What does "everything" imply, other than video, which fits perfectly fine in a 16:10 panel and displays as effectively the same size as it would on a 16:10 panel?
16x9 video displays with black bars on a 16x10 panel. 2:35:1 video displays with black bars as large as on a 4x3 set.
And, again, high definition video, widescreen video on youtube, etc. is all 16x9. Everything just fits better in 16x9. I'm using my 16x9 display right now, MacBook hooked up to it. No way I could go back to 16x10.
"proper" for what? TV shows and the ~40% or so of movies that are shot in 16:9?
All high definition video is 16x9, the vast majority of movies are shot in some widescreen format. On 16x10 screens, 2.35:1 video displays with black bars as large as those on 4x3 TVs. Thanks to the wider horizontal resolution, you get significantly more screen space rather than a slightly taller screen.
So you're saying that 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 are not "similar resolutions"? "Always" and "never" are the words of fundamentalist fools.
Thats funny too, because the entire industry, other than Apple, has moved to 16x9 over the last couple of years. Apple is the only major manufacturer not shipping 16x9 across the board for everything.
So obviously the ENTIRE computer industry agrees with me. While only the overly vocal insignificantly small minority agrees with you
You lose vertical space, actually. There you go with those silly absolutes again.
And I gain a good amount of horizontal space and a higher overall resolution. I gain more horizontal space than I lose vertical. Makes sense. Videos display properly and I have more overall room to work with.
lol. So your argument against 16:10 screens is that Apple's OS is inefficient in the vertical dimension, therefore they should move to 16:9 screens that lose even more vertical space? Your dock argument is exactly why I've had my dock firmly planted on the side of the screen since day one.
Again, you gain horizontal space with 16x9, video displays properly, and you get more space to work with. Whats the problem? And, again, the industry agrees with me. Everything except Apple's MacBook lines are 16x9.
Everything I do on a computer short of watching video (which is the _only_ benefit you've been able to come up with) involves vertical screen real estate. We read from top to bottom. Take a look at a page of this thread that's some 40 posts long. What is the extra width gaining you in reading this exchange? Not a thing. What is it gaining you on nearly *any* web page, which are almost universally optimized to be viewed on screens no more than 1280 pixels wide?
Yes, we do read from top to bottom. But with a 16x9 higher resolution display, I can fit MORE on screen. For instance, right now I have this webpage in its own little window off to the right. Next to it I have my Adium buddy list, my Mail window is open next to the webpage, and I have several IMs open in the surrounding space. All thanks to the WIDER display.
Ever try editing a photo shot in landscape on a 16:10 panel?
Photography is still 4x3. A wider display will benefit you there. Gives you more room to have your tools open around the picture.
Fact of the matter is, 16:9 screens are good for video. 16:10 screens are better for just about everything else one would use a computer for.
Which explains why everyone except Apple has moved to 16x9 displays as standard.
Oh and care to explain why the current iMacs are 16x9 now instead of 16x10?
Another pseudo-fact that shows you really should have bought a portable DVD player instead of a computer. What you want is a video player.
Nope. Like I said, the industry agrees with me. 16x9 is the better standard
Even Apple moved their flagship desktop to 16x9.
