16:9

[maratus]

If it's 1440x900 vs. 1600x900 or 1920x1200 vs. 2048x1152 then i'd prefer 16:9.
If it's 1680x1050 vs. 1600x900 or 1920x1200 vs. 1920x1080 or 2560x1600 vs. 2560x1440 then i'd prefer 16:10.

These thing are as simple for me as possible.

 

[Sn0wball]

It results in about an inch decrease in height, but just half an inch increase in width.

If you have a startbar or dock all along the bottom and have titlebars on windows all along the top, the usable vertical dimension is squashed even more.

It's a pointless ratio for computing. Driven by nothing other than price/profit margins (you're getting less screen size/dimensions for your $$$).

 

[KnightWRX]

It results in about an inch decrease in height, but just half an inch increase in width.

That's not how computer screen works. You don't magically gain width. 1280x720 is 16:9, it isn't any wider than 1280x800 which is 16:10.

So even if they give the laptops more horizontal pixels, you're still losing vertical pixels, because they can give the same horizontal pixels to a 16:10 display.

 

[Spandexman]

That's not how computer screen works. You don't magically gain width. 1280x720 is 16:9, it isn't any wider than 1280x800 which is 16:10.

So even if they give the laptops more horizontal pixels, you're still losing vertical pixels, because they can give the same horizontal pixels to a 16:10 display.

I've read this statement 5 times, and I still don't understand exactly what you're saying. Snowball was demonstrating in his picture that if the diagonal distance were to stay the same, but the ratio were to change, then you would have a wider, shorter computer with fewer pixels in total. This is 100% totally accurate.

If you were to do as you say with your resizing, i.e. changing the number of vertical pixels but keeping the number of horizontal pixels, then the screen size would change, and it would no longer be a 13" laptop. Similarly, if you were to "give the same horizontal pixels to a 16:10 display" then the diagonal screen size would increase and it would not be the same size display.

 

[apolloa]

No way do I want 16:9. For a start I always thought the 17" mb pro looks stupid with it's extra wide body and extra speaker holes so I do not fancy a 15" model going the same way plus I really would not want to buy another laptop case. I find the current 15" shape and size to be perfect thanks and just want a higher resolution capable of 1080p

 

[KnightWRX]

I've read this statement 5 times, and I still don't understand exactly what you're saying. Snowball was demonstrating in his picture that if the diagonal distance were to stay the same, but the ratio were to change, then you would have a wider, shorter computer with fewer pixels in total. This is 100% totally accurate.

If you were to do as you say with your resizing, i.e. changing the number of vertical pixels but keeping the number of horizontal pixels, then the screen size would change, and it would no longer be a 13" laptop. Similarly, if you were to "give the same horizontal pixels to a 16:10 display" then the diagonal screen size would increase and it would not be the same size display.

The physical screen size doesn't matter at all. Resolution is king for LCD displays. So what if your 13" is in fact 13.3" ? If it has 1280x720, it has less vertical pixels and isn't any wider, even if it is physically wider.

That's the point basically. Going 16:9 robs you of vertical pixels. The inches of width you gain are inconsequential, they only change your PPI, not your actual horizontal screen space.

People saying 16:9 is wider need to take a good long look at resolutions. It isn't wider at all in most cases, and in the cases which it is, an equivalent 16:10 display could have been made with even more vertical pixels.

 

[maratus]

I've read this statement 5 times, and I still don't understand exactly what you're saying. Snowball was demonstrating in his picture that if the diagonal distance were to stay the same, but the ratio were to change, then you would have a wider, shorter computer with fewer pixels in total. This is 100% totally accurate.

If you were to do as you say with your resizing, i.e. changing the number of vertical pixels but keeping the number of horizontal pixels, then the screen size would change, and it would no longer be a 13" laptop. Similarly, if you were to "give the same horizontal pixels to a 16:10 display" then the diagonal screen size would increase and it would not be the same size display.

