16:10 Notebooks to See Price Drops

16:10 Notebooks to See Price Drops

A DigiTimes report claims that large notebook vendors such as HP and Dell are planning to drop prices on notebooks featuring 16:10 aspect displays to clear out inventory; current notebooks using 16:10 aspect ratio displays will be replaced with ones featuring 16:9 panels, which are more economical to produce.

Full Story (DigiTimes.com)

 

Finally, I'd like to see a few more 16:9 laptops before I purchase a new one. I really don't mind the loss of vertical pixels from 16:10 if there are higher res options.

 

isn't 16:9 alot worse then 16:10 and how much more would they realy save and how?

 

This is so sad. I hate 16:9 displays. We're definitely progressing in the wrong direction - it's all about price. Maybe, in 5 years, we'll see panels like these (that's 21:9, by the way) in our laptops - except in a smaller form factor - to save the OEMs another few dollars.

 

It won't be long before every notebook on the market is 16:9 . . . 16:10 will be as hard to find as 4:3 is today.

And that's the thing . . . you won't have higher resolution options. 16:9 is a drop in resolution across the board. It's bad news for us consumers, one way or another. Unless, of course, the reduction in screen resolution translates to a reduction in price. I highly doubt the latter will happen.

 

4:3 -> 16:10 was an improvement
16:10 -> 16:9 is not

 

Doesn't the new Dell 16:9 studio model offer higher res options though? As long as they are there then that should be ok.

 

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

Down with 16:9! Where's our pitchforks!?



*sigh* I know, I know, we can't change it, market forces, cost of production....bah.

 

I'm still undecided if I want 16:9 or 16:10...

 

the reason 16:9 is cheaper to produce is because the companies order the panels in that ratio for hdtvs, so when you cut the panels out, it'll cut out evenly

that's why itd be VERY expensive to produce a 21:9 screen like what was mentioned above

imho, 16:9 is a much better ratio, you wouldn't want a 16:10 tv, why would you want a 16:10 laptop? you might say that "there's less vertical space", but you can fix that by ordering a larger laptop .. in which case, you'd get more horizontal space

 

Were just waiting for 16:8... coming to a retailer near you!

 

LOL get a higher resolution screen not a larger laptop

 

lol that is 2:1 ...

 

The fact that 21:9 is more expensive to produce now is irrelevant. The fact is, that it has less pixels per diagonal inch. It's basic geometry - the closer the object is to a square, the more square inches of area you get per diagonal inch. My Dell 19" 5:4 panel, for instance, has almost as much screen space than a 16:10 20" because of this phenomenon. If you compare a 15.4" 16:10 panel to a 15.6" 16:9 panel, you see that the 16:10 panel has 3% more screen area.

And TVs and computers are used for different things. Just because I like seeing a broader spectrum of action on my hi-def movie (which makes it seem more 3D), I'd also like to see more before I have to scroll on webpages. Also, take a basic office document. Extra width is useless (unless you're going to go 2 pages side by side or you're working in landscape, but those are exceptions).

 

The thing is, you sit much closer to a laptop than to a TV - the extra width of a 16:9 display forces you to look more toward the edges, while a more "square-ish" display could let you see things more in the natural field of vision. This isn't a problem on TVs, but it could be a bit of annoyance on laptops, because people sit a lot closer.

Personally, I don't have too much trouble with 16:9 (it's useful to have 2 side-by-side pages at 100% scale), but it seems to make for more bulky laptops from what I've seen. 16:10 strikes the perfect balance between having a full size keyboard and enough vertical space for media buttons and the like. True, you can fit a number pad on a 16:9 15.6" laptop, but I don't really like the look of the offcenter touchpad actually.

 

This makes me rage. I'm glad that I bought my Studio 15 when it was still 16:10. If I wanted 16:9, I would buy an HDTV, not a laptop. They're two different aspect ratios for two different purposes.

