The never ending 16:9 vs 16:10 Discussion

[Cox Orange]

Hello,

a recent macrumor https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1065004/
about apple introducing another display size to the iMac line-up arrouse wishes for a 16:10 display again. I am glad I am not the only one, who deeply prays for this.

I would like to make a poll again and discussion is allowed, too


Since this is a topic discussed so often in the past and you all might be already sick and tired of it, I'd like to just add the following links, where it has been discussed:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/542219/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/553500/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/848447/


My arguments pro 16:10
+ you can more comfortably work, if you have big charts or several tracks lined up under one another in Logic Studio
+ 24" with 16:10 lets you see two DIN A4 Pages at the same time
+ you can still watch 16:9 movies (plus you have more space, when you are working on the Mac, come on, who really cares the black bars?
+ Aren't there at least some "Hollywood"-formats that are bigger than 16:9 and smaller than 16:10, when zoomed in? You could watch them nearer to the ratio the movie-artist had wanted it to be (if you consider movie-making as an art and choosing the right ratio for your work as an important artful point)

 

[Hellhammer]

I remember reading an article about 16:9 being noticeably cheaper to manufacture than 16:10. I guess that's the main reason why mainstream monitors are 16:9 nowadays. I'd like 16:10 but I rather take the 2560x1440 instead of 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 instead of 1680x1050.

 

[mjsmke]

I also prefer 16:10. I use 2 monitors and cant fit more than x2 22" 16:10 in the space i have. Otherwise i would have gone for x2 24" 16x10.

I find the 16:9 ratio is great for films and games but not for anything else.

 

[Ping Guo]

16:10 gives you more vertical space. Virtually all websites are vertically oriented, as are the majority of applications. 16:9 "widescreen" was shoved down consumers' throats and is little more than a marketing gimmick - as the previous poster mentioned they're cheaper, which is the real reason manufacturers opt to use them. I'll go so far as to say that 4:3 is superior on small laptops to 16:10 in terms of maximizing usable space, unless you're buying a laptop just to watch movies.

16:9 netbooks are the worst of the lot - one thing in the iPad's favor is that they went with 4:3 which offers a far better web experience.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Some of you guys crack me up. Because websites are laid out vertically we should have 16:10 vs. 16:9??? If the physical dimensions of our monitors should reflect popular page layout structure, you should be whining for 10:16 or 9:16 monitors (probably with resolutions no greater than about 1024 wide and maybe about 1200-1600 high). And if so, a 9:16 monitor would have the extra length to show more of those web or (vertically laid out app) pages than a 10:16 screen.

Another guy is griping about 16:9 vs. 16:10 because his own choice of where he locates his computer makes 16:10 make more sense TO HIM. Is that a reason all computers should be adapted to fit HIS confined space? Maybe he could just locate his slighter wider computer to a different spot? Or choose a smaller screen computer for his own situation? Etc.

If you want more vertical space, buy a monitor that rotates or mount your monitor in a vertical fashion and set your software to display for that orientation.

I have the 27" iMac and I LOVE the wide-screen real estate. I can easily see my web pages on the left and still have plenty of room to the right for other stuff (or a whole other web page(s)). I can scale my DTP work portrait layout pages so that I have 2 full pages side by side and still have room for a little more on the left or right. If I got this undesirable(?) wide screen because it was a little cheaper to give me more width, that's much preferable to paying more for less screen real estate (IMO). The desk on which it sits is also a landscape-oriented space, probably 16:36 or more (in related aspect ratio terms), leaving room for speakers, a phone, a desk picture frame, some file folder organizers etc to the left & right of the iMac, rather than trying to put all that in front of and behind the iMac (on some kind of deeper and less-wide desk). I much prefer a (really) wide format desk too.

I had an old CRT monitor until a few years ago. It was 4:3. It displayed all web pages just fine and all application oriented portrait style looked fine on it. But I certainly wouldn't argue for a return to 4:3 for those reasons. It would fit into a more confined space because it was a smaller monitor, but I just made the room for the new iMac added width. My old TV would fit into many more tight spaces throughout my home than the new big screen, but I certainly don't see it as any sacrifice to find a bigger space for that bigger screen.

