Tablets 16:9 tablets any good?

Discussion in 'Alternatives to iOS and iOS Devices' started by Samtb, Mar 3, 2013.

  1. Samtb macrumors 65816

    Jan 6, 2013
    What are the advantages and disadvantages of 16:9 tablets over 4:3 tablets?
  2. ChrisTX macrumors 68030


    Dec 30, 2009
    Advantages would be when watching movies, but the disadvantages would be that portrait mode is awkward with this aspect ratio. I don't need or want a 16:9 aspect ratio tablet.
  3. mattopotamus macrumors G5


    Jun 12, 2012
    It looks reslly weird when doing anything other than watching movie.
  4. Faux Carnival macrumors 6502a

    Aug 1, 2010
    Well browsing? We've been browsing on 16:9 screens for years and I don't recall anyone complaining.
  5. cube macrumors P6

    May 10, 2004
    16:9 screens suck for browsing.

    For almost everything in fact.
  6. knucklehead macrumors 6502a

    Oct 22, 2003
    Faux memory?
  7. AQUADock macrumors 65816


    Mar 20, 2011
    Theres a diference when the screen is around 10" as opposed to 13" or 20" and above. Although it's not that bad.
  8. throAU macrumors 603


    Feb 13, 2012
    Perth, Western Australia
    This. 16x9 is generally sucky for everything other than movies.

    16x10 is a lot better, but IMHO the ipad aspect is better for a tablet as you have limited space to work with. A longer thinner screen (such as 16x9) in the same length (or even same diagonal) gives you a lot less usable space.
  9. ChazUK macrumors 603


    Feb 3, 2008
    Essex (UK)
    As mentioned video is an advantage.

    As for browsing, there is minimal difference when in portrait but things get bad in landscape:

    (click for full size)

    Apple iPad (1024x768) - Asus Nexus 4 (1280 x 800) - Acer Iconia B1 (1024x600)
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Things get very tight in landscape:
    Apple iPad (1024x768) - Asus Nexus 4 (1280 x 800) - Acer Iconia B1 (1024x600)
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    The iPad is a better all rounder IMO.
  10. TheMTtakeover macrumors 6502


    Aug 3, 2011
    The only advantage is for video. 4:3 is better for just about everything else, IMO.
  11. marc11 macrumors 68000

    Mar 30, 2011
    NY USA
    Wouldn't the difference really only be noticable when compared side by side? I mean, after a short while you would become so used to the 16:9 ratio that, unless you compare it to a 16:10 it really would make zero
  12. zhenya macrumors 603


    Jan 6, 2005
    Not at all. I have an ipad I use at home and a couple of 16:9 tablets I use daily at work. Those tablets ALWAYS feel awkward; cramped in landscape and unwieldy in portrait.
  13. marc11 macrumors 68000

    Mar 30, 2011
    NY USA
    Yes but to my point, isn't that because you are switching between ratios all the time? My point is, if someone owns only one tablet, then does the ratio really matter after a short adjustment period?

    Honestly I do not know for sure, but really think all this discussion between 16:9 vs 16:10 really only matters in a few scenarios, the major one being when someone owns multiple devices with different aspect ratios.
  14. TacticalDesire macrumors 68020


    Mar 19, 2012
    Portrait is kind of awkward but if you're going to be doing any sort of movie watching on it. Get it. 4:3 sucks for movies.
  15. mib1800 Suspended

    Sep 16, 2012
    I prefer 16:9. At least I get wider viewing area in landscape with web browsing and better fit watching youtube/video

    Ipad square screen just doesnt feel that much different when viewing in portrait or landscape so there is really not much of a point to have the screen rotate.
  16. ReanimationN macrumors 6502a


    Sep 7, 2011
    Being able to dock and use multiple apps at once on Windows 8.
  17. iluvbeer99 macrumors member

    Apr 2, 2010
    Do people really use 10" tablets in portrait mode?

    I've had every iPad and never hold it in portrait mode.

    Just wondering what the reason would be to use it that way for the larger tablets. On the mini portrait makes sense though.
  18. hyteckit Guest

    Jul 29, 2007
    I don't really like the 16:9 ratio, except for TVs use to watch movies.

