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

How important was the 16:10 screen aspect ratio in your decision to purchase?

I

iFanboy

Guest
Original poster
I'm a lawyer and vertical screen real estate is important to me because I spend most of my time on Word or other scrolling A4 documents.

I have previously tried a 16:9 laptop, which sadly most laptop's now use, and it was incredibly annoying to use.

I wouldn't purchase a 16:9 laptop and as long as Apple continue producing 16:10 screens they'll have my business.

Does anyone else feel this way?
 
I prefer 16:10 as well, and this was a factor when I was looking at either a 13" MBP or Lenovo 14" ThinkPad to replace my old 13" MBA. However, since the Lenovo 14" have screen resolution of 1600X900, the 16:9 is not too bad if you move the taskbar to the side.

If the next 13" MBP have 16:10 ratio and 1600X1050 resolution or higher, I'll move back to Apple laptop.

P.S. I mainly work on PDF, Word docs and Excel sheets on the go with my ThinkPad, so the 15" MBP is a bit too heavy and powerful for my needs.
 
No. Didn't matter to me either way... I couldn't have told you what the aspect ratio was until you said it. YMMV.
 
SuperCachetes said:
No. Didn't matter to me either way... I couldn't have told you what the aspect ratio was until you said it. YMMV.
Click to expand...

It's visibly different as it affects screen SHAPE.

Think of 16:9 as a letterbox. Think of 16:10 as two letterboxes, one on top of the other. This is why 16:10 with a good screen resolution is excellent for document work. You get to see more of the document and have to scroll less.
 
Doesn't matter to me. In fact aspect ratio does not even come into my decision matrix.
 
maflynn said:
Doesn't matter to me. In fact aspect ratio does not even come into my decision matrix.
Click to expand...

I have a dell 16:9, think pad 16:9 and a 13MBP. my considerations were were similar. Heck I still play around on some older 4:3 laptops
4:3 for docs
16:9 for spreadsheets

Although one of my most significant decision to go with a think pad was the docking station. One button the dual screen desktop becomes my 7.5 hours notebook. I would think apple users, with just a mini as a desktop, would benefit from this.
 
Thing is, if Apple added width then you wouldn't lose any height. 13" 16:10 to 14" 16:9.

Would you buy a 13" 16:10 laptop instead of a 14" 16:9?
 
Kilamite said:
Thing is, if Apple added width then you wouldn't lose any height. 13" 16:10 to 14" 16:9.

Would you buy a 13" 16:10 laptop instead of a 14" 16:9?
Click to expand...

If everything else are similar than yes, I'd buy a 13.3" MBP with 1600X1050 screen over a laptop with 14" 1600X900 screen. The extra 150 pixels are very useful for me.

The reduction of 0.7 inch in screen size is not a big deal when offset with smaller footprint and slight battery gain over the 14".
 
88 King said:
If everything else are similar than yes, I'd buy a 13" MBP with 1600X1050 screen over a laptop 14" with 1600X900 screen. The extra 150 pixels are very useful for me.
Click to expand...

You missed what I was saying, the vertical resolution stays the same while the width gets extra pixels.

I'm for a 16:9 screen, as long as we gain width pixels and not lose height pixels, like in your example 88 King.

1440x900 becomes 1600x900 for example.
 
Kilamite said:
You missed what I was saying, the vertical resolution stays the same while the width gets extra pixels.

I'm for a 16:9 screen, as long as we gain width pixels and not lose height pixels, like in your example 88 King.

1440x900 becomes 1600x900 for example.
Click to expand...

I'd still prefer gain both width and hight in 16:10 ratio.

For example 1600X1050 (16:10) over 1600X900 (16:9) and 1920X1200 (16:10) over 1920X1080 (16:9).

16:9 is great for watch videos, but 16:10 is much better for office work no matter the size of the screen iMO.
 
What's funny is since the adoption of 16:9 screen layouts the movie industry has since gone to 2.2:1.

After using a mac for so long, 16:9 designs just seem odd to me. "Wide" and stubby.
 
Funny…I'm a lawyer too and at 27" the iMac at 16:9 is just about ideal for side by side documents.

Aspect matters little to me though; I almost always use two monitors anyway. 16:10 would be rather insignificant on most of the machines I use vs. 16:9.

Rob
 
I like the 16:10 on my MBP 17. I have enough horizontal space to view 1080p movies as well as have a ton of vertical space to do what I want.

I don't mind the thunderbolt display being 16:9, once you go beyond HD, it's more pixels than you could ever want! I see it as 640 more horizontal pixels and 240 more vertical pixels over my MBP!
 
iFanboy said:
It's visibly different as it affects screen SHAPE.

Think of 16:9 as a letterbox. Think of 16:10 as two letterboxes, one on top of the other. This is why 16:10 with a good screen resolution is excellent for document work. You get to see more of the document and have to scroll less.
Click to expand...

I understand the concept. You asked whether it was important with respect to purchasing, and for me, it wasn't.

I have had laptops with both aspect ratios and didn't necessarily feel constrained or benefited by either, so seeking out a certain screen shape didn't matter to me - I chose the MBP for a slew of other reasons.
 
It didn't play a role in my decision. However I think that 16:9 is stupid on laptop screens.

On desktop screens it's different - at some point there is enough vertical screen space (once you can edit an A4/letter page comfortably without scrolling), and then adding horizontal space is better in my opinion. Most multi-screen setups put the screens to the side, not on top of each other.
 
16:10 on a laptop is nice, but I like 16:9 on the LED Cinema Display, mostly because video editing and playback is my primary use of the machine.
 
I think 16:9 works okay on big screens >20" but it sucks on mobile devices.
If you compare notebooks with similarly big looking screens
a 12.1" 16:10 looks almost on par with a 13,3" 16:9 though the latter it is much more clunky as a whole. It is doesn't matter all that much with the small notebooks but with 15" sizes it makes quite a difference.
16:9 makes for a bigger notebook or a smaller screen it sucks.
But all are doing it and if we see any redsign there will definitely be a 16:9 screen. 16:10 or 3:2 is much better for stuffing it in bags while still getting big enough display.

Given the choice I would always go for 16:10 but I doubt the next time I will buy a new notebook there will be any kind of choice left.
 
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