Besides, like so many other things that Apple decides for us, what's it matter what we think? Apple has decided and we shall like it. We shall not covet blu ray. We shall not want Flash on iDevices. We shall not want 16:10 monitors. We shall not covet matte screens. We shall not want 1080p video on TV (even when Apple gives us all the other pieces to make that work, and we probably have a 1080p TV to which it is attached). We shall not want local storage on TV. A 1000 passionate arguments for or against won't move Apple to deliver anything that Apple doesn't want to deliver.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

16:10 gives you more vertical space.

And this particular bit is simply not true... only relatively, as in relative to the dimensions of the WHOLE screen 16:10 provides more vertical space. Follow that logic and 16:11 would be even better. 16:12 better still. But wait, 16:12 is 4:3, which is the same shape as the old CRT computer monitor you probably jettisoned some years back. Should we all go back to that?

If it matters to you, take a piece of thick paper and cover the left or right edge of your screen to make it 16:10. If you do this, relative to the whole visual display, your screen is providing more vertical space now. Did the vertical pixel count change?

Vertical pixels are NOT being sacrificed because Apple chose 16:9. If a screen manufacturer wanted to build it, the exact same number of vertical pixels could be put in a 16:9 and 16:10 display. The 16:9 screen would just have extra columns of those pixels, which offers us extra screen space to the right & left (rather than the top & bottom).

 

[Yaboze]

Most documents and web sites are more portrait oriented than landscape, if we are putting it in laymen terms. I'd rather scroll up and down, or swipe down on my iPhone or Magic Mouse, then have to scroll to the right because the paragraphs are wide and short, instead of being narrower and long. If that makes any sense.

I prefer 16:10 because of the extra vertical room and you can still put 16:9 content (video) in that space.

16:9 is for video and not everyone does just video on a computer. For a TV, 16:9 is fine, for text AND video, 16:10 is better.

I also agree that 16:9 laptops are just hurting when it comes to documents and text. The screen is smaller as it is and you just lose so much real estate.

 

[dal20402]

But wait, 16:12 is 4:3, which is the same shape as the old CRT computer monitor you probably jettisoned some years back. Should we all go back to that?

Yes. If I could buy a 2560x1920 monitor, I would. 16:9 is stupid for computer usage. I'm typing this on a 16:9 monitor forced on me by work, and I'm constantly running out of vertical space.

Vertical pixels are NOT being sacrificed because Apple chose 16:9. If a screen manufacturer wanted to build it, the exact same number of vertical pixels could be put in a 16:9 and 16:10 display. The 16:9 screen would just have extra columns of those pixels, which offers us extra screen space to the right & left (rather than the top & bottom).

Except that's not how it has played out in the real world. For similar classes of screens:

1440x900 turned into 1366x768.
1680x1050 turned into 1600x900.
1920x1200 turned into 1920x1080.
2560x1600 turned into 2560x1440.

We're getting less vertical space, not more horizontal space. It's a horrible trend.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Except that's not how it has played out in the real world. For similar classes of screens:

1440x900 turned into 1366x768.
1680x1050 turned into 1600x900.
1920x1200 turned into 1920x1080.
2560x1600 turned into 2560x1440.

We're getting less vertical space, not more horizontal space. It's a horrible trend.

I don't see it as a trend. I don't picture Apple conspiring to force 16:8 on us next. Then 16:7. Then 16:6. Etc.

And I could cherry-pick relative references as well to argue the other side. For example, in my own case, that old CRT with as 4:3 (or 16:12 to keep the aspect ratio comparison going (thus being much more "vertical" than horizontal for all those web pages & vertically-oriented apps you favor)) was- I think- 1600 x 1200 at it's max setting. This new iMac is 2560 x 1440. In my (cherry-picked) example, I got a huge upgrade in vertical pixels (240 more pixels) AND much more horizontal space on which to open a second browser window (and see a whole web page) or a second vertically-oriented app (and see it's whole application footprint, side by side with the first one).

