The never ending 16:9 vs 16:10 Discussion

[Transporteur]

16:10 is better for computers.

I totally agree for displays smaller or equal to 30".

But in case we'll ever see displays > 30" (which I'm 100% sure of), 16:10 will become less comfortable than 16:9 because they would become too high.

1600 pixels vertically is pretty much the top end of being comfortable.

 

[asdf542]

I remember reading an article about 16:9 being noticeably cheaper to manufacture than 16:10. I guess that's the main reason why mainstream monitors are 16:9 nowadays. I'd like 16:10 but I rather take the 2560x1440 instead of 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 instead of 1680x1050.

Had Apple stuck with 16:10 then the monitor sizes we would be looking at right now would be a 30" at 2560x1600 and a 24" at 1920x1200. The 20" would get axed like the 17" did.

 

[Lord Appleseed]

On smaller screens like up to 24" i'd prefer 16:10
But when it comes to sizes of 27" or even 30" then 16:9 is good too since the high resolution makes up for the lost vertical space.
Also why would i need so much more vertical space, its much easier to work side by side with windows on a screen than on top of each other.

 

[Usernames Suck]

Let us assume you have two screens, both 16 inches wide. One screen is 10 inches tall and the other is 9 inches tall. The size of the 16:10 screen is 18.67 inches and the size of the 16:9 screen is 18.35 inches. That means that 16:10 screens give more space than a 16:9 screen of equal width.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Let us assume you have two screens, both 16 inches wide. One screen is 10 inches tall and the other is 9 inches tall. The size of the 16:10 screen is 18.67 inches and the size of the 16:9 screen is 18.35 inches. That means that 16:10 screens give more space than a 16:9 screen of equal width.

I have a 65" HDTV screen in my living room. If I measure it in inches, it is way bigger than my 27" iMac screen in every dimension (height & width). However, my 27" iMac screen is "bigger" in both height & width if you count the pixels. That 65" screen in the HDTV is 1920 x 1080. That 27" iMac is 2560 x 1440.

I also have a 4:3 SD television in the guest house. It is 35", so it too has a bigger screen than my iMac in both height & width. However, it's pixels are SD resolution. If I push a document to it's screen, your tape measure would show that it is "bigger" both in width & height. But the iMac delivers more pixels for a far sharper picture. So, do you argue that that 35" SDTV is the better choice?

 

[maghemi]

Personally the way I look at it is, the smaller the monitor, the less 'widescreen' I want it.

For example I had a 16:9 21.5" screen at work and it was horrible to work on. The old 22" just 'felt' better. (I now have a 23" 16:9 and that's tolerable)

But with the 27" screen on my iMac it doesn't feel horrible when compared to my 30" Dell attached to my Mac Pro.

In fact the 27" is actually nicer to work on some times because I don't have the 'look up' as much.

It's all relative.

 

[talmy]

I think it's not really the aspect ratio that is important but the pixel count. Below a certain number of vertical pixels you are in trouble, so wider screens are more of a problem with small screen sizes which have a limited number of pixels to begin with.

I know that on my MacBook I put the dock on the side to maximize the vertical pixels. I don't do that on my iMac. And I don't like apps that use a lot of vertical space for menus. Having moveable palettes is a plus.

 

[MacSignal]

Happy with 16:10 24. Not at all happy with 16:9 laptop displays.

 

[toxic]

I don't like 16:9 at all - content is simply not that wide, and the loss in vertical pixels is enough to make it feel cramped...or perhaps not at very large sizes (27"+), but at 24" and less, definitely. another con of the 16:9 switch is the prevalence of 1366x768 displays in the ~15" sector, instead of 1440x900.

I agree that the smallest laptops should have 4:3, or at least 16:10. 16:9 doesn't work at all since the screens are tiny to begin with.

you have to stop somewhere between a square screen and a flat one. I think 16:10 is at or near that sweet spot (perhaps 3:2 would be better...). it's still tall enough for vertical content when in landscape and isn't terribly narrow when in portrait, but I can't stand looking at 16:9 in portrait.

 

[MacHamster68]

like i thought too, 16:9 is really only suitable for watching some but not all movies , websites are a pain as scrolling is a absolute must even if you only want to see half the page
what was wrong with 4:3 format , for me it was perfect , not much scrolling needed , ideal when watching tv on
16:10 was a acceptable compromise

 

[Wang Foolio]

I'm pretty sure the trend is to go wider. 4:3 -> 16:9 -> 256:81 is the way of the future. Just think of how many documents you could view side-by-side on that!

I made my "9:16 Narrowscreen" argument last time, so I will rotate between these and possibly other terribly jokes in the future, whenever these silly arguments come up.

Seriously, who cares. Especially on 24" or 27" screens, having +- 100 pixels of height can't possibly make that much difference.

One of my favorite things about my 27" iMac is that there is so much screen real estate that you don't actually need to run programs anywhere near full-screen. You can either have a lot of pretty backgroung poking out, or have multiple documents/appls/whatever side by side.

I used to have dual 19" 4:3 screens back in the day and I loved every minute of it, but the 16:9 27" is just so much more sensible.

16:9 or 16:10 is so trivial, I can't believe people care. On something like an 11.6" MBA I will admit that +- 60 pixels of height can make an appreciable difference. Once you start getting above 720P I would argue that it's irrelevant for 95% of everyday use.