptops and cheaper laptops, so quality dies in a heartbeat. I mean who wants 1368x768 on a 15.6" laptop. It is such a terribad resolution. I have looked at every *consumer* laptop we sell at work with 1368x768 resolution. NONE of them were acceptable by my standards. How can anyone live with just 768 vertical pixels these days. Yes I understand not everyone does programming, but people who read emails or visits websites with alot of text would appreciate more pixels....unless you are really that cheap.

 

But 1600x900 also replaced 1680x1050. I guess you can look at it as a half compromise:

1280x800 --> 1366x768
1440x900 --> 1600x900
1680x1050 --> 1600x900
1920x1200 --> 1920x1080