It sounds to me like you really want to do all you do in portrait mode. So buy a Mac that lets you pick your own monitor, and choose a widescreen monitor that rotates to portrait mode. If you're missing 160 pixels of vertical resolution (vs. 1600 you reference), even a relatively low resolution panel that can be turned will give you more vertical pixels than that. And if you buy a 16:9 that can rotate, you'll end up with a 9x16 aspect screen which will be extraordinarily oriented (very tall and not very wide) to your portrait-aspect desires.

Explain to your employer that your work is more efficient on a screen oriented in portrait mode. If you can show them that is true, they'll probably fix you up with a monitor that rotates that gives you the greater vertical space that you need. In my own case, I do all my work on this wide-screen Mac. A lot of that work is web and DTP, so I can appreciate the desire for vertical pixels. But I can't imagine I would rotate this screen to vertical orientation that often if that option was available to me. I see whole (portrait-oriented) web pages now in 1440 pixels. Maybe in fine positioning DTP work, but I often just work at 200%+ to get my alignments perfect. I'm not saying you should be stuck with it because it works for me. What I am saying is that there are readily-available solutions for your individual wants in computers other than the iMac. Pitch your employer on the need for vertical orientation and maybe they'll give you what you want.

 

[talmy]

I'd like to see the return of 5:4 and 4:3 monitors. I've got a pair of 1280x1024 monitors on my PC at work, and a 1600x1200 monitor attached to my way-too-wide iMac at home. It like they think that the only thing people do is watch movies on their computers these days, but then with the clamor for HDMI, maybe they are right.

 

[velocityg4]

I remember reading an article about 16:9 being noticeably cheaper to manufacture than 16:10. I guess that's the main reason why mainstream monitors are 16:9 nowadays. I'd like 16:10 but I rather take the 2560x1440 instead of 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 instead of 1680x1050.

I wonder how much of this is due to manufacturing being set up for 16:9 HDTV's at 1920x1080. As that seems to be the resolution that makes up the majority of desktop 16:9 LCD's.

As far as manufacturing costs go. Is there really a difference in cost of manufacturing 16:10 and 16:9 on displays that are not the 1366x768 or 1920x1280 resolutions normally found in HDTV? Such as the 2560x1440 27" iMac panel versus an equivalent pixel count 16:10 display.

On a side not I never understood why they latched onto 1366x768 for 720P TV's when it should be 1280x720. In which case I always set the source at 1080 and let the TV downscale the image rather than upscale a 720P image for better quality (it does make a difference).

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Why did you buy a "way-too-wide" imac if you favor nearly square screens? Why didn't you buy a screen-less Mac and attach whatever width screen with whatever aspect ratio you desire to it?

"I want ONLY an iMac, but only with a screen aspect the way I want it Apple." When has Apple ever bent to individual wants? Apple just builds it as they want you to want it. Don't like their choice but buy it anyway? Apple only cares about that latter piece (you buy it anyway). If enough people hated 16:9 iMacs, the lack of sales would motivate the 16:10 or 4:3 ones some people here covet. If the people here griping about 16:9 bought 16:9 anyway, you are sending the wrong signal (in your pile of cash) to Apple if you are seeking changes.

Similarly, hop over to the iDevice forums and people gripe that their widescreen movie rips show black bars at the top and bottom of the screen because the iDevice screen is NOT 16:9. You can please some of the people...

 

[dal20402]

And I could cherry-pick relative references as well to argue the other side. For example, in my own case, that old CRT with as 4:3 (or 16:12 to keep the aspect ratio comparison going (thus being much more "vertical" than horizontal for all those web pages & vertically-oriented apps you favor)) was- I think- 1600 x 1200 at it's max setting. This new iMac is 2560 x 1440.

Of course you got more pixels when you upgraded to a larger class of monitor. The point is that monitors within the same class (i.e., 21"-22", 23"-24", 27"-30") have been losing pixels, not gaining them, in the name of lower prices.

It sounds to me like you really want to do all you do in portrait mode. So buy a Mac that lets you pick your own monitor, and choose a widescreen monitor that rotates to portrait mode.

