16:9

[splitpea]

No way. I need as much vertical space as I can get. A 15" 16:10 is restrictive enough, especially since it's not wide enough for two side-by-side windows in most apps (nor would 16:9 be at that size). 1024px vertical is an absolute minimum for usability in graphics or coding.

Yes, I'm one of those dinosaurs who misses 4:3. Also one of those crazies who wishes Cinema Displays supported 90-degree rotation.

The size you lose letterboxing a movie is minimal compared to what you lose by changing the monitor's aspect ratio, and most of us use laptops for something other than watching movies.

 

[ronjon10]

The 16x9 layout is all the worse with the various horizontal task bars and ribbons. Microsoft office has that thick ribbon running along the top of it's apps. That change is coming to the next version of MS Office for Mac as well.

 

[hundert]

Physical screen size doesn't matter.

Can I ask you to be open to what I write next? Thank you.

Neither size of the sceen nor the number of pixels have anything to do with the pixel ratio.

32x18 handheld tetris game screen would be 16:9, as an example.


If there were NO standards like 1080 or 1024 or 900 or 720, and if we discuss the aspect ratio solely, then ALL of your arguments (and also some, but not all of mine) would fail to discuss the topic.

Now, there are standards. Yes. But computers have never been too tight to standards. I can always change resolution to whichever I want in System Preferences. We all know that.

This means also, that higher resolutions MAY be supported, maybe as an option as Dell used to do it (I dont know how it is now, we I guess are not so into Dell anymore ). I am not talking about 1080, I am talking about much higher.

If to give the ratio its independence from everything else, but the matter of ratio itself, 16:9 clearly wins from me.

We all remember those times, when TV was SD only, and we could push our monitors as high as 1900x1200 - a true independence of pixels (I hope you dont bring matters like maximum pixel density manufacturing possibilities).

It could really be a switch from 1680x1050 to 1867x1050 keeping the vertical pixels the same. From manufacturing point of view, such a screen is not produced right now (and the pixels do not round as a whole, so a different res which is 1080, would be more appropriate to mention). But it is only a theory here.

My opinion is that 1680x1050 competes with 1920x1080 and not 1600x900, when it is about a screen going wider. Why were you cutting pixels off the top and the bottom, instead of adding on the sides? Because you judge the aspect ratio not by what it is, but what manufacturers made it to be. Instead of adding pixels, they cut them. It is true, but to compare two aspect ratios, they must be given the same chance to compete. 16:10 with 1050 is like someone with performance enhancing drugs over 16:9 with 900.

Having given myself time to think about it, I think this post makes more sens than others.
Now if you can prove me wrong, you are welcome

Thank you,

 

[splitpea]

I think the point is that if you keep the same diagonal size (e.g. roughly 15" for the mid-range MBP) and pixel pitch, you lose vertical resolution (and total pixel count) by going from 16:10 to 16:9, while gaining only minimal horizontal pixels.

To maintain vertical resolution or total pixels when going from 16:10 to 16:9 you need to either tighten pixel pitch (which could be done at 16:10 for an increase in pixels, but results in smaller interface text and arguably decreased legibility) or increase diagonal size (which would also result in an increase if 16:10 ratio were maintained, and results in reduced portability [big deal with laptops, not a big deal with desktop monitors and TVs]).

 

[hundert]

I also forgot to mention:

When we moved to 16:10 from 4:3, we lost a huge amount of pixels.

from 1900x1400 (ey, I dont rememver the exact resolution) to 1900x1200. Now I dont remember if those resolutions were possible, but it is not important to make a point.

For me it was a huge step forward. 16:9 will be another one.

 

[KnightWRX]

I also forgot to mention:

When we moved to 16:10 from 4:3, we lost a huge amount of pixels.

from 1900x1400 (ey, I dont rememver the exact resolution) to 1900x1200. Now I dont remember if those resolutions were possible, but it is not important to make a point.

For me it was a huge step forward. 16:9 will be another one.

Losing pixels is a move forward ? Seriously, no. You're just being ridiculous.

As for your other argument, it's a mish mash of ignorance, no matter how open minded I stay reading it.

4:3 was the best ratio. 16:10 was to please some movie watchers that don't understand that black bars doesn't rob them of movie pixels, 16:9 is a TV aspect ratio, not a computer one.

And computers do follow standards, and no, you can't just arbitrarily set a higher resolution in system preferences. LCDs have native resolutions and anything else is emulated by stretching pixels. LCDs should always be set to their native resolutions and nothing else.

 

[Winters]

I would rather stay at 16:10 no matter what resolution they want to use in the next mbp since watching movie only takes a really small portion of my time on my computer. Moving to 16:9 would be more of a downgrade than anything else for those with the same usage as me I think, since the vertical difference would be more noticable and would actually make a 17" 16:9 screen not look so different from a 15" in 16:10.

 

[hundert]

4:3 was the best ratio.

What do you mean by best? In average, it is the worst aspect ratio.

best for you, but from other points of view, most of the consumers prefer wider than 4:3 or else there would still be a high demand for those. From manufacturing point of view, wide is cheaper to produce, which results in lower end consumer price. It is more power efficient. It is more pleasant to the eye on very big screens, since moving eyes up and down becomes tiring. Even on iMac 27 two hours of sitting close to it, eyes get more tired than on my 17 book. Now, if iMac were 4:3 I would hang myself on that apple mouse. Oh I forgot it is wireless.

