Why do many hate 16:9?

Not really. Laptops were typically found with 1280x800, 1680x1050, 1920x1200.

1440x900 was not a widely accepted resolution. Basically machines up to 1920x1200 were common place, not above that unless it was a CAD notebook or something.

1440x900 and 1680x1050 were replaced by 1600x900.

Please list me a few 14 inch affordable laptops with 1600x900 resolutions...

 

Errr, just about as "accepted" as 1600x900 is now. Lenovo, Dell, and HP's business lines in 14" and 15" laptops used 1440x900, as did Apple in its MBP 15. Lower-end 17" laptops from HP, Toshiba and probably others also had 1440x900 screens.

HP Envy 14 Spectre, Lenovo Thinkpad T420/T420s, Dell Latitude E6420, HP Elitebook 8460p, Alienware M14x, HP dm4, Sony VAIO CW, HP Envy 14 (discontinued, though), etc.

Plenty are available with 1600x900, although more would be even better.

EDIT: Well, you just sneaked in "affordable" after I posted... But many of the above still apply, depending on your definition of affordable. Higher-resolution 16:10 screens were hardly "affordable" either, so that's an unfair criteria.

 

I disagree.

1280x800 --- 1366x768
1440x900 ---
1680x1050 --- 1600x900
1920x1200 --- 1920x1080
and so on.

16:10 to 16:9 is a loss of ~10% in vertical resolution. The ratio is a comparison of height vs width. Meaning the comparison of the two ratios must be done with the closest width being close or exact to compare them properly.

 

One of my clients, a quickly growing tech company, was providing 1920x1080 monitors for people for a while. We got a freak shipment of 1920x1200 panels recently, and were giving them out.

One manager with a sharp eye saw the additional resolution, told someone else, and it snowballed. I now have a backlog of users requesting 1920x1200 panels. Engineers, managers, secretaries, even the shipping guy.

I have a strong disdain of 1920x1080 laptops because they removed x1200 completely. The only company still producing 1920x1200 laptops is Apple, and I'm sure the day they go Retina, they will go 16:9.

 

^Well, 1080p is a tolerable resolution simply because there's just so much real estate. 1200p is icing.

In other news, I used my old Acer today. It resides in my kitchen for reasons. It also has a 1280x800 panel in it, and my gosh I miss it. There isn't a lot of extra space added at that resolution over 1366x768, but usability wise it's MUCH MUCH MUCH better.

 

As long as there is no real net loss of pixels, I'm sort of indifferent, minus my Alienware's 1920x1200 RGBLED panel. 1280x800 to 1368x768 really does NOT make a difference.

 

What is the next standard aspect ratio after 16:9?

 

April fools?

 

I don't care how it's sliced or diced I much prefer 5:4 resolution which is why I gladly play my games in 1280x1024 resolution.

Also wrt 16:9 format I dislike the wider form factor. When you have a 17+ inch laptop it down right begins to look ridiculous.

 

Really? I chose to borrow my old hp tablet that pales in comparison to my old alienwar m11x due to the resolution. When i went over to pick up one of the laptops I downloaded some previous code and it was noticeably more painful (both are pretty painful honestly) then the hp tablet with 1280x800 and enough to warrant dealing with the heat and much lower battery life.

Thats a good point about FHD+, as 16:10 wasnt around long enough for us to see it truely develop.

Yeah I used to love the 17in segment, but now with 10% less pixels/real estate in a larger form makes the segment dead to me. Now offer a higher res in a 17in and id be back onboard.

Sent from my PG06100 using Tapatalk

 

Overall the change from 1280x800 to 1368x768 is not noticeable. From my X201/X200 Tablet to my X220 Tablet. YES it is wider, but again 32 pixels for an IPS screen and Sandy Bridge I think is justified. Sure I would love a 4:3 SXGA+ 12" screen, but I also don't want to pay 3000 for a tablet.

 

I don't think it's the ratio that irks everyone, but rather the fact that manufacturers have used the ratio aspect as an excuse to give lower resolution screens, and at times, worse quality panels.

The switch from 4:3 -> 16:10 brought the average, everyday notebook display from 1024x768 to 1280x800, with almost every notebook having an option of 1680x1050 or 1920x1200. This was back in 2003-2006ish.

The switch from 16:10 -> 16:9 brought the average, everyday notebook display from 1280x800 to 1366x768. The 16:10 -> 16:9 change occurred around late 2007. It's been over 4 years and just up until now are they offering high resolution options like the 16:10 screens had.

And the fact that the screen bezels on almost every 16:9 screen I've seen is HUGE. I really hope with the new MacBook Pro refresh Apple sticks with 16:10.

 

Right, I was going to make that point too. Seems in the last 3-4 years the quality of panels has gone to crap, washed out, dim, horrible viewing angles, terrible contrast panels. They just make everything glossy to hide it as much as possible. But when your viewing angle restricts you to nearly perpendicular sight line to the screen, it's overly ridiculous.

Actually as much as I'd prefer 16:10 I'd be ok if the panel is of higher quality. But they typically aren't.

 

I think you can make a pretty good argument the panels sold today are better than the ones of yesteryear. They're LED which means they're much less likely to dim over time than CFFL bulb lit screens. They're more power efficient, which means better battery life. They're also brighter than the old panels, even if the contrast and viewing angles are no better. As I recall people complained about the contrast and viewing angles on the old machines too. I don't think that's changed much over the years for the average notebook.

As for 16:9, I think I prefer HD over XGA for a 12" notebook just cause the space on the side is more useful for toolbars, taskbars and such. As you go larger, the tragedy of losing 4:3 becomes more apparent. The difference between HD and HD+ is so small it's hardly worth mentioning, but if you go up to FHD, the pixel density is so high, it makes usability a problem. A SXGA+ or UXGA, which offers a comfortable 133 pixel density, LCDs offer a lot more vertical resolution, which is more useful than space on the sides as typical notebook usage like Office and Internet are more top to bottom oriented than side to side.

 

That doesn't make any sense. Besides the net increase has been and will continue to be an increase in overall resolution. Manufacturers have made the change to a new aspect ratio because the market is in content; and thats what the majority of users want.

Yours is a dying breed that refuses to move forward with the times. As was the generation that covet tape to DVD and vinyl before it. If you refuse to accept technology, we'd all still be living in the stone age.

If there truly is a market for the ratio that you desire, the someone will move in to take advantage of it. Your dollars/Euros is an offer no manufacture can refuse.

 

That is a completely naive outlook on the situation. It's not about "accepting technology". Just because it's new and different doesn't mean it's better or the right direction. As a quick example, MP3 is worse than vinyl in sound quality and richness even to someone who isn't an audiophile. MP3 (or whatever codec you wish to use) is more convenient and cheaper to process and distribute, but it definitely isn't "better".

Believe it or not companies do things to fatten their wallets even if it isn't the right thing for the product, because it may not matter as much to a majority of consumers. And if the entire industry does it, you don't have much recourse.

Personally, I don't care as long as we do increase resolution and improve in quality. But my Vostro 1500 at 1680x1050 is worlds better than any 1366x768 screen that's available as was the 1920x1200 screen in the Gateway P7811FX I had, and those were both "budget" machines.

 

What kind of logic is that? Its the market that fuels innovation. Nevertheless, Apple is a whole different animal altogether.

If not for the advent of video/film where would the topic of resolution be? All of you should be thankful.

 

Sheeple are we... It's not the market, it's the almighty dollar. It's the best way to make the most money even if the product suffers slightly. Trust me, I'm an engineer and am forced to do things that I know aren't best for the product, but I know it means more money for the company. I don't have a choice since that's what I'm paid to do.

LOLWUT? That makes ZERO sense. Because video/film existed we should be happy with whatever they shovel our way? Since Henry Ford developed the automobile we should be thankful that it's polluting our planet and causing wars for oil? Not only that but I hate to say it, do you really think LCD's existed because of film/video? No, because of laptops primarily. LCD's have been in laptops long before it was even considered as a tube TV "replacement".

 

It all depends on the resolution. I don't see how 1920x1080 is "better" than 1920x1200. And not all movies are 2.35:1, some are 2.39 and others are 1.85. So you'll still get black bars still or some image cropped off. I don't understand why there's such fuss over having black bars. And as far as a laptop, think how ridiculous a 2.35 aspect laptop would look like. A high def screen resolution would be 1920x800, lolwut?