    I have a dual monitor setup consisting of two 16:9 monitors. Don't like it. Wish it was 16:10 or even 3:2.

    As for tablet, I like the iPad aspect ratio. I don't mind the 16:10 ratio either. 16:9 might be too narrow.
  19. Abazigal macrumors G4


    Jul 18, 2011
    I do. Great for reading PDFs and web articles (in reader mode). :)
  20. ChrisTX macrumors 68030


    Dec 30, 2009
    Prime example, the Microsoft Surface in Portrait mode. :cool:
  21. zhenya macrumors 603


    Jan 6, 2005
    Nope, awkward is awkward.

    I have a Surface Pro that I tried to use as a combination laptop/tablet replacement for almost two weeks, pretty much exclusive of my iPad. 16:9 is just too wide for most web browsing, books, magazines, etc - except for the few that are optimized for that format - and still - it just always feels cramped in landscape orientation. Some of the magazines in the Microsoft Store only work in portrait, but then have large black bars at the top and bottom of the screen - way way more noticeable than the same thing in a movie - in large part because holding it that way is just so awkward.

    Web browsing in general does not need the extra width of a 16:9 screen as almost every modern site displays perfectly at the 768 point width of the iPad in portrait orientation. That's a huge part of what makes the iPad such a great browsing and reading device - that pages fit perfectly. On a 16:9 tablet you just end up with huge blank space on each side of the page.
  22. cynics macrumors G4

    Jan 8, 2012
    I like both. Since my tablet is a consumption device 16:9/10 works pretty good. Most of what I'm doing is watching videos on hbo go, YouTube, Netflix etc.

    I don't even mind reading on 16:10. It's very comfortable once you get used to it.

    Unless you are using a 10 year old computer monitor and even older TV's everything is 16:9. Could you imagine browsing the web on your PC/Mac at 4:3? That would suck. Or playing Xbox/PS3? Ugh.

    On the other hand I do like 4:3 when it comes to reading PDF's in portrait mode. It's easier for me.

    A 16:10 tablet is meant to be used nearly exclusively in the landscape mode. Take the Nexus 10 for example. All the branding is landscape, the dock is on the long side (bottom), the stereo speakers are right and left of the screen in landscape. It's supposed to emulate everyday devices like TV's and computer monitors.

    I guess I actually prefer it. However I really like the iPads aspect ratio too.
  23. zhenya macrumors 603


    Jan 6, 2005
    Why would that suck? At a given resolution, a 4:3 screen will display more content than a 16:9 or 16:10. More area sucks?
  24. cynics macrumors G4

    Jan 8, 2012
    Why would owning a 4:3 TV or monitor suck? Because everything is formatted for 16:9.

    Is there anything you can really buy anymore other then the iPad that's 4:3? Even the iPhone is 16:9 now. Macs, MacBook, ATV formats, have long been 16:x.

    I prefer the 4:3 ratio for reading, however I don't read enough (books, magazines) on my tablet to want to lose out in everything else.

    Games are formatted in 16:9 now.


    If you are using 4:3 you have a handicap because you can't see as far ahead.

    You have better side to side peripheral vision in first person shooters vs the a lot less important vertical.

    And if you aren't losing content then you are getting black bars on the screen. Like in movies. Side by side a movie looks HUGE on my nexus 10 compared to on my iPad 3.

    A good tablet app can use 16:10 aspect ratio very well. Like tapatalk HD.

    4:3 will always be better in portrait mode vs 16:10 I won't argue that.
  25. zhenya macrumors 603


    Jan 6, 2005
    Again, at a given resolution and size, the 4:3 will still have more pixels available, so you will see the exact same thing as on a 16:9 monitor. What's happened is that the tv industry is so large that 16:9 screens are much cheaper than alternative sizes. On a tv, which is dedicated to use that is almost entirely 16:9 that makes sense. On a computer, where most content is not 16:9 it is being done because it is cheaper for the manufacturers, not because it is better for consumers.

Share This Page