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

16:9

16:9 on a laptop

  • Yes

    Votes: 47 29.4%

  • No

    Votes: 113 70.6%
  • Total voters
    160
hundert

hundert

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jan 24, 2010
177
0
I searched and found no thread discussing the resolution ratio of 16:9 for MBP laptops, which is expected in the update.

Here is my opinion about 16:9
My brother own iMac 27, which is 16:9, and I absolutely love it!
Reasons why:

-most of the movies are shot 23.5:10 (or 2.35:1) or rounded 24:10, and it is nice to have a bigger picture of the movie on a small laptop screen. A big plus for me.

-Easier work with two programs on screen. When I write stuff, I usually have two windows open. In Final Draft, I have outline on the right side, and screenplay on the left. Or you can have Word on the left and Safari on the right. Final Cut is also nicer. Vertically divided screen does not work on the 16:10 that well, 16:9, however, does a good job on it.

-Mac Doc as complained by many people takes up a chunk of a screen, especially on 16:9. I have never had my Doc on the bottom. It is always on the left side (hiding turned off). I never understood why people have it on the bottom, since even with 16:10 it takes up a lot of valuable space on a laptop screen. This problem is solvable and I think not a reason to not like 16:9
-some people say 16:9 on a laptop is nice because of TV using 16:9. Now what does have a screen of Macbook Pro have to do with TV? Really nothing. I think it is not the reason why it is good.


I wanna hear your opinions.
 
This might sound weird but I love widescreens on my desktop but not on my laptops..... probably because I choose smaller 13" and 15" laptops for their portability.
 
People dont watch movies all day long and that too on their laptops. Doesn't make sense for me having 16:9.
 
oneprouddaddy said:
This might sound weird but I love widescreens on my desktop but not on my laptops..... probably because I choose smaller 13" and 15" laptops for their portability.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way. I think we're losing space by going wide rather than gaining it.

On desktop monitors, the ratio went from 1600x1200 to 1920x1200. That was a great move.

On laptops, we're going from 16x10 ratio's to 16x9 ratios by taking space away, not by making the screen wider. So, we're going from 1280x1024 to 1280x800, or 1680x1050 to 1600x900 or 1920x1200 to 1920x1080.

I suppose on the MBP they could go from 1440x900 to 1600x900 which is good. However, the 1440x900 is poor resolution in the first place.

I'm hoping this update will keep the 16x10 ratio and have them put in a 1680x1050 monitor.

Unfortunately, the future for all laptop screens is certainly going to 16x9.
 
Unless you are talking about making the 13" model 14" then you'll be loosing pixels off the top, so the scenarios you described aren't really true.

But I'd like 16:9 on a laptop.
 
ronjo, you have a great point!

But I am not as much concerned about pixels as about the actual size. But some people truly might be, so I guess, that was a great point.


Now in this case, I am really curious about which size of the screens mbp will be equipped with (assuming they will use 16:9)

If the size stays the same: We lose big. If it increases, or the surface area stays the same, then it is good for me!

Yes, Kilamite, you are right!
 
My mom just got an ASUS that's 16:9 and it's really annoying. I prefer 16:10 hands down.
 
While I prefer 16:10 (even with my dock on the right here).. I'm going for a 16:9 on my laptop this time I like their smaller size (of the whole laptop, I mean)
 
I hate 16:9 on a laptop. So much that I even returned a Vaio because of it.

Wide is good. Extra wide is stupid. You lose critical vertical usability.

16:9 work well on the television and movies, which it was designed for, but NOT for computing.
 
I love 16x9 because when the resolution is high enough especially on a laptop you can put two windows side by side of each other. I know you can do this on the 17 inch laptops but on 15s you usually can't. So it if it lets me fit 2 windows side by side ill gladly give up the vertical space i dont really need.
 
A 16:9 TV is nice and everything, but not a laptop, at least i and 98% of the MBP owners also browse, write, edit and more, a 16:9 screen in such a small screen is horrible to have
 
I don't get this argument about having windows side-by-side. What's stopping you from doing that on 16:10? I do it all the time, except my windows are taller than yours are (and thus bigger so 16:10 FTW).
 
Scorch07 said:
I don't get this argument about having windows side-by-side. What's stopping you from doing that on 16:10? I do it all the time, except my windows are taller than yours are (and thus bigger so 16:10 FTW).
Click to expand...

