Who told people wide screen was a good idea?

As much as I like 16x10, I discovered while riding the train that a 16x9 screen might stay still more than my 16x10 screen (because the lever-arm is shorter) .

Yada, yadda .... 16x10 is better for photography. 10x9 is better for video. For power consumption 16x10 might be better because it's easier to light the screen from the edge. For video games, I am not sure, and it might matter which game.

 

There is no wide screen for laptops (there are big wide screens for desktop or separate monitors). There is the squarish screen, and the narrow screen (narrow in vertical dimension). The 16:9 is not wide, just narrow vertically, making the relative horizontal dimension much wider than vertical.

 

1600x900 should be the bare minimum resolution for all thinkpads
1366x768 is just useless because not only is there not enough vertical space, there's not enough horizontal space to use two windows side by side

 

Sounds like semantics to me.... I think most people think of "wide" in relative terms, in which case a 16:9 is wider than 4:3

I remember hunting down one of the last 4:3 T61 machines that Lenovo sold... I loved that screen! And I dislike 16:10 or 16:9 screens on business laptops because, frankly, they're useless for pretty much everything... Word, Excel, Photoshop, etc. Even web browsing needs more vertical screen estate than these screens offer. My external monitor is a 1600x1200 and soooo much more useful for everything than a widescreen would be

I am fascinated how the laptop industry came to be ruled by the screen manufacturers. I understand the economics of screen manufacture, but surely the market for 4:3 screens is potentially big enough and business users are willing to pay $50 more for a 4:3 screen?

 

16:10 for the most part does offer more choice and higher resolutions than 4:3 offered. Unless you do a complicated QXGA mod for 15" T4x series, some business laptops (mostly Dell AFAIK) offer WUXGA for 15.4" which is more pixels than UXGA (no loss of vertical pixels, just a gain in horizontal). Only major thing is 14" SXGA+ to WXGA+, but base resolutions went up (XGA to WXGA). 16:9 is terrible because there is a loss of vertical pixels. At the rate we are going, might as well be 3:1.

 

3:1 would actually have some use if there is still over 1000 vertical pixels. You can actually set up windows side by side that way. And nah, at this rate, we'll be 9001:1 soon.

 

I have a Sony Vaio P that has a 1600*768 screen, which is a ratio of 2.08:1. May sound pretty dramatic, but was brilliant at least in the sense that I could browse and whatever on one side of the screen, and still have room for a Skype video chat on the other side. Horizontal res of 1366 isn't enough for that. But in all cases, 768 is still not enough vertical pixels.

 

my simple work around for the last 2 years has been... move the status bar to the right and configure application toolbars to use only 1 row so that you can use max height of the screen. (example, if you use chrome or opera then you can remove url or tabs)

You will miss the app title for applications with multiple instances because windows will only show icon, but once you get used to it you will remember their positions.

 

1440x900 does not go to 1366x768, if you were to look at the transition this way, then there would be no transition from 1440x900.

1440x900 is what can be considered a decent resolution for a 15-inch laptop, 1366x768 is not. 1440x900 was used in 17-inch laptops, 1366x768 is not.

But 1600x900 is the real replacement for 1440x900, as the default resolution for 17-inch laptops.

Then 1680x1050 as the top resolution for many laptops elongated to 1920x1080, and since that's considered "Full HD" they didn't even bother with a 1920x1200 replacement except for in some rare desktop monitors at 2048x1152.

Sure, maybe 1680x1050 seems like it went to 1600x900 because when you pronounce them, both sound like "16....by...." and have the same amount of syllables, and psychologically you categorize them the same because of that and because they both start with 16-hundred-something. This same thinking is what leads people to believe 1920x1080 replaces 1920x1200. It doesn't. 1920x1200 went away, and 1680x1050 elongated to 1920x1080 and became the top resolution.

When comparing the actual resolutions then 1600x900 isn't the 16:9 replacement for 1680x1050. 1680x1050 and 1920x1080 have such similar vertical resolutions, following the two resolutions before it: 1280x800 and 1440x900, which both translated over to similar vertical heights at 1366x768 and 1600x900.

 

I prefer 4:3, 16:10 is acceptable, I find 16:9 really annoying to use.

