What screen do you prefer? (standard vs. wide)

4:3 please come back
Vote for your preference

 

I prefer widescreen..

14" 1440x900

 

WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS
I love widescreen. I wouldn't buy a new laptop or monitor without it
Widescreen offers higher productivity because you can fit/view more on the screen.
I have heard of people like you that still prefer 4:3. I prefer 16:9 over 16:10 btw.

 

I like widescreen, but note I mean widescreen 16:10, not the 16:9 that notebooks are moving toward.

16:10 feels like a more efficient use of space, as well as an easier ratio to build laptop chassis around. I think it is a great standard. I suppose 16:9 is the future though, and that annoys me somewhat, the world is still finishing the transition to widescreen 16:10 (how many days ago did YouTube FINALLY roll out widescreen support?), and already we are moving wider.

Many websites and programs just can't handle getting any wider, at what point will we only be able to view half a page or less at a reasonable zoom level in Word? When will the madness STOP?

 

Not so. You view less vertically.

And when it comes to the expense for the materials of which it's made of, you pay more for less

 

the wider the better.

 

Like this?
------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------

 

1024*768 < 1280*768 (or 800)
And considering widescreen is now a standard, I don't think you're paying more for anything...

 

Widescreen but 16:10

 

i take whichever screen that gives me a higher res in absolute terms. usually thats a 4:3 screen. i guess im a pixelphile.

i certainly don't mind 16:10 screens (if it has higher res vertically), i love my samsung.

 

strongly prefer 4:3
there is a reason they have a rotate feature on the gpu settings pane
eye reads from top to bottom, the more lines the better
widescreen is good for two things
1) first person shooters (not for rts!)
2) marketing departments
I can always watch my movies with bands on top and bottom as long as the horizontal resolution is at least as much as HD, which is ubiquitous these days

 

I want a choice.

And I really resent LCD makers (ultimately, just a bunch of vendors) making the decision.

 

Oh no I don't want anything more than 16:9 that is wide enough and I like it.
I noticed that my dell i9 is something between 16:9 and 16:10

 

True..but my T42 had a 14.1 1440x1050 screen, my T400 has a 14.1 1440x900 screen. Less space

 

I really like the 12" 16x10 WXGA screen on my x200 Tablet. It provides decent screen real estate (30% more pixels than 1024x768) and a manageable 125 DPI. Widescreen is also good for video content as you have less screen wasted for letterboxing. Unfortunately, widescreen is not quite as good for representing 8.5x11 paper (1.3:1 for paper, 1.33:1 for 4x3, 1.6:1 for 16x10) in slate mode (only an issue for tablets [mainly when used as an ebook reader]).

One HUGE advantage of widescreen is that the 12" x200 has the same full size keyboard as the 14" T series. This is big for me and was one of the things (along with an explosion in NAND flash capacity rendering optical media obsolete) that allowed me to choose a X series to replace my 14" T40.

Conversely, for notebooks of 14"+ I tend to prefer 4x3 screens as this results in a better utilization of space. The newer 14" wide T series models waste more space around the keyboard than the old 4x3 T series, and their savings in height is eliminated because the batteries on the wide models tend to stick out.

When you move to 15"+ notebooks I tend to slide back in favor of widescreen because it becomes possible (though not always desirable) to fit a numpad in the extra width.

Overall my preference is for an efficient use of space. On a small (≤13") Notebook with a TrackPoint I find a wide screen display does this best. However, on larger size notebooks you get very few gains in efficiency for the increase in width.


On a Desktop I like LOTS of width. I have two 20" widescreen monitors flanking a 17" standard monitor. This gives me an effective resolution of 4640x1050 [4.42:1] and an extremely wide workspace (ideal for spreading windows all over the place). I rarely if ever have a desire for more than 1000 vertical pixels, but a ton of horizontal pixels is helpful (easier to adjust eye focus left/right vs. up/down).

 

I prefer 16:9.
You DON'T get "more" with 4:3 or 16:9.
You get "different".

I like 16:9 because I can have 2 or 3 windows side by side and get more done.
I use dual 24 inch 1920x1200 monitors. Side by side because I like width.
I am already considering adding a 3rd or 4th monitor.

 

Jon has a good point.
If netbooks were standard 4:3 the keyboards would be even smaller. And I think netbooks look better wide than almost square.