It will have different pixel density. And it's not hard to realize that manufacturers are limited to standard resolution/diagonal combinations. There're 1280x800, 1440x900, 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 panels with 15.4" diagonal and 1366x768, 1600x900 and 1920x1080 panels with 15.6".

Going from 1680x1050 to 1600x900 is bad, and going from 1440x900 to 1600x900 is good (pixel density is another story)

 

[neteng101]

Screen size has nothing to do with resolution ie. the ability to display images in fine detail.

You can get a 17-inch laptop display with 1366x768 (16:9)... try viewing 2 pages side by side on that display, and it will look like absolute crap. You'll also be scrolling more up/down the pages.

 

[Spandexman]

The physical screen size doesn't matter at all. Resolution is king for LCD displays. So what if your 13" is in fact 13.3" ? If it has 1280x720, it has less vertical pixels and isn't any wider, even if it is physically wider.

That's the point basically. Going 16:9 robs you of vertical pixels. The inches of width you gain are inconsequential, they only change your PPI, not your actual horizontal screen space.

People saying 16:9 is wider need to take a good long look at resolutions. It isn't wider at all in most cases, and in the cases which it is, an equivalent 16:10 display could have been made with even more vertical pixels.

I think you'll find physical screen size does matter a lot. Hence all the 13 v 15 comments. Also, if physical screen size doesn't matter, why are we having this discussion at all? I'm not saying that if you change the resolution from 1280x800 to 1280x720 you'll have a wider laptop, what I'm saying is that if you have the same diagonal size screen (with the same PPI) then a 16x9 laptop will have more horizontal width. If you change from 1280x800 to 1280x720 but keep the same PPI, then you'll not have a 13" computer any more.

It will have different pixel density. And it's not hard to realize that manufacturers are limited to standard resolution/diagonal combinations. There're 1280x800, 1440x900, 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 panels with 15.4" diagonal and 1366x768, 1600x900 and 1920x1080 panels with 15.6".

Going from 1680x1050 to 1600x900 is bad, and going from 1440x900 to 1600x900 is good (pixel density is another story)

Agreed, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make.

 

[ronjon10]

Sadly, it wont matter in a couple of years, all the screens will be 16x9 as that's the way the screen manufacturers are going. The first release this year will likely be 16x10 as a change from that will require changes to the unibody design. After the first release though, who knows. I'm sure Apple could get the manufacturers to keep making the 16x10's since they'll be able to guarantee a large number of orders, but it'll cost more. Ugh.

 

[KnightWRX]

I think you'll find physical screen size does matter a lot. Hence all the 13 v 15 comments. Also, if physical screen size doesn't matter, why are we having this discussion at all? I'm not saying that if you change the resolution from 1280x800 to 1280x720 you'll have a wider laptop, what I'm saying is that if you have the same diagonal size screen (with the same PPI) then a 16x9 laptop will have more horizontal width. If you change from 1280x800 to 1280x720 but keep the same PPI, then you'll not have a 13" computer any more.

You obviously don't understand how this works. Of course if you have the same PPI and the same diagonal (so more width), you'll have more horizontal pixels. PPI is a calculation of Pixels Per Inch. Want to tell us how the sky is blue next ?

The point is, a 16:10 screen with the same horizontal pixels can be made, and will have more vertical pixels. And yes it will still be a 13" laptop. So what if it has .3" more on the diagonal ? People won't start calling it a 13.3" or a 13.5" laptop, they'll still refer to it as a 13" laptop.

Anyway, the point is 16:9 is ridiculous on a laptop. 16:10 is barely good enough (windows are too wide and not tall enough). And the higher the resolution the better. Even better if it has very high PPI. Apple needs to give us things like 15.4" 1920x1200 screens like other laptop vendors are selling.