I was happy to see apple kept the 16:10 screen on the MBA's... very surprising since one of the stronger markets for macs is video production, one of the few use-cases where a 16:9 screen might be preferable. I'd like to think they are starting a trend back to 16:10... but sadly... I think economies of scale have doomed us to 16:9 screens moving forward.

 

Not to make you envy, my new external monitor is 1280x1024, which is 5:4, how's that sound?

 

I'd like to jump in here - i'm a long time (nerdy ) lurker and first time writer. I was really interesting in the X220 but worried that for some graphic design/movies, the "vertical" oriented non landscape would be troublesome. i'm not a huge graphic designer (and when i do need serious things, i do it on my home monitor) but i would like to have a good screen to do work on, and of course to watch widescreen movies. can anyone comment on this? Thanks so much!

 

Troublesome how?

 

I suppose in the way that I wouldn't be able to see everything fully... Or it would be stretched somehow?

 

I'd think for older software Windows 7 would be a bigger problem as it does not allow 16 bit installers. I have a couple older card games from the Windows 3.1 era that I still run and they work fine in Vista. Vista is pretty similar to Windows 7, but allows for 16 installers. Media Player Classic and VLC are a couple good media players that should play most formats. I'd bet they'll work well with whatever you have.

 

1366x768 is used commonly because most consumers simply don't care about resolution, there isn't much reason for a company to put in something that's more expensive that .001 of the population is going to care about(or even notice). (Especially if that .001 wouldn't buy their laptop anyway). Higher resolution isn't as much of a selling point anymore.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the 15 inch 16:10 laptops that I know/knew of had a max of 1680x1050. There are tons of 15" laptops now that have 1920x1080. Some of the 1440x900 laptops turned into 1600x900. Laptops with 1280x800 were usually 12-13" and up, laptops smaller then that would have something like 1024x768. Now many have 1366x768.

The main drawback was that 1920x1200 turned into 1920x1080 instead of turning into 2560x1440(?). And personally, I prefer looking side to side when using a laptop as opposed to up and down (by this I mean I would rather see a paragraph displayed in 2 or 3 sentences, then have it displayed in like 6 or 7) though I have weird taste so that may not apply to everyone.

I don't have a problem with 16:9 if they keep bumping the resolution up and up, and I think resolution battles seem to be returning with smartphones and tablets clamoring to have the sharpest screen. I don't think it'll be long before 2560x1440 resolutions and those like it start appearing on 17" or even 15" laptops

 

16:9 is here to stay. That's reality. To some degree this is an exercise in futility. Perhaps down the road someone will make 4:3 or 16:10 notebooks. The best resolution in history in my opinion is 14" SXGA+. You're still getting 1050 vertical resolution and a 14" laptop is still fairly portable, but I'd take the IPS in my X220i over the junky SXGA+ screens used in 4:3 ThinkPads.

 

the best resolution was X6xt with 12.1 inch SXGA+, 15 inch UXGA, 15 inch QXGA, haha.

But the 14.1 inch SXGA+ is a great thing.

 

Quoted for the truth! My D600 and T60 have SXGA+ screens, and it is sweet and it beats WXGA+, although the screen is kinda squarish.

15" having WUXGA isn't horrible, at least it results in no loss of vertical pixels, just an increase of horizontal.

 

I actually prefer WUXGA to UXGA, because of side-by-side windows.

 

The pixel density at 140 on a 12" SXGA+ is too small. UXGA or QXGA means a 15" notebook, which isn't good for mobility. The pixels density for a 14" SXGA+ is 125, that's why a 14" SXGA+ is the best. You get the 1050 vertical resolution, but a 14" still retains some mobility.

 

really? i feel like 1366 pixels isnt enough, most websites/programs are designed to work with 800 horizontal pixels so it always feels super crammped when i try to do it

 

There's two types of web sites. Ones like NBR or NewEgg for example that fill the page, regardless of the resolution. Then there's column like sites like the New York Times or Cnet wherre the with of the text one the page is the same no matter the resolution. I think those are designed for 1024x768. If you had a 1024 screen and opened one of those pages, the text fills the page, but on a wide screen it just has more white space on the sides.

 

WUXGA = 1920x1200
UXGA = 1600x1200

 

Wrong on both counts. Seriously, get yourself a monitor or something and quit whining in bad English.