 

I prefer 4:3.

I do a lot of software programming/testing on my machine, and I find it much more useful having more viewable lines in the vertical view of my code, than having a little more viewable horizontal code.

 

Widescreen, 16:10.

Why 16:9? Shouldn't 16:10 be better as there is more vertical pixels while maintaining the same amount of horizontal pixels?

I've never own a 16:9 notebook so correct me if I'm wrong.

 

On large screens (e.g. 16"+) 16:9 has some merit because it allows you to cut down a little on the overall height of the notebook while also fitting in a numpad. 16:9 screens are also pushed for media as you can watch HDTV and some movies (anything not shot with an anamorphic lens) without any border.

16:9 is also being pushed by LCD makers as they get the greatest efficiency from making all of their displays of the same aspect ratio (almost all LCD HDTVs are 16:9).

16:10 is generally better for computing (especially on smaller screens) as it maintains move vertical area. 16:10 was chosen in part because it allows viewing two A4 documents (or 8x10 photographs) side by side full screen.

 

Jon -- your wealth of knowledge on laptops and related technologies continues to amaze me...

By the way -- referencing your earlier comment about the X200 tablet screen, you reinforce the case for that being my next notebook...

 

Well, whether we like it or not, it's going to happen. And I personally thing the 16:10 or 16:9 is more aesthetically pleasing (Golden Ratio), and carrying a widescreen laptop in my hands hanging it by my side feels... better. I can't explain it, but it just seems 'right'. Maybe because it feels more like the dimensional proportions of a book.

 

widescreen is the wave of the future

 

I hate Wides...The only time I enjoy them is at work where I have pivoting monitors and I can turn them vertical.

Nearly 95% of the people at work have their's vertical as well, they would rather have long documentsrather than wide ones/multiples.

 

Although I voted "Strongly prefer wide screen", but I can also live with standard.

 

I prefer widescreen because when reading webpages, docuement etc. it is much easier for me to handle scrolling up and down (ie wheel on mouse or bar on touchpad) than scrolling side to side. Also it is just easier for me to absorb the information when I don't have to scroll side to side.

 

At what resolution would you actually have to scroll horizontally? I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a horizontal scroll bar, and I'm using a 4:3 screen.

Unless we're talking like XGA, this is not a valid point. (Either that, or you're visiting some horribly designed fixed-width sites. )

 

I like wide screen. I like the idea of being able to put windows side by side rather than top and bottom. It is also helpful for Visual Studio programming.

 

Jon,

I would love to see what your setup looks like. Is there any way that you could post some pics of it? I know that may sound like a bit of a weird request, but it sounds bad-@ss and I'd like to see what it looks like.

P.S. Sorry for hijacking the thread a bit. Keep moving people. There's nothing to see here.

 

So is global warming, but that doesn't make it a good thing.

Just to add--I use both. Both have their merits. I really would like to see both remain available--"wave" or not.

 

I have attached a small size image to this forum. You can see a high resolution (3056x2292) on my Flickr collection (link in signature) along with shots of my x200 Tablet.



Vital Information

2x Viewsonic VA2026w (1680x1050 each, 6 months old)
1x NEC Multisync 1760NX (1280x1024, 5 years old)
SoundMAX Dual array microphone above NEC
IBM Space Saver II (w/ Trackpoint; I type with the drawer retracted and this saves a substantial amount of time for basic mouse movements)
Intellimouse Explorer 3.0 (had since before I got into TrackPoints, use only for games and applications that require excessive/precise mouse movements)
iPod Photo (40GB)
ETYMŌTIC er-6i headphones (fantastic iPod accessory, far better than stock)

Not pictured:
Antec Sonata II Case w/
ASUS M2N-SLI Deluxe
AMD Phenom 9600
2x NVidia 7600GT
4GB OCZ DDR2 RAM
4x WD6400AAKS (3 in RAID5)
2x Maxtor 120GB (RAID0)
Sunbeam Card Reader/Fan Controller
Samsung SH-S203N DVD±RW
WD 250GB USB
Creative Inspire T10

 

Sexy! Though the screen in the middle looks so small in comparison to the others you should, possibly, replace it with a vertical widescreen .

 

Nice ibm keyboard
I once saw a keyboard with a built in touchpad @ newegg.