The "higher res" options are the same old 16:10 options, just with less vertical space. Examples:

What used to be 1280x800 is now 1280x720(720p). Loss of space.
Likewise, 1920x1200 is now 1920x1080 (1080p).
The only one that actually gained anything is 1440x900, which is now 1600x900, which isn't a standard HD resolution anyway. There is no such thing as "900p" in the real world; it's just a marketing gimmick.

 

Thus far, it seems that most business-oriented notebooks are sticking with the 16:10 displays. Dell has the dirt-cheap, low-end Vostro A860 with a 16:9 15.6" display, but the rest of their business models are 16:10 (including the brand new Vostro 1320/1520/1720). Lenovo ThinkPads and are all 16:10 as are HP's Compaq Business and EliteBook models. HP's new ProBook models are 16:9, which isn't a good sign....

 

NO higher res than 16:10

I"m so mad *beep* those morons who proposed the 16:9 idea. Gosh, I'm pissed off right now.

 

Yeah the 16:9 move isnt great news for us.

Ill only buy a 16:9 if it its WSXGA (1600x900) or higher.

 

I won't mind 16:9 if someone can design a hinge which allows me to turn the screen vertically for ease of reading a page of text.

If that doesn't happen then I will be wanting to get maximum life out of my current notebooks with their 16:10 displays. Higher resolution is not a work-around if the result is text that is too small to read (which varies from person to person).

John

 

Computers != TVs. And no, you can't fix the loss of vertical resolution by getting a larger screen . . . all the 16:9 resolutions are reduced relative to their 16:10 versions. The highest you could get in a 16:10 notebook was 1920x1200, and now it's only 1920x1080. Losing 120 pixels of vertical space is a big deal for many users such as myself.

 

QFT
I love my 1920x1200 screen. All of that vertical room is great. Losing 120 pixels is going to suck ALOT.

I understand alot of people use notebooks for multimedia... but a computer is still very much a work tool and losing productivity to satisfy 1080 resolution seems wrong on so many levels

Now if they are willing to give me 2400x1350 screens at a 16:9 ration then i start caring less... but still 16:9 is pretty much failure when it comes to computers

 

i guess my next laptop i will be putting in my current 1920*1200 in it.

 

Because I'm buying a computer, not an HD television.

That's just putting a bandage on it. Even if you go two inches larger in physical screen space, 1920x1080 is always going to be less than 1920x1200. And most people won't want to buy a larger laptop just to compensate for the vertical screen space that they've been robbed of.

 

Shall we start a black market that deals exclusively in 16:10 panels?

 

Sure, as long as you also include custom laptop bodies and display frames as well. Ah, the hell with it...we might as well start building our notebooks from scratch, K-TRON style.

 

1280x800 is replaced by 1366x768. It's still a loss of vertical space, but I looked at some displays with that resolution, and they all look usable (from 11,1" to 16").

Regarding 1600x900... how can more pixel be a marketing gimmick? 1600x900 is better than 1440x900, period. 900p is no standardized HD resolution, but do you really need that? There is no 900p for 1440x900 or 1050p for 1680x1050 either. Those two resolutions and 1280x800 are the most common in 15" laptops and smaller. Only the expensive workstations have 1920x1200 at that screen size.

My next 15" laptop should have 1600x900 pixel. 1920x1080 is to high for gaming with a GPU that fits into a 15", and 1366x768 is to low for multitasking and programming.

13" and smaller should be fine with 1366x768. I would like to see a netbook with that resolution, since the EeePC 1000H I'm typing this on is just way to crammed...

Conclusion:
1366x768 up to 13"
1600x900 from 14" to 16"
1920x1080 for 17"+ and smaller workstations

 

Depends on the model. Plenty of them are replacing 1280x800 with 720p (1280x720). Loss of pixels.

I stated earlier that 1600x900 is the exception.

Actually, that's what Dell is calling it on the new Studio 15. They offer 720p (1280x720), 1080p (1920x1080), and "900p" (1600x900).

The Studio 15, back in its better 16:10 days, had 1920x1200. And it looks fantastic.