 

I appreciate the replies and am looking into an mint T60p T61P or something else that came 1600x1200 with IPS. (another issue with most makers is crappy viewing angle TNs but that's another thread)

IMO 16:10 is already awful due to high levels of scrolling. I do work, text based work with a notebook, not game (much) so speed is really irrelevent, just about any computer made in last 5 years I'm perfectly happy with but 16:9 is a disaster for business use.

Here is a monitor area calculator I made for y'all in excel. Basically a 15" 5:4 gives you a full 2 inches additional text top and bottom vs a 16:9. Not to mention has much more sqin of screen RE.

Free File Hosting Made Simple - MediaFire

LOL no kidding. Hey but you're still getting 12" why u complaining?

From posts in this thread and discussions I've had w/ people around the office there has to be a niche market for 4:3 and 5:4 out there and I hope one manufacturer steps up in the future.

Don't give em' any ideas. They may go 2.35:1 or even 2.80:1 like some movies.

I don't use side by side until I get to 24" I have a 24" NEC 19x12 at the office where 2 full pages fit just fine. Sure they make some laptops 19x12 but everything is too small, icons text etc over 17-15". Pixel pitch is much smaller over such a small area.

Indeed don't even get me started on millions of $159 shell shocker monitors sold vs $1000-$2000 NEC's and Eizos. Or Trinitron FD CRT vs LCD for that matter. Or what ever happened to SED. People are cheap and it drives us into the gutter IMO. Aspect ratio, and thus lower cost as you approach a line, is just one small facet of this race to the bottom.

 

This.

My ideal laptop has a 4:3 aspect ratio, 14" screen (around 125 ppi), weight under 4lbs and battery life of at least 4 hours. Wish that laptop existed. I just picked up a T410s since it's as close as I could get.

The 1400x1050 screen in my T60 is the perfect resolution (although it's not terribly bright and the laptop is bit bulkier then I like).

 

For me 4:3 was the best, I miss my Inspiron 5100. The 16:10 screens is not so much the sweet spot but a good compromise. OTOH 16:9 is just bloody awful. I recently purchased a T410 as the 16:10 Windows based PC's are a dying dinosaur unless you want to spend thousands of dollars on a Panasonic Toughbook.

The other option is buying a Macbook Pro but from what i've read if not the next refresh the one after that Apple notebooks will go 16:9 as well.

 

Base 4:3 sucked, 1024x768, but I swapped my XGA panel on my T60 to SXGA+ and that was sweet. Straight swap too, took about 5 minutes. Wish they made 5:4 in higher resolutions than 1280x1024..

 

SXGA+ is 1400 x 1050

if you need higher pixel density, get a 15 inch machine and a QXGA panel.

 

Must really hurt the eyes if the DPI wasn't tweaked thats for sure.

 

i have seen a R50p with QXGA (this guy wanted 1000 dollars for it) and looking at it makes my eyes bleed. I really wanted that machine, but didn't want to spend that much on such an old machine.

 

Is there nothing between QXGA and 1200p/1080p for laptop screens?

 

The one and only thing I miss about my old Inspiron E1705 was the 1900x1200 screen. I actually liked the design at the time, I can't understand why Dell switched to their new ugly design that they've been using the past few years.

 

if the old Dell used a metallic casing (not just plastic spray paint on PVC), then the design is actually quite attractive to what they are producing now.

Dell's design team is somewhat weird as they have bouts of good design and bad design... like the Latitude E6400 then E6420.

 

The thing that gets me is, it had 6 USB ports! I can't even find that on notebooks any more. If you can they are hard to find.

 

I just realized you're griping about widescreen on an ultraportable, where it actually makes the most sense. The wide format is what enables a full-sized keyboard while keeping the total size and weight down. Deal with it.

 

It has more to do with resolution than size, a 20" widescreen (esp. 16x9) is more equivalent to a 15" 4:3 aspect ratio monitor. That 20" widescreen your making your comparison too probably runs at a much lower resolution.

Take your NEC 1600x1200 and compare that to any Full HD Screen which is 1920x1080. A loss of 120 pixels vertically and a gain of 320 pixels wide.

 

I had an X60s which had a 12.1" 4:3 aspect ratio screen. The keyboard on that ultraportable had fullsize keys except for a few like the tab and backspace keys which were half-sized. It was a very usable keyboard and was one of the main reasons I bought that laptop because it was one of the smallest/lightest laptops I could find that had fullsize keys. Great little machine btw. So I'm not sure I agree with your assessment.