Physical screen size doesn't matter. You'll have more space on a 13" 1680x1050 screen than on Apple's abysmal 1440x900 15" screen (seriously, the 15" MBP has ridiculously low resolution).

 

[Spandexman]

You obviously don't understand how this works. Of course if you have the same PPI and the same diagonal (so more width), you'll have more horizontal pixels. PPI is a calculation of Pixels Per Inch. Want to tell us how the sky is blue next ?

The point is, a 16:10 screen with the same horizontal pixels can be made, and will have more vertical pixels. And yes it will still be a 13" laptop. So what if it has .3" more on the diagonal ? People won't start calling it a 13.3" or a 13.5" laptop, they'll still refer to it as a 13" laptop.

Anyway, the point is 16:9 is ridiculous on a laptop. 16:10 is barely good enough (windows are too wide and not tall enough). And the higher the resolution the better. Even better if it has very high PPI. Apple needs to give us things like 15.4" 1920x1200 screens like other laptop vendors are selling.

Physical screen size doesn't matter. You'll have more space on a 13" 1680x1050 screen than on Apple's abysmal 1440x900 15" screen (seriously, the 15" MBP has ridiculously low resolution).

So, you can make a 16:10 screen with the same width as a 16:9 screen but with more height. We can also make a 16:9 screen with the same height as a 16:10 screen but with more width. What's your point? Do you have one?

I understand the situation perfectly, but you don't seem to. You say "going 16:9 robs you of vertical pixels". Clearly this isn't true. For example 1920x1080 has more vertical pixels than 1280x800. Your statement seems to boil down to "if you remove pixels, you'll have fewer pixels", which I'm not trying to dispute.

My original quarrel with you was that you disputed that keeping the diagonal distance the same and changing the aspect ratio would not give you a wider screen. It would. Hence the quarrel.

 

[KnightWRX]

I understand the situation perfectly, but you don't seem to. You say "going 16:9 robs you of vertical pixels". Clearly this isn't true. For example 1920x1080 has more vertical pixels than 1280x800. Your statement seems to boil down to "if you remove pixels, you'll have fewer pixels", which I'm not trying to dispute.

1920x1080 is 16:9's to 16:10's 1920x1200. Anymore ridiculous claims to try to hide your ignorance ?

The fact is resolutions are mostly well defined. You can't suddenly say "hey, more horizontal pixels!". 16:10 will almost always have a horizontal equivalent with more vertical pixels. 4:3 even more so.

16:9 is absolute crap. It's not wider than 16:10. It's just less high. It's less overall pixels. You're not "seeing more of the movie because there's no black bars". You're seeing the exact same thing.

 

[t0mat0]

-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.


I wanna hear your opinions.

Have you got Cinch? Helps snap windows to fuly maximise or exactly half maximise (so can put two side by side).

 

[wbham]

I think apples laptops will stay 16:10, but I wouldn't mind 16:9 if there was a resolution bump (eg 1600*900) on the 13"

 

[hundert]

The physical screen size doesn't matter at all. Resolution is king for LCD displays. So what if your 13" is in fact 13.3" ? If it has 1280x720, it has less vertical pixels and isn't any wider, even if it is physically wider.

That's the point basically. Going 16:9 robs you of vertical pixels. The inches of width you gain are inconsequential, they only change your PPI, not your actual horizontal screen space.

People saying 16:9 is wider need to take a good long look at resolutions. It isn't wider at all in most cases, and in the cases which it is, an equivalent 16:10 display could have been made with even more vertical pixels.

For me physical size matters alot. Resolution less. There is a reason why 30 inch monitors cost thousands of dollars, while 24inch you can get for $150.

13.3 would have around 5% more surface area than a 13 inch laptop. I remember switching from Vostro14 to Studio15 only because 15 was a lot bigger. That inch and a bit made a whole lot of a difference (14.1 and 15.4 as I can remember). 14 screen was simply too small.

I would be happier with 16:9 with bigger area but less pixels, than with 16:10 with more pixels but smaller area.

