Why aren't iMacs 16:10?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by Sam Spade, Jul 9, 2012.

  1. Sam Spade macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2007
    #1
    Why does Apple use 16:9 on the iMac instead of 16:10?
     
  2. Vege-Taco macrumors member

    Vege-Taco

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Location:
    Arizona
    #2
    Because it leaves some room on the screen for the Dock while playing a fullscreen movie. :D

    Seriously, the manufacturers that have gone to 16:9 ratios have fewer pixels, less screen real estate, etc. The screens don't get any wider, just shorter. I don't see the benefit.
     
  3. iBookG4user macrumors 604

    iBookG4user

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #3
    Most likely it is due to the availability of the panels and the price of the panels.
     
  4. charlieegan3 macrumors 68020

    charlieegan3

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Location:
    U.K
    #4
    21.5" 1920x1080 is a very easy panel to source.
     
  5. Napelm macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    #5
    Because 16:9 is better.
     
  6. Vege-Taco macrumors member

    Vege-Taco

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Location:
    Arizona
    #6
    Actually, I read your post backward. The iMac is 16:9, and it should be 16:10. I agree with the OP, 16:10 is better, more usable space.
     
  7. Napelm macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    #7
    16:10 doesnt have more space... :) Some people are stupid.

    16:9 is better because it works better with everything.

    Buying 16:10 today is like buying a boat if you need to travel on land.
     
  8. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #8
    Yes, it does. It has more vertical space, which is great for working on stuff since you can see more vertically. There are no stupid people; only stupid comments. Where is that damn down vote?

    ----------

    Because most panels in that size are 16:9, so it's cheaper. :(
     
  9. Napelm macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    #9
    16:9 has more horizontal space.
     
  10. Seamaster macrumors 65816

    Seamaster

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2003
    #10
    New here?
     
  11. bogatyr macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    #11
    1920x1080 vs 1920x1200

    Which has more space?
     
  12. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #12
    Seriously? You're joking, right?
     
  13. Napelm macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    #13
    Since when did 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 become aspect ratios?

    They are resolutions!
     
  14. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #14
    Well, every time I call a spade a spade on this forum I get a moderator warning so I am trying to do it indirectly.*

    ----------

    Oh, dear.
     
  15. Napelm macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    #15
    What?
     
  16. CANOLArabbit macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
  17. Tezcatlipoca macrumors regular

    Tezcatlipoca

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    #17
    ... resolutions with aspect ratios of 16:9 and 16:10 respectively.
     
  18. Napelm macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    #18
    Golden ratio. Who cares?

    Apple phase out 16:10 just as everyone else. Apple just make it slower.

    ----------

    so?

    2048x1152 is a 16:9 resolution and has more space than 1920x1200.

    So 16:9 has more space than 16:10?

    Great logics man!!!
     
  19. Tezcatlipoca macrumors regular

    Tezcatlipoca

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    #19
    You said "16:9 has more horizontal space".

    bogatyr then said:

    "1920x1080 vs 1920x1200

    Which has more space?"


    The answer is 1920x1200 (16:10). Same width as 1920x1080 (16:9), but with a higher vertical resolution.



    If you have two resolutions of the same width, and one is 16:9 while the other is 16:10, the resolution that is 16:10 will give more space.
     
  20. bogatyr macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    #20
    Take a 16:9 ratio resolution (2048x1152). Now compare it to the same 16:10 ratio resolution (2048x1280). See the difference? 16:10 will always have more vertical space.
     
  21. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #21
    My god, man, is your logic interpreter broken? You cannot compare 1920 and 2160. You compare the same horizontal resolutions and then apply the aspect ratio. Do you not understand this? The horizontal resolution must be kept constant to apply the aspect ratio.

    A monitor with 1920 horizontal pixels and a 16:10 ratio will have a 1920x1200 resolution. The monitor with a 16:9 aspect ratio will have a 1920x1080 resolution. 16:10 is better for productivity. To argue against this is nonsensical.
     
  22. Napelm macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    #22
    so?

    If you have two resolutions of the same height, and one is 16:9 while the other is 16:10, the resolution that is 16:9 will give more space.

    ----------

    Seriously man. You dont even understand what aspect ratio means.

    Please read and come back.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_aspect_ratio
     
  23. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #23
    Seriously, did you even read that article? I can't believe someone actually up voted your post as well. Thank you for ruining this discussion with stupidity.
     
  24. splitpea macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Location:
    Among the starlings
    #24
    Man, I hate these arguments.

    Look, if you have two monitors that both have 15" diagonals, and one is a 16x9 ratio and the other a 16x10, the 16x10 will be narrower than the 16x9 but still have a slightly higher area. If you do the trigonometry, you'll find:

    Code:
              16x9        16x10
    width     13.07       12.72
    height    7.35        7.95
    area      96.14       101.12
    
    More to the point, if you look at common resolutions you'll see 1600x900 [16:9] and 1680x1050 [16:10]; 1920x1080 [16:9] and 1900x1200 [16:10]. Among similar *available* resolutions, even when the 16:9 has higher horizontal resolution, the common 16:10 has more total pixels.

    Additionally, except when watching movies full-screen [and letterboxing a 1080p video on a 1900x1200 screen doesn't really make your movie any smaller], people tend to need additional vertical space more than they need additional horizontal space.

    You don't need loooooonger lines of text, because that's illegible, but it'd be nice to have to scroll less.

    Even if you move your dock to the side or hide it, all those toolbars on your browser and word processor and email editor are taking up vertical rather than horizontal space and leaving you fewer and fewer lines of actual content you can see at once.

    And most cameras out there take photos in a 4:3 or 3:2 aspect ratio, so you need even more vertical space and less horizontal space than a 16:10 screen gives you if you want to make the most of your screen when viewing or editing them.
     
  25. Napelm macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    #25
    You need to learn multitasking. It is intresting that some people in 2012 still fill the whole screen with a browser window. It doesnt get more unefficient than that.

    Also for efficiency it is always better to buy 16 9 because you get more pixels for the money.

    Thats why most companies buy 16 9 these days. 16 9 is more efficient.
     

Share This Page