There are two problems with this: 1) a 16x9 monitor in portrait is too narrow to be useful (pages are squished horizontally, and webpages expect at least 1280 pixels horizontal resolution), and 2) subpixel alignment is wrong when you rotate the monitor and as a result subpixel-antialiased text, such as that in OS X and modern versions of Windows, looks horrendous.

What I want is a monitor that allows me to display two pages next to each other at a comfortable magnification. 1920x1200 was the perfect resolution for that. At 1920x1080, either the bottom of the pages are cut off, or you have to shrink them. And at 1600x900 (which is what I'm stuck with now), there is no chance.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Of course you got more pixels when you upgraded to a larger class of monitor. The point is that monitors within the same class (i.e., 21"-22", 23"-24", 27"-30") have been losing pixels, not gaining them, in the name of lower prices.

So pay higher prices to get what you want. Others- like me- are very happy with the vertical pixels of the 16:9 iMac, and I've made it clear how much I enjoy the wide work space. Even if I try to buy your argument of losing pixels, the loss in relative vertical pixels is made up on the horizontal. That's still usable screen space. If we imagine tearing a strip of pixels off the top to fit the "9" in 16:9, we have to imagine pasting a whole bunch more on the sides to accommodate the "16". All usable.

There are two problems with this: 1) a 16x9 monitor in portrait is too narrow to be useful (pages are squished horizontally, and webpages expect at least 1280 pixels horizontal resolution),

Just offered that as an extreme example. Again, buy one that rotates that isn't 16x9. There are many rotating monitors available.

and 2) subpixel alignment is wrong when you rotate the monitor and as a result subpixel-antialiased text, such as that in OS X and modern versions of Windows, looks horrendous.

I'll bow to that one since I don't know whether it's true or false. Given the volume of rotating monitors available, it seems like there's a big enough market of buyers to justify all that production. They must not see the horrendous subpixel-antialiased text that you see.

What I want is a monitor that allows me to display two pages next to each other at a comfortable magnification. 1920x1200 was the perfect resolution for that. At 1920x1080, either the bottom of the pages are cut off, or you have to shrink them. And at 1600x900 (which is what I'm stuck with now), there is no chance.

So you passionately care about vertical pixels, but you're using a monitor with only 900 of them? Is that a laptop? To get your 1920 x 1200 "perfection", talk your company into buying you a baseline iMac 27", which will deliver 2550 x 1440. You'll have much more vertical resolution than you desire, so your 1200 high perfection will be more than achieved, AND you'll also have much more horizontal screen space so that your 2 pages can be fully displayed and still leave room for app controls or maybe room for a good chunk of page 3. OR, you could zoom to fill to give you 2 pages fitting in the space in greater detail than the perfection of 1920 x 1200. If your company is tight, the Refurb store right now has that for $1439.

Or, the Mac Mini new can also deliver better than your perfection specs with the computer costing $699. Just add the 1920x1200 monitor (here's 8 of them: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...0030155 600012349&IsNodeId=1&name=1920 x 1200 I found on the quickest of searches- I'm sure there are many more) or up to Apple Cinema Display which will tap into higher than perfection resolutions.

I appreciate the misery of 900 pixels vertical when you're wanting to look at vertically oriented content and 2 full pages of documents. But 900 is long-since surpassed (my old PowerBook G4 laptop from 2003 or 2004 was 1280 x 854. If your company has the wallet, just talk them into how much more productive you'll be with more vertical pixels. $1439 should not break even a small company.

 

[newuser2310]

I think its for cosmetic reasons as well. The now defunct 24" Imac looks awkward and has weird proportions compared to the new ones.

 

[Time Clock]

I agree that in general, 16:10 is better- a 1920x1200 24" monitor is more preferable to me than a 1920x1080 23" or 24" monitor for a variety of reasons that have already been stated.

On 22" monitors 1920x1080 seems to be the best resolution- My Ultrasharp u2211h's resolution is better than the typical 1680x1050 that was most common in monitors in its class. 1600x900 is a terrible resolution, though. Whoever thought that should be a common resolution should be flogged and hung by their thumbs.

And aesthetically, 16:10 monitors seem more balanced to me. 16:9 monitors come across as too wide and skinny in any resolution.

