4:3 aspect ratio vs widescreen

what say you?

I've tried both and I think I'm still a fan of the 4:3.

 

It would depend on your needs. but for Office and Internet, it's the way to go. Who needs more white space on the side? Plus on a 15" like mine it's taller and easier to read. On a 14" SXGA+ you're getting much more vertical real estate, which is good for Office and Internet.

 

yea I agree. the only advantage they have is for wide screen videos. other than that they seem less practical for word processing since verticle is more important than horizontal range in word processing

 

This is a common topical theme, but really it's rather irrelevant. Widescreen is all there is now, no matter what your preference is.

 

toughbooks are still 4:3

but no like my laptop is a 4:3 but if I convert to widescreen I suddenly lose some horizontal space making my word processing that much harder cause I need to read whole paragraphs and not more focus on individual sentences as is the case by widescreen

 

I actually like 16:10 better, since I can fit 2 pages in Word side by side. That's important to me, because I work with big documents all the time, and seeing more pages is really useful. Also, it's good for having a browser window open and a sidebar on the side.

 

I'll probably keep my X61 rather than sell it when I eventually upgrade as it is probably the last foreseeable 4:3 ThinkPad to be produced, ever.

So, will it be a collector's item and be worth a pretty penny if it remains in good condition?

Rather wishful thinking as even the iconic IBM ThinkPad 701 butterfly keyboard belongs to a museum and isn't worth much now.

 

4:3 is old and looks it to me. 16:10 is perfectly fine to me. 16:9 is the devil.

 

That's probably true. However, the low resolution on the x61 (1024x768) means that almost any widescreen resolution would be at least as good (and usually better). The 4x3 complaint has a lot more merit when talking about exchanging SXGA+ (1400x1050) for WXGA+ (1440x900) or UXGA (1600x1200) for WSXGA+ (1680x1050) as you are losing a lot of vertical resolution.

 

We just need a rotatable screen , best of both worlds.

 

I second this mans words.

 

I'll be sad when I sell my 4:3 T61 to upgrade to a T400. I see nothing wrong with 4:3 screens and my T61 has a resolution that still offers more horizontal real estate than a WXGA T400 (tho not a WXGA+). And for net browsing, vertical is better.

Plus, manufacturers are not generally taking advantage of widescreen format to reduce the depth of machines. Look at the X200 -- an inch wider than the X60/X61 but no shallower, so overall a larger footprint.

 

Ah... words of wisdom as usual again from you, Jon. Adding reputation points to you after learning lots from your thoughtful, constructive and helpful posts.

I do feel that a point of diminishing return is reached when too high a resolution is crammed into a limited space, especially for aging (yes all of us will be one day), myopic & presbyopic users whose eyes have to strain at tiny fonts.

My previous lappy has a glossy 14.1" widescreen so I was concerned about the downgrade in screen real estate. But I'm now a satisfied X61 user as I find the matt screen to be comfortably readable without distracting reflections. In fact, I've adapted well and now prefer a more compact font that makes up for the 12.1" 4:3 screen.

Moreover the weight advantage more than offset the lack of screen size since I almost always carry my lappy with me all the time. A compact and lightweight ThinkPad AC adapter also helps unlike the heavy, bulky bricks of other brands.

I only miss the 16:10 format when watching movies in their native widescreen resolution on my X61, but I'm pleased with the best of both worlds: a lappy that is powerful enough to do the heavy lifting when necessary and play HD content smoothly - all in a ultralight package that does not strain the shoulders.

 

But the X200 enjoys a full-sized keyboard that's exactly the same at the T-series!

But the X61 is more sexy as the screen bezel is kept to a minimum and the keyboard is truly edge-to-edge.

I wouldn't mind a slightly larger footprint (the X200 is actually lighter than the X61 with both on 4c batts) to enjoy the full-sized keyboard. But why couldn't they squeeze a 13.3" screen instead of having users put up with a wide screen bezel?

Yeah, I'm aware of the X300 series. I personally feel that with a full-sized keyboard already taking up the space, why not throw in a 13.3" screen so it's edge-to-edge? Definitely sexier and more useful with slight marginal weight penalty.

Just my 2c...

 

for 14" screens I prefer 16:10. this aspect ratio is perfect, I didnt like 14" 4:3 screens back in the day however.
for 15" screens I prefer 4:3. 15 inch on a 16:10 makes the computer way too wide and ugly.

on 13" panels i actually dont mind 16:9. I had a sony z over the weekend and I found that in 13" this new aspect ratio is actually not so bad.

 

I was the opposite because 14" 4:3 gets you SXGA+ as opposed to WXGA+. For a 15" notebook, you're getting the same vertical height, but a widescreen just has more white space on the side, which I don't care about. Also a standard notebook is taller and easier to read.

 

Personally I prefer 4/3 for text and Internet and wide-screen for videos/pictures. I think a 4/3 12 inch screen is ideal for what I do, so the X61would be on my list for sure. The low resolution is fine by me ... softer on the eyes for proloned use. I need to read a lot of text for a living.

