Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPad What are the chances of a 16:9 iPad?
- Thread starter dingdongbubble
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The only reason we have 16x9 as the dominating form factor is because the displays are cheap as the form factor is common to the TV market.
It's also why we've got crappy low res 1920x1080 as the "high resolution" standard.
Even though I was running 1600x1200 in 1997...
Between 1989 and 1995 my desktop screen resolution went from 640x512 (Amiga, PAL) to 1024x768. Then in 1995 to 1998, up to 1600x1200 above.
Since then, screen resolution has stagnated terribly until the recent retina type resolutions.
Proper productivity machines like the MBP have been 16x10 holdouts as that is a better compromise between vertical space for productivity and widescreen video.
But again, in a handheld device you have a compromise of physical size vs usable screen area. 4x3 provides more area for a given device size than 16x9.
It's also why we've got crappy low res 1920x1080 as the "high resolution" standard.
Even though I was running 1600x1200 in 1997...
Between 1989 and 1995 my desktop screen resolution went from 640x512 (Amiga, PAL) to 1024x768. Then in 1995 to 1998, up to 1600x1200 above.
Since then, screen resolution has stagnated terribly until the recent retina type resolutions.
Proper productivity machines like the MBP have been 16x10 holdouts as that is a better compromise between vertical space for productivity and widescreen video.
But again, in a handheld device you have a compromise of physical size vs usable screen area. 4x3 provides more area for a given device size than 16x9.
Last edited:
You don't have an iMac then?
I always wondered what all the iMac users used their computers for with their widescreen displays. So now I understand. they are just watching video's on them, and struggling to do anything else due to the widescreen format on their computer screens.
I wonder if Apple will do as you want and bring back 4:3 on the iMac range?
16:9 is fine on computers with windowed apps, not hand held tablets with single window, full-screen apps.
I still don't like 16:9 on the new iMacs, but in that case, you have physical size on your side, meaning you still have 1080 pixels of vertical height on the 21" iMac. I prefer 1920x1200, but 1080 is enough to be manageable.
On 16:10 tablets like the Nexus, you only have 960x600 points of content. With Android you lose more vertical height with the presence of the soft buttons. Now, if you use it in the intended landscape orientation, you have something like 500 points to view content.
Based on how apple handled the iPhone, a 16:10 iPad mini would not have this issue. The short dimension would stay the same, 768 for the current mini, and the width would increase. iOS doesn't have software buttons at the bottom of its screen either. But web browsing content still scales to fit the width so you'd still see less of the web page on a 16:10 iPad than on a 4:3 iPad in landscape.
Yes, they could certainly go 16:10 by increasing the long dimension. With the current physical size of the iPad, I wouldn't care for that as it would be too tall in portrait. Perhaps if they re-design it with very slim bezels and an overall smaller size, that would be workable, but I don't see it as necessary.
Maybe someone with both an iPhone 5 an 4/4S can post comparison photos of websites in landscape and portrait.
If apple decreases the height instead I don't see them decreasing the resolution because too many apps have specific graphic sizes.
If apple decreases the height instead I don't see them decreasing the resolution because too many apps have specific graphic sizes.
On an iMac, I find websites look best when I have the browser window taking up 2/3 of the screen width, with the height taking up the full height of the screen.
Maybe someone can calculate what aspect ratio that is, I'm too lazy to do it.
Point is, with desktops/laptops, you can size the windows however you like, so you are not tied to the monitor aspect ratio. With tablets other than Win8, apps always take up the full screen, so the aspect ratio of the tablet screen is what you get for all your apps, whether you like it or not.
I can probably do this later.
I mean only reduce the physical size of the device by reducing the bezel size. I agree that they will not reduce screen resolution.
----------
Most modern websites do not reflow the size when you re-size the window. When Macrumours was redesigned last they left that format (they made the option available due to user feedback as Fluid HD at the bottom of the page). Amazon is one that still does it. A lot of forums and older sites still do it. Most modern news and tech sites - anywhere that design and layout matters - don't.