 

[dal20402]

I appreciate the misery of 900 pixels vertical when you're wanting to look at vertically oriented content and 2 full pages of documents. But 900 is long-since surpassed (my old PowerBook G4 laptop from 2003 or 2004 was 1280 x 854. If your company has the wallet, just talk them into how much more productive you'll be with more vertical pixels. $1439 should not break even a small company.

Have you worked for a non-tech company? Getting them to get a new *mouse* is a teeth-pulling exercise involving a business case. My monitor is a $150 Dell 1600x900 piece of junk, because they were too cheap to step up to the $200 1680x1050 model. Getting them to spend $400 for the cheapest available 1920x1200 monitor -- let alone over $1000 on anything -- would be a pipe dream.

I have 1600x1200 and 1920x1200 sitting next to each other at home. Now *that's* how it should be. Unfortunately I can't just work from home all the time!

 

[Cox Orange]

I think its for cosmetic reasons as well. The now defunct 24" Imac looks awkward and has weird proportions compared to the new ones.

Well, they could just stay with the outer dimensions of the 21,5" and 27" (suited relatively to 24") and just leave a bit of the aluminium on the bottom. The Apple Logo would then have to be smaller, of course.

Here is a picture of the old 24" besides a new 21,5" http://www.tech2buzz.com/images/21_24_imac_side_by_side.jpg

Found here: http://www.tech2buzz.com/mac/moving-from-24-inch-to-21-5-inch-imac

It talks about PPI as well. By the way, Apple once claimed in a commercial text to a studio display (they would call it product description that Apple's long research has found, that 100PPI is the best for the human eye to avoid weakness and headache.
And again, this depends on whether you watch movies sitting on your sofa or working, while sitting in front of your desk...

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Have you worked for a non-tech company? Getting them to get a new *mouse* is a teeth-pulling exercise involving a business case. My monitor is a $150 Dell 1600x900 piece of junk, because they were too cheap to step up to the $200 1680x1050 model. Getting them to spend $400 for the cheapest available 1920x1200 monitor -- let alone over $1000 on anything -- would be a pipe dream.

I have 1600x1200 and 1920x1200 sitting next to each other at home. Now *that's* how it should be. Unfortunately I can't just work from home all the time!

Put together a proposal that shows them how much more productive you are with the better tech. You've got a setup at home that is as you want it. You've got a setup at work that affects your productivity. That's 2 great test setups on which to illustrate the productivity improvement in one setting vs. the other. If you can show them savings of more than the cost of the new setup, they may go for it. Or they might set you up so that you can work from home more (telecommute), which will also increase the productivity by reducing drive time, etc.

Try it. The downside is that they do nothing. The upside is all upside.

 

[DarthMoops]

Here is a picture of the old 24" besides a new 21,5"

The 21.5" looks like a squished 24"

Apple should bring back the matte screen while they're at it.

 

[mjsmke]

Or just get rotating screens like me. If i'm working on an image in a portrait format i just rotate the monitor and click on rotate in the screen arangement in system prefferences.

 

[MacHamster68]

i dont like widescreens so 16:10 is already scrolling torture ,16:9 absolute a waste , and rotating ,yes ,but i want to be able to physical rotate the monitor as i need the height and not the width and the monitor just does not need to be bigger in size then a din A4 peace of paper

 

[andymodem]

Have you worked for a non-tech company? Getting them to get a new *mouse* is a teeth-pulling exercise involving a business case. My monitor is a $150 Dell 1600x900 piece of junk, because they were too cheap to step up to the $200 1680x1050 model. Getting them to spend $400 for the cheapest available 1920x1200 monitor -- let alone over $1000 on anything -- would be a pipe dream.

I have 1600x1200 and 1920x1200 sitting next to each other at home. Now *that's* how it should be. Unfortunately I can't just work from home all the time!

Glad I work at a tech oriented gov't agency. I have a 30" monitor on my desk.

 

[Stan Mikulenka]

I'm using 2 monitors at home: 28" (16:10) and 25" (16:9) side by side and the 16:10 is definitely the better ratio (for computer use)...

 

[300D]

16:10 is better for computers.