Full of Win
macrumors 68030
16:9 is just a way to rob us of pixels. If they increase PPI/lower dot pitch, then no problem. However, if they keep the same DPI and just chop off the bottom, then its a problem
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
16:9 vs 16:10 ratio thread
- Thread starter kabunaru
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
dontwalkhand
macrumors 604
I prefer 16:10 just because it makes sense when you are editing a 16:9 movie, to have room for your toolbars and application menus/UI.
It doesn't make sense for the computers to lower down to the crappier TV aspect ratio.
It doesn't make sense for the computers to lower down to the crappier TV aspect ratio.
Heilage
macrumors 68030
That's the good thing with the new 27" iMac. That resolution is pretty slick. You get way more pixels than from other 27" screens out there who have 16:10 (standard is pretty much 1920x1200 on those).
Rodimus Prime
macrumors G4
I must be one of the old school guys who likes the old 4:3 format. My biggest problem with the wide screen formate (both 16:9 and 16:10) is neither have enough vertical pixels. Most of the stuff I work on his a lot more vertical information over horizontal. That and I am a fan of 2 4:3 monitors. One for working and one to hold relative information I need to keep looking at.
As between 16:9 and 16:10. I see 16:9 winning out because TV are in that format now and cost wise it will be cheaper to produce 16:9 because everything for TV is already set up for that fact so equipment to produce the monitors will be cheaper for the 16:9 format.
As between 16:9 and 16:10. I see 16:9 winning out because TV are in that format now and cost wise it will be cheaper to produce 16:9 because everything for TV is already set up for that fact so equipment to produce the monitors will be cheaper for the 16:9 format.
With the new HD and better-than-HD displays on the iMac it makes perfect sense to have them 16:9 - great for watching all your HD Bluray movies... oh, hang on.
Beats me why you would want a wider screen, other than movies what benefits from 16:9 (okay, your wallet perhaps), even then, in a short while, most computer screens will be of higher def than HD, so who cares about little black lines. Web browsing, typing/reading documents, coding... all vertical!
Both have ups and downs
16:10 ups:
(1) More real estate.
16:10 downs
(1) Looks more boxy (aesthetics). I like how 16:9's look.
(2) The base is boxy as well, which prevents the keyboard from being larger/wider.
Verdict: I'll go with 16:10.
16:10 ups:
(1) More real estate.
16:10 downs
(1) Looks more boxy (aesthetics). I like how 16:9's look.
(2) The base is boxy as well, which prevents the keyboard from being larger/wider.
Verdict: I'll go with 16:10.
Ive had both and with Windows 8 coming, Id rather have 16:9. But 16:10 was nice while I had it too. It was a bit weird going 16:10 to 16:9 at first though.
On Macs with OS X I think 16:10 is a better choice though.
On Macs with OS X I think 16:10 is a better choice though.