Engineers, consumers, and everyone esle making decisions about aspect ratio know better than you that 4:3 is not the way to go. Now, if you will try to battle the whole world, good luck. I am sure you will not succeed as you are not doing it now.

There are sooooo many reasons to go wide, from aesthetical to emotional. 4x3 has its power. But the power you are trying to prove, is only a small part of the whole, which in the end marks the monitor as best.

I am not saying you are wrong in what you are saying, I never did. But 16:10 wins over 4:3 clearly, no discussion here.

May I ask you, do you have a 4:3 at home? I do have one and I use it constantly. llyama 19 Vision Master Pro 454 - great one. Right now I am about to order a 24 inch that will replace it. I think it will be the Samsung, since it has got the best reviews.


I even wish there was a 20:10 monitor, or even wider one, so I dont have use two monitors. It is possible to engineer, as a monitor that uses two DVI outputs and acts as two monitors. I dont know if a thing that wide exists. If anyone knows pm me, i want that!

And computers do follow standards

I said they do.

LCDs should always be set to their native resolutions and nothing else.

I go down to the lowest resolution on a macbook. Looks like crap, but I have my reasons for using that. I also use 1024x640 and 1152x720 pretty often.

 

[KnightWRX]

What do you mean by best? In average, it is the worst aspect ratio.

best for you, but from other points of view, most of the consumers prefer wider than 4:3 or else there would still be a high demand for those.

There is high demand. All new LCDs we buy at work are 4:3. Most business grade LCDs are.

You're confusing user demand with simply vendors just jumping on the widescreen marketing bandwagon.

4:3 is ideal for working. Any type of work you do, notice how much time you spend vertically scrolling. Same for web surfing, most sites require scrolling. 4:3 is superior to any of the wide aspect ratios in those scenarios.

 

[hundert]

There is high demand. All new LCDs we buy at work are 4:3. Most business grade LCDs are.

You're confusing user demand with simply vendors just jumping on the widescreen marketing bandwagon.

4:3 is ideal for working. Any type of work you do, notice how much time you spend vertically scrolling. Same for web surfing, most sites require scrolling. 4:3 is superior to any of the wide aspect ratios in those scenarios.

Best products survive on the market, the noncompetitive ones fade away. I have not found a single big 4:3 moni on typical consumer sites. I dont think the user demand is high.
There is a reason vendors jump onto something. They will not jump, and I am sure they wont, if all of a sudden there will be a trend of 1:1 monitors.

 

[Dozerrox]

Can I ask you to be open to what I write next? Thank you.

Neither size of the sceen nor the number of pixels have anything to do with the pixel ratio.

32x18 handheld tetris game screen would be 16:9, as an example.


If there were NO standards like 1080 or 1024 or 900 or 720, and if we discuss the aspect ratio solely, then ALL of your arguments (and also some, but not all of mine) would fail to discuss the topic.

Now, there are standards. Yes. But computers have never been too tight to standards. I can always change resolution to whichever I want in System Preferences. We all know that.

This means also, that higher resolutions MAY be supported, maybe as an option as Dell used to do it (I dont know how it is now, we I guess are not so into Dell anymore ). I am not talking about 1080, I am talking about much higher.

If to give the ratio its independence from everything else, but the matter of ratio itself, 16:9 clearly wins from me.

We all remember those times, when TV was SD only, and we could push our monitors as high as 1900x1200 - a true independence of pixels (I hope you dont bring matters like maximum pixel density manufacturing possibilities).

It could really be a switch from 1680x1050 to 1867x1050 keeping the vertical pixels the same. From manufacturing point of view, such a screen is not produced right now (and the pixels do not round as a whole, so a different res which is 1080, would be more appropriate to mention). But it is only a theory here.

My opinion is that 1680x1050 competes with 1920x1080 and not 1600x900, when it is about a screen going wider. Why were you cutting pixels off the top and the bottom, instead of adding on the sides? Because you judge the aspect ratio not by what it is, but what manufacturers made it to be. Instead of adding pixels, they cut them. It is true, but to compare two aspect ratios, they must be given the same chance to compete. 16:10 with 1050 is like someone with performance enhancing drugs over 16:9 with 900.

Having given myself time to think about it, I think this post makes more sens than others.
Now if you can prove me wrong, you are welcome

Thank you,

Thanks for explaining it in baby steps. I swear half the people talking about res don't seem to understand this still! Quite frustrating!

 

[kolax]

4:3 is ideal for working. Any type of work you do, notice how much time you spend vertically scrolling. Same for web surfing, most sites require scrolling. 4:3 is superior to any of the wide aspect ratios in those scenarios.

Don't forget movie and music editors. Everything tends to be horizontal scrolling more than vertical.

Wide screen is superior in those environments, though 16:10 is optimal.

 

[KnightWRX]

Best products survive on the market, the noncompetitive ones fade away.

You're confusing actual competitiveness and good products with marketing. "Widescreen Monitor" is all marketing.