External monitor for my new MacBook 16:9 vs. 16:10

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by mcrisanti, Dec 1, 2008.

  1. mcrisanti macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    #1
    Hi All!

    Long time lurker, first time poster. I apologize in advance if this question has been asked before. I searched but didn't see a specific answer.

    I just got a new MacBook. I am in the process of getting an external monitor for it. However, one thing has confused me - 16:9 vs. 16:10. I understand the difference, I just am not sure if the picture is stretched or if there are unused areas on the screen.

    I am considering a Dell S2409W monitor. However, it has an aspect ratio of 1920x1080 (16:9), not 1920x1200. Given that the MacBook supports 1920x1200, how will the picture appear if I connect this monitor to my MacBook? Does the picture get stretched and look strange? Will there be a black bars on the sides? Or does the video card adapt to make the picture look normal?

    I hadn't seen a clear answer on this previously and I really don't want to buy the wrong monitor in this situation.

    Thanks!
     
  2. hmai18 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    #2
    The Macbook will display an image without the letterbox bars. The image will look "normal."

    16:9 will be useful if you plan on watching a lot of movies, in which case they will be displayed full screen without the bars.

    16:10 gives you more pixels on screen, which you'll find handy for most work. I don't find that the black bars on widescreen movies bother me much with my 16:10 Dell 2007WFP.
     
  3. mcrisanti thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    #3
    That is helpful, thanks!

    I don't plan on watching a ton of movies with it. I just want a nice big screen to work with and I can get the Dell monitor for almost nothing (my company buys a lot of Dell so they are almost giving this to us). Hence, as long as it looks normal for daily use, I should be fine. If it is better to have a 1920x1200 monitor, I would rather spend a little more to get it.
     
  4. hmai18 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    #4
    If it were me, I'd go for 16:10. It's only 120 extra pixels taller than the 16:9, but screen real estate is screen real estate.
     
  5. paolo- macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    #5
    Yeah and most applications aren't wide but tall. I find 10:9 odd for anything other than watching movie. Editing text isn't practical at all, as an example. And most of the time you can find 16:10 displays for ruffly the price of 16:9...
     

Share This Page