 

Agree or not, the X220 keyboard is actually a full-sized keyboard and a step forward even from that. There's no way around it: keyboards are wider than they are tall/deep; so if you want to save as much size and weight as possible, an ultraportable lends itself to a wide format more and more as the size shrinks.

Here's an image from another thread here:
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/3078/x200vsx300vsx61.jpg

You can see that the X61 design involved an intentional compromise of the keyboard by making it cramped. Even with the much thinner bezel, the keyboard is not as big or as nice; it's not a full-sized keyboard. The X2xx series for the first time has the exact same full-sized keyboard as the T and W lines.

Now, it's certainly a shame that the bezel on the X2xx series couldn't be as thin as that on the X6x series, enabling a larger screen. But whether or not that's so, the choice of a full-size keyboard imposes a certain width, which leads to a wide format naturally.

 

An ultraportable requires compromises. The question is whether it compromises usability.

I agree the keyboard on the X60s is not the same size as the those on the T and W lines. I just didn't find that it compromised usability and it's why I don't believe that a widescreen is not a requirement (nor is it preferrable) for an ultraportable.

 

I'm in on this idea. only question should I order 2 or 3 spares since it looks like 16:9 is here to stay.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/lenovo-ibm/607684-ips-t60.html

I thought I could deal with it. Anyway the x201 is not bad, not great but it's not a portable DVD player like the x220.

 

16:10 certainly is far better than 16:9. That's what sticks in my craw personally, and the way that later-model Thinkpads have such huge bezels. I would make a major design priority of making best use of the available space, and with smaller notebooks that would mean special attention to maximizing vertical resolution and screen dimension. That implies preference for taller form factors wherever possible.

 

Yeah just looking at x220 it's quite obvious they *could* have given us way more vertical. At least a 16:10 since there is one inch (2.54 cm for the rest of the world) of plastic bezel top and bottom. Shame it's all about cost reduction.

I was looking at pics of the T60 I ordered from newegg and there is less than half inch bezel all the way around. Equal all the way around as well.

I'm not a fan of bezels anyway which is why I have NEC's pro monitors on my desk at home and office so that was just another issue with the x220 in addition to vertical.

 

I'm typing this on my new 14" T420. Without breaking out a ruler, it looks like they could have squeezed a 15" 16:10 into the same chassis. Agree about the bezel uniformity too-- I think that the biggest eyesore on this machine is the extra thickness in the bezel below the screen, and to a lesser degree above the screen.

While I like the LCD panel in this machine fine, they must've been able to find 16:10 panels for these machines in good enough quality, even if a little more expensive. They could have at least offered the 16:10 options at a little more cost, simply requiring the addition of an extra alternative lid part for each model.

Alternatively, if they knew they'd be using only 16:9 panels, they should've still worked to decrease the bezel thickness all round, which they could have done by simply making the side speakers thinner and decreasing the wasted space above and below the keyboard; the result would've been less size, weight and raw materials costs.

 

having the 16:10 LCD option would mean there would be a new assembly line with added assembly and inventory cost for these additional parts. There is also the problem of sourcing parts and how parts need to be sourced, which adds complexity to demand forecasting and how many parts they need to order with the parts manufacturer.

This will bring the price up quite a bit, Lenovo can't just take people's words that they will buy it (the panel quality isn't going to be anything better than a regular 16:9), and hoping customers would buy the 16:10 and not the 16:9. Price rise will affect demand for these laptops configuration. Lenovo have in the past offered multiple LCD configuration under the same model designation (i.e. T60/T61/R60/R61).

Most PC companies are trying to cut costs not raise costs especially where there is no clear demand for such products. If people really need a 16:10 there is the T410 which has comparable performances if you get the i7 dual core cpu model versus the T410i.

 

I agree... I don't like it but I agree.

From a manufacturing standpoint I'd guess that there's no way around the 16:9 screens if the manufacturer wants to be price competitive.

 

I think it'll be difficult to get them to switch back. Here you can see the information MS has collected regarding resolutions in Windows 7:

http://blogs.msdn.com/cfs-filesyste...D00_Screen_2D00_resolutions_5F00_1265E16B.png

 

Lol @ 1366x768. I thought 1600x900 would be rarer than 1920x1080, though.

 

1600x900 is probably mostly 17.3" screens.