16:9 1600x900 > 16:10 1600x1050 as long as the area is bigger. If it is the same, I am a little more for 16:10, if it is less, 16:10 clearly wins.

I think it is the reason why 1/3 of people voted for and 2/3 against 16:9.

And whatever Apple will come up with, I hope they make best of it.

 

[hundert]

Have you got Cinch? Helps snap windows to fuly maximise or exactly half maximise (so can put two side by side).

Interesting! I am downloading the trial version.


Edit: Oh, it is just like in Windows 7! I like it! Thanks.

 

[KnightWRX]

For me physical size matters alot. Resolution less. There is a reason why 30 inch monitors cost thousands of dollars, while 24inch you can get for $150.

13.3 would have around 5% more surface area than a 13 inch laptop. I remember switching from Vostro14 to Studio15 only because 15 was a lot bigger. That inch and a bit made a whole lot of a difference (14.1 and 15.4 as I can remember). 14 screen was simply too small.

I would be happier with 16:9 with bigger area but less pixels, than with 16:10 with more pixels but smaller area.

16:9 1600x900 > 16:10 1600x1050 as long as the area is bigger. If it is the same, I am a little more for 16:10, if it is less, 16:10 clearly wins.

I think it is the reason why 1/3 of people voted for and 2/3 against 16:9.

And whatever Apple will come up with, I hope they make best of it.

That makes no sense whatsoever unless you're blind as a bat. Less pixels = less workspace.

Physical size changes what exactly ? Lower PPI screens look awful and pixelated, what is it you like about them ?

The reason 30" monitors cost thousands is that they use IPS panels and are capable of very high resolution (2560x1600) and those 150$ 24" use TN panels with usually 1080p resolution.

There's a reason Apple's 24" LED display and HP's LP2475w 24" are close to 1k$. They also use IPS panels.

You seem to know squat about computer monitors, so I guess I'll let it slide.

 

[Spandexman]

1920x1080 is 16:9's to 16:10's 1920x1200. Anymore ridiculous claims to try to hide your ignorance ?

The fact is resolutions are mostly well defined. You can't suddenly say "hey, more horizontal pixels!". 16:10 will almost always have a horizontal equivalent with more vertical pixels. 4:3 even more so.

16:9 is absolute crap. It's not wider than 16:10. It's just less high. It's less overall pixels. You're not "seeing more of the movie because there's no black bars". You're seeing the exact same thing.

Yes, and 2048x1200 is 16:9's answer to 16:10. So what? This would be neither "less high" nor "less overall pixels". Where's my ignorance? Oh, and by the way, that would have a screen size of over 17.8 inches, which was my ORIGINAL POINT.

Oh, and just for you information, there's a word for "less high". It's "shorter". Pleased to have helped.

 

[maratus]

Yes, and 2048x1200 is 16:9's answer to 16:10. So what? This would be neither "less high" nor "less overall pixels". Where's my ignorance? Oh, and by the way, that would have a screen size of over 17.8 inches, which was my ORIGINAL POINT.

Oh, and just for you information, there's a word for "less high". It's "shorter". Pleased to have helped.

No it won't! Your "ORIGINAL POINT" has nothing to do with real world and is a ... bs.

 

[KnightWRX]

Yes, and 2048x1200 is 16:9's answer to 16:10. So what?

So again, you've proven you know squat. 2048x1152 is 16:9. Notice those missing vertical pixels even to 16:10's 1920x1200, let's not even talk about 2048x1280.

16:9 has less vertical pixels. End of story. Stretch as wide as you want, there's a 16:10 that is the same width with more vertical pixels. Physical screen size doesn't matter. Everything displayed is pixel based. Want more displayed on screen ? Get a higher resolution display, not a bigger display.

Where's my ignorance? Oh, and by the way, that would have a screen size of over 17.8 inches, which was my ORIGINAL POINT.