 

1920x1080 isn't any better than 1920x1200 but the reasoning is it allowed more FHD into notebooks, which this is partially true for consumer notebooks (XPS, Envy, etc), business notebooks have always offered WUXGA and UXGA in their 15-17 notebooks, so it really is is a loss for business class laptops where 120 pixels will make a difference if you do spreadsheets all day. And again it is the last gripe before I move to an M18x.

 

16:9 is inherently cheap to make, and the fact that its made in large quantities makes it even cheaper. It isn't necessarily wanted, but its accepted. And its cheap.

16:10 is inherently more expensive than 16:9 and is even more expensive since now it doesn't have the scale advantage of 16:9.

As for the resolutions going from 16:10→16:9, 1400x900→1600x900 is the only direct improvement that a 16:9 resolution has had over a 16:10. All the others, vertical resolution is lost and horizontal resolution doesn't increase enough for the increase to be useful (from not being able to put 2 windows side by side to being able to)

For 12 inch laptops, I sorta like 16:9 as it allows a full width keyboard. 1600x900 would be nice, but it seems like the only 12 inch machine with that is the Panasonic SX. Palm rest is a bit short, but I don't really mind after getting used to it.

 

There fixed

 

It's not forced, there are still 16:10 notebooks, just not new ones. If your needs aren't enough to warrant Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge, then plenty of 16:10 notebooks to choose from. There ARE also 1920x1200 monitors still and 1680x1050, you just have to pay $$$ for them.

 

You forget the MacBook Pros? They are still 16:10 for the time being.

Honestly, I'm happy to be able to buy a notebook with a good screen in the X220. The stick is so easy to scroll on it somewhat mitigates the loss in resolution.

 

Honestly, when Ivy Swings around, and if Apple still goes 16:10 for their Pro line, I'm jumping ship and becomming an Apple user.

As for the above poster: X220 doesn't have any higher resolutions, but does have an IPS option. Vaio SA, Vaio Z(1,2), Apple MBA13, ASUS UX31 are all the 13" laptops I can remember that have higher resolutions displays (from 1440x900 on the MBA13 [16:10!] to 1920x1080 on the Vaio Z) Though of them, the Vaio Z2 panel is probably of the best quality (though still TN - but a really good TN), and has the least bezel, iirc. At least less then my Vaio SA does.

 

unfortunately no, and that's its biggest fault.

perhaps next model... *fingers crossed*

 

It's all part of the new LCDs that are being sold today.

 

My first monitor was 1680x1050. I would take that resolution again in a heartbeat. I only recently saw a 1920x1200 screen and I was floored by it. I even looked at one side by side to a 1080p monitor of the same "size" and liked the 16x10 aspect ratio better.

It's preference. I like the sound of having a monitor that has the default resolution of 1680x1050 rather than the generic 1600x900. I honestly thought that the 1600x900 was the old line of monitors and 1680x1050 was replacing that. Guess I was very mistaken...

 

Another "Positive" that i can think of for 16:9 is the trend of Video Game console ports.

Everything on the Xbox360 and PS3 are designed for 16:9 televisions. The games are Native 720p/1080p, and when you play those on a PC with a 16:9 screen, everything is spaced and lines up perfectly.

Not a huge positive.. but a small bonus.

 

Then again you can always argue that if 16:10 screens were to stay on till today they would use LED backlight... Fact is 16:10 screens are already almost 90% into the grave.

 

There were a few LED backlit 16:10 screens.

I was planning on trying to replace my current screen with the one from the M4400 if I found it too unbearable.

 

There are some serious love for the 16:10 in this forum. Thats for shure

 

It will do what it's doing now: follow the money. As I've already mentioned, that would be in multi-media.

An understatement to say the least.

 

21:9 would be virtually unusable, even with a major resolution jump, it would be far too narrow in even a 17" laptop Configuration.

At 21:9, with comparable pixel density to a 1080p, you are talking about a 2560x1080 screen.

If the Screen is physically 16" Wide, the height is 9" on a 16:9 display.. Obviously.

However, on a 16" wide screen, it would only be 6.8" high at 21:9.. Difficult to use, even at the higher resolution.