Like I said, 1280x720 is the standard 720p that's replacing 1280x800. 1600x900 is the only one that gains space, and 1920x1080 is a loss from 1920x1200, no matter what. There is no alternative with more pixels.

 

1280x720 is the basic 720p resolution but 1366x768 is the resolution that's replacing 1280x800 on notebook screens...including the 720p option for the Dell Studio 15. 1366x768 is being used to replace 1280x800 because it has been the most common and natural wide screen extension of the 4:3 1024x768 XGA resolution used on TVs.

 

true, but unfortunately, both wxga AND wxga+ are getting replaced by 1366*768, many 16-17 inch laptop have that res too, when they should be at 1600*900.

 

(emphasis mine)

Some of us use laptops for other things than watching TV. In fact, I have a TV to watch television (call me old fashioned), and guess what, it's 4:3!

 

1920x1200=2,304,000
1920x1080=2,073,600

1366x768=1,049,088
1280x800=1,024,000

 

I agree that part of it does suck that we're only getting the standard two HDTV 720p and 1080p resolutions right now but I don't see things staying that way and more new 16:9 resolutions like 1600x900 will eventually make it to PC screens.

The same thing happened when the transition was made from 4:3 to 16:10....new resolutions had to be created many of which overlapped, combined, or filled the gap between the standard 4:3 aspect ratios.

1280x800 for example essentially combined XGA 1024x768, SXGA 1280x1024, and Apple's XGA+ 1152x870 while 1680x1050 is part SXGA, SXGA+ 1400x1050, and UXGA 1600x1200.

 

I don't know about that one brawn.

As it stands, I haven't seen a 16:9 laptop get more space horizontally or vertically than a 16:10.

1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 (same and less)
1680x1050 vs 1600x900 (less both ways)
1440x900 vs 1366x768 (less both ways)
1280x800 vs 1366x768 (less one way, more the other)

Seems like you only get more space 12.5% of the time here (1280 vs 1366). Everything else is worse with the exception of the horizontal 1920.

Almost all text content is laid out vertically (including these forums). It's better to have more vertical resolution so you can view more of a text document, spreadsheet, or website at once.

edit:

LoL I guess I was too late.

 

As it stands now that's the way things look...heading forward it should look like:

1280x800 vs 1366x768
1440x900 vs. 1600x900
1680x1050 vs. 1920x1080
1920x1200 vs. 2048x1152 (new 16:9 res. currently only offered on 4 desktop lcds)

 

Well if they were to stick to 16:10, by your logic, we will have WQXGA in the future (2560x1600, only for high end desktop LCDs, right now), which well beats 2048x1152. You can't compare now and later. 16:10 will always offer better resolutions than 16:9. It's bound to be that way mathematically.

Not to mention no one in their right minds would use EITHER resolution for a laptop. Everything would be too small, even with a 17". Unless someone figures out how to make a laptop with a large screen magically shrink, WXGA+, WSXGA+, and WUXGA+ are enough for 14", 15.4", and 17" LCDs respectively.

 

You're half right. 2560x1600 would be too much resolution for any notebook sized screen.

2048x1152 has about the same DPI on a 15.6" (151dpi) or 16.1"(147dpi) 16:9 screen as 1920x1200 on a 15.4" (147dpi) 16:10 screen. On an 18.4" screen 2048x1152 has a 128dpi count compared to a 133dpi count for a 17" 1920x1200 screen.

To get 128dpi for 2560x1600 would require a 23.5" notebook.

 

Shouldn't the only one's complaining be the user's of 1920x1200 res?

If by ANY chance the production is cheaper, then upgrading to the next res up would be ok.

Otherwise if res is THAT important, then someone complaining about the loss of vertical space from 1280x800 to 1280x720 (720p) could upgrade to something like 1600x900 if they really needed it.

 

thats not entirely true, but it is the largest hit. Even going to the "best" 16:9 screen the 1920x1200 users lose out. There just isnt a better or equal screen available. Even the Desktop panels with 2048x1152 has less vertical pixels. So even the future best 16:9 has wont compare to the current best 16:10

this makes me sad

 

Wasn't there technically a loss of vertical space from 4:3 to 16:10? I mean, 1600*1200 became 1680*1050 no?

