Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

16-9 or 16-10?

I

iSpoody 1243

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jun 29, 2008
435
1
Australia
what do yous think is a more solid investment.
i want to buy a 24 inch monitor. I dunno if i should buy the dell with the 1920x1080 resolution, or a monitor with 1920x1200 resolution.
would i have any problems playing games at the 16,9 resolution?
 
I

iSpoody 1243

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jun 29, 2008
435
1
Australia
thanks, after reading a bit i feel the 16,9 screen is better for me. can anyone find where to buy the dell sound-bar add-on for the monitor. i just want some basic speakers that are kept discreetly on the monitor but cannot find the sound-bar anywhere on the aussie dell website. anyone have a idea?
 
A

akm3

macrumors 68020
Nov 15, 2007
2,252
279
16:10 is better for computers/work stuff.

Why: Because a 24" 16x10 can have two real size 8.5x11 pages displayed side by side and the :10 leaves enough room for toolbars on the top or bottom.

The move to 16:9 is just to save mfg's money because digital TV/everything else is already in that format and they want to consolidate to one ratio.

Don't let them cheat you your :1 !

-Allen
 
T

thebrain74

macrumors regular
Feb 25, 2006
225
0
I think the only reason one would want a 16:9 is if you primarily used it for movies. But for everything else I would think 16:10 would be best. Its personal preference, but I use a 16:10 laptop (MBP) and I would not like it any shorter. I also use a 23'' ACD and I like the ratio there a lot too.
 
nutmac

nutmac

macrumors 603
Mar 30, 2004
6,057
7,320
thebrain74 said:
I think the only reason one would want a 16:9 is if you primarily used it for movies. But for everything else I would think 16:10 would be best.
Click to expand...
But most movies are either 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. 16:9 is 1.78:1, which is admittedly closer to 1.85:1 than 16:10 (1.60:1) but still short of getting rid of the black bars. In which case, you might as well get extra pixels top and bottom of the pictures.
 
I

iSpoody 1243

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jun 29, 2008
435
1
Australia
nutmac said:
Could you explain to us how 16x9 is better for you?
Click to expand...

well all i do is either watch videos or surf the internet, or do a bit of school work. i wouldn't mind loosing the 120 pixels height wise lol i wouldn't use them anyway

akm3 said:
16:10 is better for computers/work stuff.

Why: Because a 24" 16x10 can have two real size 8.5x11 pages displayed side by side and the :10 leaves enough room for toolbars on the top or bottom.

The move to 16:9 is just to save mfg's money because digital TV/everything else is already in that format and they want to consolidate to one ratio.

Don't let them cheat you your :1 !

-Allen
Click to expand...
lol, well the $100 i save getting the 16x9 screen makes me want it more

nutmac said:
But most movies are either 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. 16:9 is 1.78:1, which is admittedly closer to 1.85:1 than 16:10 (1.60:1) but still short of getting rid of the black bars. In which case, you might as well get extra pixels top and bottom of the pictures.
Click to expand...
well whatever makes the black lines smaller
 
Muncher

Muncher

macrumors 65816
Apr 19, 2007
1,465
0
California
Manzana said:
I read this analysis a while ago, pretty cool.
Click to expand...

iSpoody 1243 said:
well all i do is either watch videos or surf the internet, or do a bit of school work. i wouldn't mind loosing the 120 pixels height wise lol i wouldn't use them anyway


lol, well the $100 i save getting the 16x9 screen makes me want it more


well whatever makes the black lines smaller
Click to expand...

First of all, did you read that article? It presents a great reason why not to have wider screens. Today's OSs (especially OS X) are screen space hungry. When you first turn on your computer, take a good look at the menubar, dock, and icons on the right hand side of your screen. How much space do they take up? A lot, especially vertically.

I just don't think 16:9 screens are practical unless you're looking at 1920x1080 or better.
 
I

iSpoody 1243

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jun 29, 2008
435
1
Australia
Muncher said:
First of all, did you read that article? It presents a great reason why not to have wider screens. Today's OSs (especially OS X) are screen space hungry. When you first turn on your computer, take a good look at the menubar, dock, and icons on the right hand side of your screen. How much space do they take up? A lot, especially vertically.

I just don't think 16:9 screens are practical unless you're looking at 1920x1080 or better.
Click to expand...

yes i read it,
it was very interesting but at the moment i have to say 16x9 is what i want, also the screen i have now is a 17 lcd 1280x1024 and the screen i want is the 24" dell res 1920x1080 so i will have a small increase in the tallness of the screen. the advantage of watching vids and cheaper price of the 16x9 24" screen strongly outweigh the advantage of the 16x10 24" screen.
plus just so yous know i just ordered my 24" dell S2409W screen and logitech LS21 speakers (cause i couldn't find the dell soundbar anywhere!!!) and i'm sooo happy :D:D:D
 
Muncher

Muncher

macrumors 65816
Apr 19, 2007
1,465
0
California
iSpoody 1243 said:
yes i read it,
it was very interesting but at the moment i have to say 16x9 is what i want, also the screen i have now is a 17 lcd 1280x1024 and the screen i want is the 24" dell res 1920x1080 so i will have a small increase in the tallness of the screen. the advantage of watching vids and cheaper price of the 16x9 24" screen strongly outweigh the advantage of the 16x10 24" screen.
plus just so yous know i just ordered my 24" dell S2409W screen and logitech LS21 speakers (cause i couldn't find the dell soundbar anywhere!!!) and i'm sooo happy :D:D:D
Click to expand...

Well, hey, as long as you're happy :D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom