Why do many hate 16:9?

I have a 16:10 display and I hate the fact that I can't have two browsers side by side without having to use the side-scroll when browsing websites or compiling word documents. 16:9 displays does this perfectly.

I understand than many of you believe that productivity decreases when you have less vertical real estate, but having two windows opened side by side is a huge advantage imo.

The other huge advantage is watching movies which is obvious.

What are your thoughts?

 

Depends on one's habits and usage, seriously.

 

16:9 is fine for movie and game, but can get annoying when working, especially 768p 1..

You saying you cant have 2 doc side by side? 16:10 should do the same as they have same horizontal pixels?

 

Ummm, why wouldn't two browsers fit? 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080, same horizontal, longer vertical. What's not to love?

Depends on how you look at it though.

16:10 replaced by 16:9
1280 x 800 --> 1366 x 768
1440 x 900 --> 1600 x 900
1680 x 1050 --> 1600 x 900
1920 x 1200 --> 1920 x 1080

You lose vertial space, primarily.

 

It's the loss of 120 vertical pixels (at 1920x1080 vs 1920x1200) that's the main problem; the lower resolutions probably aren't even a problem (depending on who you ask) because the people that complain about it wouldn't wouldn't dare use anything lower than 1680x1050 anyway x:

Its just another one of those niche market problems, you go out on the street and ask any random person what their screen resolution is, and chances are they won't even know what the word resolution means

I'm not saying its not a problem though, but it doesn't bother me that much in particular. I'd rather lose 120 pixels and have the screen look better.

 

The loss of the vertical pixels combined with microsoft's implementation of the ribbon that takes up tons of vertical space is kind of a compounding issue. Though, at least the browser developers seem to get it and are cutting down on vertical space usage.

 

I hate 1080p resolution. It is just too wide for viewing.

I like 1920 x 1200. Of course 2560 x 1600 is the best bar none!

 

That's the issue. You have the taskbar at the bottom, ribbon at the top, and then your usable window space is all cramped.

 

I think people are taking this 16:9 thingy way overboard. I have been using it for a long time now and I don`t think its bad.

 

It's not going overboard, it's taking away usable workspace for no good reason other than saving the LCD makers money.

 

I dislike the 10% loss in screen real estate that I experienced going from my previous laptop to my current.

 

Vertical Space is pretty important for work. So Much so, i have a 19" screen (1280x1024) in Landscape Mode as a second screen on my workstation at work. Makes working with full-body Word/Publisher Document much easier.

The onlything "good" about a 16:9 is native HD content.. thats about it. Its not un-usable, but for content creation, it can be a bear.

 

I guess its just me then. I usually just adapt to changes instead of being the one who use their time to think about it and let the hate grow.
But then again it could have been so long since I used one of those 16:10 I forgot how great it really is

 

I have to work around it all the time. Using any MS Office 2007+ program with the full fatass two-inch-tall ribbon visible plus title bar, taskbar unhidden on the side at two-row height to jump through a piles of documents programs and files more quickly, my usable working space is fairly close to 2:1 for a single document, which means about two paragraphs of text or maybe 25 lines of excel before the zoom-out becomes harder to read.

 

16:9 would gain me 10% more FPS on my favourite game ^^.
LCD manufacturers yield more with 16:9 than 16:10? In other words less waste like when producing wafers for CPUs?

I like the fact my 16:9 allows the laptop to be shallower in depth which is more beneficial in cramped areas such as traveling on a plane.

 

I agree! 16:9 is better because you gain horizontal space.

 

You don't gain horizontal space except at the lowest resolution. 1680x1050 has been replaced by 1600x900. 1920x1200 has been replaced by 1920x1080. With a 1366x768 screen, you may have more horizontal than 1280x800 which it replaced, but you lose 32 vertical pixels, and at such a low resolution everything is so squished in such a narrow field with any productivity app because of ribbons or toolbars, it leaves little room for actual visual workspace.

Additionally, most websites are designed for 800pixels or wider in mind, so 1366x768 you really can't effectively use two browsers side by side anyhow.

Yes, they did it for less 'waste' if you want to believe that, but they really did it for more profit, nothing else. In the last 3-4 years we have the worse screens I have ever seen ever. But people don't care because they don't know any better. It's the general public's fault really, because they just live with it and don't complain. It's funny how people will be super particular about the quality of an LCD TV that they watch 1-2 hours a day at most, but are perfectly fine with a super crap laptop screen that they use 2+ hours a day.