 

Jon,

That's incredible. Kudos. Thanks for posting the pic. I'm hoping my setup can be similar in the near future.

 

And how about this:

1440x900 <<<< 1400x1050
1280x800 <<<< 1400x1050

Yeah, that's right. SXGA+ in the X61 and T61 to WXGA(+) in the newer series. Stinks big time!!!

Well, let's see.

Did our laptops get less deep?
No, they didn't. The vertical space under and above the actual screen got bigger >>> waste! For the same batterycapacity you now need a battery that sticks out. So we have 14" wide laptops that take exactly the same space on the table as would a 15" 4:3. I guess I prefer 1600x1200 over something like 1440x900, wouldn't you?



I strongly prefer 4:3. 16:10 stinks on all sides in laptops. What's the point of wasting multiple dozens of mm on the lid and get a protuding battery because of a #$%^&*() widescreen? It could be no protuding battery with a lot bigger screen (vertical) in the same space.

 

That's a thought. However, all three of them are exactly the same height now (although the middle one has a DPI of 96 vs. 99) so they match very well. I use the middle one for my current task and the others as wings for additional software, reference materials, etc.

 

2 monitors is easy to do, but 3 is a bit more of a challenge.

You either need to get a motherboard built for SLI/Crossfire with 2 PCIx16 slot (this is what I have), or one with a decent integrated GPU (e.g. Radeon 3200 on an AMD 780G board) that you can use in tandem with a dedicated GPU in the PCIx16 slot. There are very few cards (and to my knowledge no laptops) that supports more than 2 displays by itself.

 

Just to show you how much I care about this screen difference: I changed my original plan to get an S10 and instead ordered an x61s for more than triple price, partly because I want to make sure in the years to come I don't have to stare at a w i d e but short screen for hours a day. I went to a local computer store and those short but wide screens of the netbooks were a pain for me.

 

Having used my JVC 7310 subnotebook for about 5 years now (1024x600 resolution -- a "netbook" before its time), I think you made the right choice.

I love the form factor of the subnotes or netbooks for traveling, and they make great emailing and Web surfing machines in hotel rooms in a pinch -- but having said that, I do find the limited screen real estate maddening. Yeah, a user can do the F11 full screen option in a browser, but I'd rather the native resolution of the screen provide that sort of viewing area. And I've never been able to get accustomed to navigating in a virtual 1024x768 (or whatever) screen mode...

So netbooks have their place -- but for longevity and extensive usage, I personally feel that extra screen real estate is worth paying for...

 

Thanks for the reassurance I suppose the weights of these two machines are close? Both around 3 lbs?

 

Knowing the agony of computer-buying, I'm always happy to provide reassurance...

The weights I'm guessing are pretty darned close...The JVC with the useless smaller battery is about 2.2 pounds, and about 3 pounds with the extended battery.

 

Thanks Your JVC's 1024x600 resolutions sounds awful. Reading email on it is like reading captions in a movie, or scrolling marquees on a web page

 

I have a slight preference for 14" SXGA+, but what I'd prefer is a quality screen. If someone offered a good WXGA+ screen, I'd buy that instead. With the demise of the FlexView, there are few left anymoe.

 

1024x600 is the resolution of the dell mini 9

 

Yeah, and my dSLR has 3" 640x480

 

I think Widescreen (16:10) looks better, but Standard has some practical applications as well. Meh.

 

I love the Widescreen view, especially the 16:10, but the 16:9 isn't too bad.

 

It just seems pushing things a little too far to me....part of it is no doubt that my screen is low resolution (1280x800) in the first place, but I find myself wanting to fullscreen most applications for best vertical space.

 

Just to gab a bit about the poll--currently (as of 27 Dec 2008) 40% of respondents prefer standard screens.

I admit, we are the losers. And maybe for good reason, maybe not.

But, if you look at this as just a personal preference, 40% of us have our personal preference totally ignored by notebook manufacturers.

I really think this represents a marketing opportunity.

OK, so what if it is a niche ? Isn't the market for the W700 a relatively small niche ? For the X200 tablet ? For Panasonic Toughbooks ? Even for Thinkpads in general ?

EDIT: Just to add, over the last year or two, Lenovo has developed diarrhea of the Thinkpad line. We now have Ideapads, SLs, and Ws, in addition to the Ts, Xs, and Rs. Surely Lenovo could make one standard screen model.