So I don't see the big fuss about losing more vertical space if we managed to get over the last loss

Arguably 4:3 resolutions were never that huge to begin with to make the loss that apparent.

 

UXGA 1600x1200 4:3 became WUXGA 1920x1200 16:10.

 

Technically yeah we lost vertical height but gained wide screen display for it.

I guess i'm bias though as i never really cared for 4:3. I just want to keep the vertical resolution with out my display being 6 pages across i suppose.

 

Wait, so are people complaining about the fact that 16:9 is less comfortable to look at as in the shape. Or losing the vertical pixels?

So basically if there was some 2560 x 1440 16:9 screen on laptops, everyone would be happy?

 

Losing the vertical pixels.

But yes there does come a point where the screen is just too wide.

And yes as long as i get 1200+ vertical pixels I'll be happy... but i don't want a 6in tall and 30in wide notebook to get it (over dramatized, but the point remains)

 

Both. 16:9 is just not a practical aspect ratio for a laptop, whose primary function is to display pages of vertically oriented text, nor is it an excuse to cut off pixels.

I would not. For starters, that sort of resolution would be utterly impractical on even an 18.4" desktop replacement, but the aspect ratio is still not good for what laptops are used for. I would still rather have 16:10 2560x1600.

 

Pixel size is too small for 2560x1440 to work on any notebook sized screen.

And the math doesn't work out for 1200 vertical pixels on a 16:9 screen because a 2133 or 2134 horizontal resolution wouldn't give the right ratio. That's why they went with 1152 since the ratio math works with 2048 which was already part of a standard resolution (QXGA).

 

I don't get the conversion then... If 1920*1200(16:10) became 1900*1080(16:9), then it seems the resolution change is based off the horizontal factor, not he vertical one no? Same goes for saying 1200*800 became 1280*720(forget the exact numbers). Basically, seems the vertical height is affected so why would the conversion from 4:3 to 16:10 be backwards?

OIf that's the case I suppose I can understand the complaints better. For 4:3 to 16:10 they added stuff on the sides, with 16:9 they're removign stuff from the tops rather than adding form the sides.

So if the 16:9 transition happened like 4:3 -->16:10(i.e. add pixels to the sides rather than remove some from the tops), would it be better?

Isn't this the same case?

Don't get me wrong, I don't really like 16:9 either. I actually liked 4:3 the best and I have trouble adjusting to the 16:10 monitor I got >.>

besides, if the remaining 16:10 notebooks get a price drop, I won't complain lol

 

The difference is, when going from 4:3 or 5:4 to 16:10, most resolutions got wider, e.g. 1024x768 became 1280x800...1280x1024 expanded to 1680x1050...1600x1200 corresponded to 1920x1200. In every case, the height either remained the same or expanded, and the width increased every time.

Now, going from 16:10 to 16:9, the exact opposite is happening. The existing 16:10 resolutions are losing vertical space, and in most cases, are not gaining anything horizontally. What was 1280x800 is becoming 1280x720...1920x1200 is now 1920x1080...the only one that seems to be gaining anything is 1440x900, which is now 1600x900.

 

yes! when 4:3 was the norm, the highest res you get on a laptop was uxga=1600*1200. we got wuxga=1920*1200 when 16:10 came, and gained horizontal space with no reduction in vertical space. now people are angry because the highest 16:9 res goes up to 1920*1080, we loose 1920*120 pixels.
maybe a new 16:9 res will come out to accomadate this absolute loss of vertical viewing space?

 

The change from 4:3 took some time to get used to, but it worked out rather well. A lot of people still don't like widescreen in general, but most people have gotten used to it. Anyways, the change isn't that big of a deal; we're fine with our TV's being 16:9, why not our computers as well? It isn't that radical of a change. Besides, there won't be anymore annoying black lines when watching blu-ray content, which is a definite plus.

Edit: OK, you might lose a few vertical pixels, but it's not like they were necessary for anything at all.