Over 17.8 inches ? How can you determine that with just the resolution ? Answer : You can't. This could be on a 10" screen for all we know. We'd need to know the PPI to determine the screen inches.

So your original point is BS, your arguments are BS.

 

[Spandexman]

So again, you've proven you know squat. 2048x1152 is 16:9. Notice those missing vertical pixels even to 16:10's 1920x1200, let's not even talk about 2048x1280.

16:9 has less vertical pixels. End of story. Stretch as wide as you want, there's a 16:10 that is the same width with more vertical pixels. Physical screen size doesn't matter. Everything displayed is pixel based. Want more displayed on screen ? Get a higher resolution display, not a bigger display.



Over 17.8 inches ? How can you determine that with just the resolution ? Answer : You can't. This could be on a 10" screen for all we know. We'd need to know the PPI to determine the screen inches.

So your original point is BS, your arguments are BS.

I'll admit, I was wrong about 2048x1200, it's not 16:9. However, it's not 16:10 either. It's wider, with the same number of vertical pixels, which was rather the point.

Saying 16:9 has fewer pixels has "less vertical pixels" (it's fewer by the way) is just not true. You can get 16:9 screens with higher vertical resolution that the 16:10 screens. All you're saying is that for a 16:10 screen with the same horizontal resolution, to make it 16:9 you have to remove vertical pixels. This is plainly true, and I'm not disputing that! However, your argument that for any given 16:9 screen, you can get a 16:10 screen with more vertical pixels and the same horizontal pixels. This is again true. However, the reverse is true also! Take any 16:10 screen and you can get a 16:9 screen with the same number of vertical pixels, but with more horizontal pixels!

Answer me this, If the new MBPs come out, and they go to 16:9, and keep the same vertical pixel number, will you complain? To be fair, you probably will, but given the choice of keeping the same screen or getting more pixels on the sides, surely the second option will be better?

Oh, and for the 17.8" screen, clearly I kept the PPI the same in my calculations.

Lastly, surely you must be able to see that there are benefits to having a larger/smaller screen? I completely understand your standpoint on resolutions, i.e. that more resolution = more stuff on the screen, and that more screen doesn't = more pixels or stuff on the screen, but there are different aspects in play. For instance, full HD on an Ipad would be very difficult to use in practice. Massive videos and pictures would look amazing, but normal sized things of lower PPI screens would be tiny and difficult to read/see with such a high resolution. I have excellent close vision, but find some things on my 13" 1280x800 screen difficult to read. On a larger screen, they'd be easier. Don't get me wrong, I like having the quite high res on the screen, but if I had worse vision (not necessarily being blind as a bat) I might not.

You might want to consider that your tastes don't encompass everybody.

 

[KnightWRX]

Saying 16:9 has fewer pixels has "less vertical pixels" (it's fewer by the way) is just not true. You can get 16:9 screens with higher vertical resolution that the 16:10 screens. All you're saying is that for a 16:10 screen with the same horizontal resolution, to make it 16:9 you have to remove vertical pixels. This is plainly true, and I'm not disputing that! However, your argument that for any given 16:9 screen, you can get a 16:10 screen with more vertical pixels and the same horizontal pixels. This is again true. However, the reverse is true also! Take any 16:10 screen and you can get a 16:9 screen with the same number of vertical pixels, but with more horizontal pixels!

Good, glad we finally agree there's no advantages to 16:9. I hope you learned a few things today.

 

[quantm]

If wish apple would make a 4:3 notebook. 16:10 is bad enough but 16:9 is absolutely dreadful. I'd go back to windows before buying a 16:9 macbook.

i agree. 16:9 is absolutely deadful for the office work - esp. on small screens.
the right reference for the offfice monitor here is the ratio width/height of two A4 pages which is in fact closer to 4:3.

poll: 16:10

 

[quantm]

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!

why don't include 4:3 into the poll?