That's probably because I expect 16:9 screen to be of at least the same area size.

If they just cut the top and bottom, of course then my argument is false. But then a laptop will get smaller and lighter - not what I want, but maybe someone else does.

Another thing: what if they change resolution? Make it higher? I doubt it will happen in the 1920x1080 model, but for 15inches laptop 1440x810 sounds like crap, so I think they will improve it. 1680x945 sounds sweet!
 
hundert said:
That's probably because I expect 16:9 screen to be of at least the same area size.

If they just cut the top and bottom, of course then my argument is false. But then a laptop will get smaller and lighter - not what I want, but maybe someone else does.

Another thing: what if they change resolution? Make it higher? I doubt it will happen in the 1920x1080 model, but for 15inches laptop 1440x810 sounds like crap, so I think they will improve it.
Click to expand...

All I know is, my mom's ASUS that I mentioned earlier, which is a 15 inch model (like my MBP), is the same width as my MBP but shorter. Everything on it feels cramped comparatively.
 
watching movies: widescreen is great.
reading, editing docs, coding, etc: widescreen is terrible.

of course it depends on the resolution, but it seems that you end up losing vertical res while keeping the horizontal constant.
 
Sn0wball said:
I hate 16:9 on a laptop. So much that I even returned a Vaio because of it.

Wide is good. Extra wide is stupid. You lose critical vertical usability.

16:9 work well on the television and movies, which it was designed for, but NOT for computing.
Click to expand...

This pretty much sums it up. I don't know how the OP thinks 16:9 lets you see two documents on the screen better than 16:10??? I would imagine the comparative resolutions would be something like 1600x900 vs. 1680x1050.

I am a resolution junkie, so the higher the better. I don't mind high resolution widescreen (1920xwhatever), because you can fit two documents/whatevers side by side with minimal fuss.
 
striatedglutes said:
This pretty much sums it up. I don't know how the OP thinks 16:9 lets you see two documents on the screen better than 16:10??? I would imagine the comparative resolutions would be something like 1600x900 vs. 1680x1050.

I am a resolution junkie, so the higher the better. I don't mind high resolution widescreen (1920xwhatever), because you can fit two documents/whatevers side by side with minimal fuss.
Click to expand...

That's the best thing about 16:9, the side by side doc viewing. Plus it's good for production.

I don't understand it when people say that they're losing vertical res, depends how you look at it and the res. I see it as gaining horizontal res. Nothing wrong with that at all surely.
 
16:9 on a laptop presents problems that have nothing to do with the screen.

For example when the thinkpads went 16:10 instead of 4:3 they had to change their port arrangements around and do dumb things like putting the headphone jack on the front of the notebook (what if you want to connect your laptop to speakers?)

what would happen to the smaller MBPs if we went 16:9. I don't want a larger computer than the 13inch and I definitely don't want less ports and I find it highly unlikely that apple will clutter the front of the unibody design with ports so we'd probably end up losing something...not cool:mad:
 
16:9 works on the 27" iMac because it has a very high resolution, 2560x1440. I still wish they had just gone with the full 2560x1600 at 30" size but I guess that is more up to what the panel manufacturers are offering.

There is no benefit to 16:9 over 16:10. 16:10 typically has more vertical pixels and that translates into more usable screen estate. Most programs use more vertical space than horizontal. Office applications, web browsers, you name it and most likely it's about reading from top to bottom. Video and games are the only ones where the 16:9 works as intended. On a 16:10 screen the dock or taskbar can usually be nicely set at the bottom, should you want to use it like that. On my 30" 2560x1600 display I prefer it at the bottom because it's easier to access there at such a high resolution.
 
Dozerrox said:
That's the best thing about 16:9, the side by side doc viewing. Plus it's good for production.

I don't understand it when people say that they're losing vertical res, depends how you look at it and the res. I see it as gaining horizontal res. Nothing wrong with that at all surely.
Click to expand...

Wide screens are nice. But in most laptops that went widescreen followed the 1280x800 -->1376x768 pattern. A vertical resolution of 768 is not practical especially in software with large tool bars at the top. So unless the aspect ratio change is followed by an overall resolution bump I can't see how it boosts productivity

Keep in mind that for the same diagonal size (say 13.3 inches) the wider screen offers less surface.
 
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
Back