 

I'm clinging to my 4:3 I.P.S. thinkpad for as long as I possibly can. And buckle up because they are not even wide enough still. Now it looks like the trend is getting even MORE short & wide! What's next. Ribbon screens. And forget about what looks new or old, because consider if notebooks had started out widescreen format from the beginning, then only rectnly changed to 4:3. You'd think eeew it's so WIDE, what is that thing from the 90's L.O.L. But also forget about resolution as ZaZ points out you can get as dense as you want, denser, in any ratio really. My last T.P. was a wsxga+ & now this one sxga+; 15.4" & 15.0". Don't give me any more on the fringes unless you're making me scroll less. I rarely if ever have to scroll side to side, even on 4:3, but no matter what you will be scrolling down.

I.D.K. but for this poll I'd hold things like common D.P.I. (obviously no one wants XGA on a 4:3 but sxga+ & uxga if you can handle it are awesome) & trends/popularity, even how what we view on them starts conforming to what the popular screen size is- hold all that constant *& just say what shape rectangle you like. We're talking about ratios here . And HTis is cynical, but I suspect short & wide displays could be somewho cheaper to cut. Or just another arbitrary shift to visually shame you into an upgrade. Or maybe movies are the reason? If one primarily watched movies, I do get that. But what looks new? Man, what if the new thing was circular displays? Rectangles would look old, but they would still rule. L.O.L. @ everyone carrying around discs.

zenit, that is probably the direction I'll be going next myslef. The z doesn't seem too bad, as said get the resolution high enough 1600x900 and I can live with it. I Just don't need all that horizontal wiht only 900 vertical!

 

Being wider is fine, but don't be shorter: that's the problem with 'wide screens'. In a 12.1" screen, it is not really wider, but so much shorter that you feel like looking at a fraction of a page.

Hope the manufacturers wake up soon to return us the 4:3.

 

Is there reason to believe that OLED technology is more flexible towards producing different sized screens on the same production line than LCD screens ?

I ask because clearly it is the LCD manufacturers pushing screen size towards 16:9.

If OLED manufacturing is more flexible, then one day we may be freed from the demands of the evil LCD manufacturers, and may see machines actually designed to meet the needs of the consumers.

 

well i thought that the only reason 16:9 is becoming/forced to be a trend is that they can fake the market advertisement to say they give you a 15,6" screen. while this is true in regards of diameters it is a hoax in regards of square inches.

 

the real reason is that 16:9 is cheaper to manufacture and less stuff is apparently wasted.

 

But more bezel area wasted

 

hi there, so which one u recommend when choose the widescreen? is the x200,200s,x300,x301,t400,t400s have different resolutions? i have dilemma as well,day to day i am thinking to switch from 3/4 to widescreen bc widescreens are everywhere now. btw wanted to know if lenove will use 3/4 ever again? thanks

 

I doubt it.

 

I got à t42p from eBay last Week After my inspiron broke the Week before. The 4:3uxga IPs flexview is awsome and really Malkes me Wonder how i Could have stared at the dim wuxga 16:10 on the Dell. For me and probably man others vertical space and Vertical pxels count most. Same 1200 vertical Pixels As with the wuxga with decreased dpi was à Big improvement for me.

 

You must have had a bad copy. My last notebook from Dell had a 15.4" WUXGA screen, and after 5 years' use it is still very bright. My even older (9 years old) 15" UXGA from Dell is also bright and clear. They are awesome screens. Re aspect ratio: it took a bit of getting used to moving from a UXGA to a WUXGA - the good is that the WUXGA is smaller and more portable; the bad is that the top of the screen is lower - makes a difference with word processing. However, you can have a screen the same height and wide-screen- it is called the 17" WUXGA. I was going to go for the W700 to have that, but wanted switchable graphics, and went for the W500.

 

My father-in law just got a Sony HD 16:9 flat screen TV. He used to have a 4:3 TV. 16:9 sucks for normal TV channels too. Nothing looked right.
Screw 16:9.

 

You know you can set it to 4:3 mode right?

 

That makes too much sense. Besides, a lot of people hat the idea of buying a "big screen" TV and then having black bars on the side. Personally, I'm strongly in the camp of maintaining the intended aspect ratio no matter what, but I know I'm in the minority.

 

I believe using a 16:9 HDTV in 4:3 mode damages on the long term the display, it was stated on my Samsung's manual.

 

Burn in is theoretically possible, but it is very unlikely on newer displays (especially LCDs). The slightly more likely occurrence (but still very rare) is that the black bars on the sides will remain higher brightness long term because they weren't stressed as heavily as the active picture content.

The best option is of course to have a variable format display, but these don't really exist anymore (a lot of high end 4:3 CRTs had true 16:9 modes).

 

Jon, burn-in afflicts plasma screens, IIRC. It's a non-issue with LCDs, which suffer(ed?) more from ghosting due to them not being responsive enough to cope with swift moving images.

However, new technology allows for minuscule image shifts to minimize plasma burn.

LCDs would be better if portions of the image is always there (eg running ticker tape at the bottom of the screen, ever-present menu or icon bars of browsers & applications, etc)

General rule of thumb: Plasma for movies, LCDs for computer work.

Public display panels using Plasma suffers from burn-in using Plasma while LCDs are less bright.

http://www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/plasmatv/plasmatv-burnin.html

http://www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/plasmatvreviews/plasma-vs-lcd.html