The 16:9 ratio is there because panel manufacturers have 20% more yield with this it

Discussion in 'MacBook Air' started by bouncer1, Oct 24, 2010.

  1. bouncer1 macrumors 6502

    Oct 6, 2010
    I 've just learned about this too. The handful of manufacturers are dictating this to the whole market...'s just as I expected it be, a choice by apple for cost reasons, but it's good to hear it as a fact from someone in the know.
    At about 55 mins.
  2. entatlrg macrumors 68040


    Mar 2, 2009
    Waterloo & Georgian Bay, Canada
    Yes, 16:9 have far better profit margins. And, yes that size isn't best suited for a computer screen.

    Profit wins, consumer looses, unless they/we speak up ...
  3. bouncer1 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Oct 6, 2010
    I suggest that people listen a bit to the podcast, this guy sure knows his notebooks and makes some very interesting revelations on how things work, and some interesting suggestions on what to purchase and for what reason.

    But unfortunately I think it's too late to swing this back to more customer friendly aspects. Sadly. And I am too old to go to the pains of hackingtoshing a lenovo. Unfortunately it seems we 'll have to make do with what is available it seems...
  4. wirelessmacuser macrumors 68000


    Dec 20, 2009
    Another factor is the influence of HD Videos, Movies and TV.

    If one likes a wide screen laptop, I find the 16:10 aspect ratio far better. Sadly 16:10 is also endangered.
  5. idonotliketostu macrumors 6502

    Feb 28, 2008
    Consumers vote by buying, and the consumers choose wider displays.

    Wider displays allow for better multitasking, 2up documents, browser + word side by side, VLC + excel.... etc.

    Wider displays are easier to use, because scrolling vertically is easier than scrolling horizontally.

    Increases in pixel per inches undos any argument about losing vertical space after moving from tall to wide screens.

    The difference between 16:10 and 16:9 is nominal.

    Arguments for 4:3
    1. "i'm use to it", "widescreen sucks"
    2. "maximizing a word document gives me 2 giant white USELESS bars on either side."
    3. "my classic movies no good on widescreen"
  6. Hellhammer Moderator


    Staff Member

    Dec 10, 2008
    Pixel density can be increased without moving from 16:10 to 16:9. 16:9 means that you will always have less pixels than equivalent 16:10 would have. For example 1920x1080 vs 1920x1200 and 2560x1440 vs 2560x1600.

    It has its pros and cons. It's not that big deal for me. I have iMac with 1920x1200 and external with 1920x1080, the difference isn't that huge. 16:9 displays seem to be a lot cheaper now, that's always good for consumers.
  7. idonotliketostu macrumors 6502

    Feb 28, 2008
    The argument is that ppi Always increases with time, and with time the loss vertical pixels is made up.

    Example: 12.1" powerbook had a 1024×768 resolution.
    new 11.6 inch has a 1366 × 768 resolution.

    Screens do not have equivalents, a 1920x1080 (21.5 imac) is shorter than a 1920x1200 (24in) because the screen itself is shorter. (Yes there is a difference between getting shorter and getting wider)
  8. Moodikar macrumors regular

    Mar 4, 2010
    Toronto, Canada
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

    Yes there is a difference with 16:9 versus 16:10 but most probably wouldn't notice it. Those that would get bothered probably were happy with the 4:3 standard just like some would argue the portrait versus landscape pivoting models of monitors.

    I think having 1 standard is great, being 16:9, as it simplify and standardizes TV and computers (which was always a pain to broadcasters and those like me in the biz).

    I do however think that like an iPad, monitors need to be able to change from landscape to portrait (external monitors that is, not laptops). This would help those that don't need the space on the sides I.e. For websurfing or word processing.

    Landscape is gray for stuff like final cut and photoshop and thing that have a lot of open windows.

    Anyhow, 16:9 is in my opinion just as good as 16:10 and cleaning up multiple ratios into one will make monitors cheaper, and help get us to the next level of 2k and 4k resolution on TVs and computers.
  9. CaoCao macrumors 6502a

    Jul 27, 2010
    It also allows a full sized keyboard
  10. bouncer1 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Oct 6, 2010
    Consumers vote by buying only if all options are equally available. If one option suddenly saturates the market to the detriment of the others, then they can't vote, they just buy based on availability. For a long time now if anyone wanted to vote against 16:10 they couldn't because there was pretty much zero availability for them. And now that panel manufacturers have eased the transition so to speak, they are going to hit us with the real aspect ratio they prefer that will maximize profits, the 16:9, the 've already done so, apple's been holding back because they could.

    But now that even apple want to be more aggressive with pricing they can't, that's why they cant keep the old aspect ratio without passing on the cost to the consumer. Lenovo can but they price higher, but they have a business clientele that is willing to pay (oops, my bad, I must get along with the times, apparently not even lenovo do that anymore since a year or so ago). Apple do to, but they are taking a middle of the road approach for better or worse, for worse in this case.

    You are beating a dead horse with this argument:
  11. aberrero macrumors 6502a

    Jan 12, 2010
    He is right, 16:9 displays are cheaper and more widely available. I don't think i have ever heard of a 1280x800 11.6" panel. Besides, the resolution on this is much better than 1280x800. You only give up a couple vertical pixels for a lot more horizontal pixels. Where you would be really angry is if they had given it a 1280x720 display.
  12. bouncer1 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Oct 6, 2010
    The fact that say a letter at set size Y can have X pixels, doesn't mean that if you can have eventually 2X pixels at set size Y you, you can lower the size of the font to Y/2. And that's what's happening now. No matter what the resolution an aspect ratio has inherent strengths and weaknesses. You can't put 1000 ppi (thrice a retina display) on an aspect ratio of 200/1 and expect it to work for vertical viewing unless the display is a few building blocks wide.
  13. drjsway macrumors 6502a

    Jan 8, 2009
    1. 1366 is not wide enough for two windows side by side, so worthless for multi tasking. Just tried on my 1366x768 MBA. There is not enough room to fit browser + word nor VLC + excel.

    Most times, the sides of the my display are absolutely wasted, and yet there is not enough room to fit another window.

    2. When have you ever had to scroll horizontally? Websites for designed for 1024 and not many apps are wider.

    3. For smaller laptops, 4:3 is the most useful ratio, period. That said, 16:9 makes for the best looking machine. It's only advantage is purely aesthetic.

Share This Page