 

Doesn't matter to me. I have enough 16:10 and 5:4 devices to last me the next 20 years.

 

Spot on.

That's why I abhorr 16:9... and 16:10 for that matter, there's no difference, so to speak. Same ""Wide"" mess.

Give me my 4:3 back.

 

That they don't know any better. Really! Because most folks grew up with that ratio, they are under the misconception that it is somehow sacred. In fact, there have been as many evolutions of ratio through the years as people to invent them.

Reading text on a monitor is merely an adaptation of the television monitor, which is an adaptation of the big screen, which is an adaptation of the small screen and all their endless variety of ratios including circular.

Simply put, people tend to stick to what they know, and to a lesser extent, what they're used to.

 

I grew up with VGA, lol. 4:3 and 5:4 were meh, 16:10 was perfect for me. I had a nice 1600x1200 CRT monitor, I think it was Sony. When I finally got a 1920x1200 LCD I was in heaven.

 

^^This.
If they made a 2560×1440 16:9 laptop 18.4" panel, I would heart it.

 

It looks like 16:10 has come and gone. What's worst, glossy reflective screen or 16x9?

 

That's a great idea. Think I'm going to do that. Such a simple solution. Amazing.

 

Apathy (also called impassivity or perfunctoriness)

 

We have rotating 1200p HP displays for the advisors where I work... really awesome displays. Talk about seeing a complete webpage on one screen, all at once. It's beautiful. Flip to landscape when you need it, or flip to portrait for productivity. Those displays are very hard to come by nowadays.

 

Didn't realize that they're hard to find. I'd better get cracking...

 

Actually for the way some are using it for productivity (ie. portrait), it is better once the screen ratio moves to 21:9. Also, take note of TN screen limitations if you are going to use it that way, 2.0.

 

They did it for profit yes, but that doesnt mean that 16:9 isnt better. There are so many things that are made for 16:9 these days which makes 16:10 monitors not compatible.

And you gain horizontal space with 16:9 because 16:9 is a wider aspect ratio than 16:10.

 

Well, new anyways. You can get them refurb or off lease on-the-cheap though. I don't think HP makes them anymore. They still make 1200p monitors, just not of the rotating variety, AFAIK.

I could go both ways on that. 21:9, IMO, is only useful for watching 16:9 letterboxed movies... without the letterboxes. I personally would much rather have 16:10, or even a decent resolution 16:9.

 

I've thought many times about trying to run my laptop in portrait mode with an external mouse and keyboard. I might revisit that idea after reading this thread

 

Has anyone told this guy the ribbon can be minimized? In Office 2010 some stuff (like Word) is context-sensitive and the right-click menu can bring up common stuff you'd normally hit the ribbon for. I've typed whole reports without opening the ribbon once.

In Windows 8 they are (currently) defaulting to a minimized ribbon. I guess time will tell how often the huddled masses actually use stuff in there.

No, Windows is not the worst offender. Gnome 3 is probably *the* worst, as they have defaulted to unnaturally large title bars which are virtually useless. Windows 8 title bars are bigger than they need to be, but despite having the conventional way to adjust them yanked out post-Win7, the settings are still registry-accessible.

 

The reason why most people don't like 16:9 is because they dont understand the difference between aspect ratio and resolution.

All in all 16:9 leads to lower prices because it is more cost efficient. So unless you really like squarish formats you are a winner of this development.

 

What you did there... I see it.

 

The reason most people (who don't like 16:9) don't like 16:9 is the loss of vertical space in equivalent resolutions. Current 1920x1080 screens replaced 1920x1200 screens, and some people were quite fond of those 120 vertical pixels for usability purposes. Of course, if my Envy 14 were 16x10, it's more likely that it would be 1440x900 than 1680x1050, so some people probably do benefit from it. Personally, I would appreciate 16:9 more if it made 14 inchers wide enough for dedicated numpads to be a bit more standard, but that's just my wishful thinking.

 

Heh same here. I just gained extra 200 pixels horizontally from 16:9...
1600x900 is just awesome from 1400x900!

 

I like 16:9

 

I don`t think it works that way SubZero

 

Guys ..
You have to set it up everything properly and MAINLY manually
Decide what is your desired screen how big , ratio , resolution and then OSes
has ability to rearrange screen balance it ..
Nec has wide range of monitor typed for you guys which you love ..
Go ahead and pick ..
Product Choice: LCD Desktop Displays - NEC Display Solutions United Kingdom

 

Aspect ratio has nothing to do with horizontal space. It's ASPECT RATIO not NUMBER OF PIXEL RATIO. As stated about ten times already, 1680x1050 (16:10) --> 1600x900 (16:9) loses pixels width and height. 1920x1200 (16:10) -- 1920x1080 (16:9) loses pixels height. Only one thing is designed for 16:9... TV. Movies are 2.34:1. How many people do you know that use their computers for TV 80% of the time? Not many if any.