Now.. I will just sit back and wait for 4096x2304 to hit a MBP..

 

I think manuf should define what a computer viewing monitor is VS a monitor for viewing movies!

They should just make more of 1920 x 1200.

Manuf should make more extra wide shoes too.

 

So panels with lower resolutions for the same money and sometimes more money is a step forward??? Please pass what youre smoking cause I wanna take a trip to where you are....

Sent from my PG06100 using Tapatalk

 

Talk about timely;


Giz says dont do 1366;

http://gizmodo.com/5898313/5-reasons-to-spend-more-than-500-on-your-next-laptop

And..

Why 1366 is a Joke; (Apparently Flava Flav Rapped about it!)

Note to Notebook Makers: 1366 is a Joke!

 

And some serious love for the 16:9 that's for *shure* (spelling). If they came out with a 4:1 screen seems this crowd would be perfectly fine because we had movies invented and should be perfectly ok with it and count our blessings.

 

I am not loving it, but I`m not hating it either. I just don`t get annoyed by these little things

 

That's because you're only a teenager...

Introducing the new 4:1 aspect monitor. It's new, so it's better!

 

I`m not a teenager. And why does that matter? I work with computers every day. I use a 16:9 display. I have noticed the difference but I adapt. I choose to use my energy and focus on other things than annoy myself over small details.

Yeah I`m going to stop responding to you. Just deal with the fact that not everyone share your opinion with this

 

Sorry, seriously I thought in another thread I saw you said you were like 16 or 17... no offense. And it matters because younger people don't know any different because that's all they're used to, that's all.

I'm not trying to impose anything on anyone. I have my opinion you have yours. Obviously you do focus your energy on small things otherwise this wouldn't bother you.

I'm not annoyed by it either. I was just stating my opinion and facts, that's all.

 

I am fine with game/movie/work on 16:9, The only thing I don't like is that it doesnt fit my wallpapers nicely. I use photographs taken by people and in general they are all 3:2 or 4:3

 

lol@4:1
Everyone is really entitled to their own opinion and own preference on screen aspect ratio. I just really wish consumers have more of a choice in deciding what suits them best.

 

I used both and the 16:10 is more efficient resolution for office and work.
the only reason they impose the new 16:9 resolution is to reduce manufacturing cost.

 

And it looks like a rearview mirror. Wow, flip it upside down!

 

You joke.. BUT...



Stunning NEC CRV43 43-Inch Curved Monitor Is Stunningly Expensive

It was Curved, which is great.. Thick.. yes.. but at 2880x990 resolution, its 32:10..

 

990 vertical is at least reasonable.

 

I too work in IT and I adapt everyday or else I wont have a job. But where does it end??? They take away vertical pixles but we gain nothing horizontally. So we pay the same or more for less. No matter how we adapt we still get less for our money and it hampers our jobs.

I went from a 15.4in 1920x1200 to a 15.6in 1920x1080 recently and even after a month Im still feeling the pain. Same thing happened when I made my first switch to 16:9. I went from a vostro 1700/m17x r2 to an xps 1645 and despite loving that laptop the screen still bothered me a bit months after buying it. Sure I can adapt and I made it work, but I feeling that 10% loss months later and no signs of forgetting it isnt good and sometimes affected my workflow.

Like I said above "where does it end???". Sure 990 is "reasonable" for some now, but then it goes to 891 and then lower and lower until we are saying 7xx is "reasonable". I can and will always adapt for the sake of keeping my job, but the idea that its going to get worse and we will get less and less for our money over the years is starting to scare me.

Now if this trend offered higher resolutions at a wider ratio then I would be fine. But as it stands that isnt the case. Its things being taken away for the same cost.

 

It will be regulated by market forces i figure. The 16:9 native (1080p/720p) had a ring to it that made consumers demand it.. even if they didn't know any better. Once a device gets to the point where people complain, sales soften and things will change.

1366x768 is just now starting to get a bit of a backlash in the market, at a grass-roots level. Apple knows this and they will start pushing higher resolutions in the Macbooks.. Everyone will follow suite.

Now. Aspect ratios will probably never dip below 16:9 except for niche applications like those Ultra-wide Game displays or Cinema Displays (which consumers don't seem to want in bulk).