 

If we ignore the screen resolution, and focus on form factor (because the form factor is designed around the screen):

The good: 14 to 15 inchers can accommodate keypads now.
The bad: Lost vertical space, restricting touchpad size (as in some touchpads could have been even bigger.) Ports selection are reduced too.

Anymore to add?

 

Since I'm studying that business, a lot. And keep in mind that watching TV is why the "monitor" was invented.

 

What does that have to do with anything?

 

I use my 16:9 screen a whole lot more than my TV to tell you the truth. Almost everybody I know of use their computers more than their TV.

Here in Norway we are bombarded with commercial breaks every 15 minute or so, so movies and TV series are impossible to watch though cable TV or satelitte TV. But I do know a lot of people who also stream content to their TV instead of watching it on their notebook though.

The reason why most people don`t really care about the 16:9 ratio is because the majority use their notebooks for entertainment purposes, ie TV, series, games etc which is what this ratio is designed for

 

Umm, it's called advertising, which pays for the content you watch, well kinda, and it's been that way since TV has been around.

Care to share some actual statistics that validates that is what a "majority use their notebooks for"? And what's so horrible about 16:10? You can play 16:9 content on 16:10 but not the other way around.

 

I was trying to tell you that many people rather watch commercial free content on their notebooks or stream commercial free movies/TV shows through netflix etc and to their flatscreen TVs instead of suffering through the commercials. That is why the people I know use their PCs a lot more than TV as a response to your "How many people do you know that use their computers for TV 80% of the time? Not many if any.".

If there was an option to pay more each month for commercial free products, which was easy accessible, I am pretty shure many would have opt for that option instead of suffering through make up and shampoo commercials. Which is why I along with many other think that the current entertainment options need to change.

I don`t have any statistics for what people use their notebooks for but I`m guessing that most use it for entertainment purposes, not for work and hency is not bothered by the 16:9 drama you and other people boast so greatly HTWingNut.

And didn`t they go for 16:9 instead of 16:10 because of cost? I agree that it would be nice to have 16:10 ratio instead because you can still change the ratio of whatever you are doing, but I personally don`t see it as something catastrophic if they don`t. That is my opinion

 

It puts things in perspective; and dismisses the idea that the switch to widescreen resolution is somehow a betrayal of monitor law. The 16:10 is not the panacea of screen ratio nor the holy grail of LCD perfection. It is one ratio among a great many to come and go in the past 100 years.

 

Eh, I'd say it's more like:

1280 x 800 --> 1366 x 768
1440 x 900 --> 1600 x 900
1680 x 1050 --> 1920 x 1080 (it merely happens to have the same width as 1920x1200, but that's it)
1920 x 1200 --> 2048 x 1152 (only for select few desktop monitors)

Not in terms of market segment, in terms of actual closest resolution.

 

Full-size keyboards in laptops as small as 11.6" (Thinkpad X120e). 16:10 allowed full-size keyboards in ultraportables down to 12.1" (Thinkpad X20x).

Yes. You have to compare them based on what's now available in the market, not based on coincidences where the number happens to be the same.

As someone who almost exclusively does "work" on his laptop, I'll say that in general, I don't mind the 16:10 to 16:9 transition.

On lower-end or smaller WXGA/HD laptops, it really makes little difference between 1366x768 and 1280x800. I've had laptops with both, and there's really no usage difference. If anything, the HD screen can better support sidebars.

On 13-15" laptops, the transition brought an increase in high-res screens available in smaller form factors, so I view that as a positive change. Yes, the 15.4" 1920x1200 option was lost, but few laptops had that as a choice to begin with. Now, most higher-end 15" laptops have FHD panels, and some 13" laptops even have HD+ panels (with FHD possibly to come, and already available for a few years in the Sony Vaio Z).

Higher-end 14" laptops are offering HD+ (1600x900) whereas they previously topped out at WXGA+ (1440x900). That's a net gain in pixels, although one could always gripe about higher DPI, etc.

The only real big "loser" from the transition, though, are the 17" desktop replacements. Where 1200 vertical pixels were available before, now there's only 1080.

Overall, though, I would consider the shift "positive," but then again, I've never been in the market for a DTR.