pende_tim
Premium
join:2004-01-04
Andover, NJ
 ·ProLog
 ·ViaTalk
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| [Rant] New Laptop Displays
Why are all the OEMs in love with the "wide screen" format?
Maybe I am old fashioned but I REALLY HATE the new 9:16 ratio most all of them seem to have these days.
My 4 year old Dell 600m w/14" display is really getting tired ( cracked case, touch pad, memory drops out, etc ) but it has a 1040 x1400 3:4 display that is really sharp and shows a sizable portion of a web page compared to one of the new ones.
I have a Dell Inspiron 1545 I am "testing" with a 15.4" display and 768 x 1366 resolution. Even thought the display is physically wider, the resolution is coarser ( 1366 VS 1400) so it shows slightly less in the width while making the text much bigger. In the vertical dimension it displays about 1/3 less information.
Looking around it seems that this 9:16 is the new standard for consumer laptops. I may be able to find a higher resolution model, in the 1080 x 1920 range, but I am afraid that will make text kind of tiny on a shorter screen.
Why cant they amke the old 3:4 format; we ALL don't watch DVDs on out laptops.. I have a TV for that!!!
Tim
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. |
|
jplove71
IBEW 113
Premium
join:2001-03-16
Colorado Springs, CO | 4:3 is old and busted.
16:9 is the new hotness.
You're just going to have to get used to it. I've been running widescreen for almost two years now and I can't stand looking at a 4:3 display anymore.
--
Rakkasan! |
|
CoverIt
join:2009-08-07 | reply to pende_tim
Why do you put all your numbers backwards? |
|
Technogeez
Gone but not forgetting
Premium
join:2007-01-20
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·Verizon FIOS
| said by CoverIt  :Why do you put all your numbers backwards? Maybe he speaks a Semitic language...?
--
Read your contract and TOS before signing anything. |
|
removed
Crisis Management Squad
Premium,VIP
join:2002-02-08
Houston, TX
clubs:
| reply to pende_tim
I can see why 768x1366 never really caught on. |
|
Selenia
join:2006-09-22
Pittsfield, MA
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to pende_tim
said by pende_tim :Why are all the OEMs in love with the "wide screen" format? Maybe I am old fashioned but I REALLY HATE the new 9:16 ratio most all of them seem to have these days. My 4 year old Dell 600m w/14" display is really getting tired ( cracked case, touch pad, memory drops out, etc ) but it has a 1040 x1400 3:4 display that is really sharp and shows a sizable portion of a web page compared to one of the new ones. I have a Dell Inspiron 1545 I am "testing" with a 15.4" display and 768 x 1366 resolution. Even thought the display is physically wider, the resolution is coarser ( 1366 VS 1400) so it shows slightly less in the width while making the text much bigger. In the vertical dimension it displays about 1/3 less information. Looking around it seems that this 9:16 is the new standard for consumer laptops. I may be able to find a higher resolution model, in the 1080 x 1920 range, but I am afraid that will make text kind of tiny on a shorter screen. Why cant they amke the old 3:4 format; we ALL don't watch DVDs on out laptops.. I have a TV for that!!! Tim =( |
|
removed
Crisis Management Squad
Premium,VIP
join:2002-02-08
Houston, TX
clubs:
| reply to pende_tim
I am also not a fan of the new 9:16 ratio most all of them seem to have these days.
--
irc.removed.us - #dslr |
|
pende_tim
Premium
join:2004-01-04
Andover, NJ | reply to CoverIt
Severe Dyslexic? No, just an error on my part. |
|
pnjunction
Teksavvy Premium
Premium
join:2008-01-24
Toronto, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to pende_tim
Re: [Rant] New Laptop Displays
I like 16:10 better than the 16:9 they're going to now. I have a 1280x800 now (wish it was 1440x900 at least) but now they're all about 1366x768.
I don't see what another 86 pixels wide would be good for and vertical room is limited enough already without losing another 32 pixels.
I also love my 1920x1200 desktop monitor I would never trade it for 1920x1080 one. |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to pende_tim
said by pende_tim :Why are all the OEMs in love with the "wide screen" format? Maybe I am old fashioned but I REALLY HATE the new 9:16 ratio most all of them seem to have these days. My 4 year old Dell 600m w/14" display is really getting tired ( cracked case, touch pad, memory drops out, etc ) but it has a 1040 x1400 3:4 display that is really sharp and shows a sizable portion of a web page compared to one of the new ones. I have a Dell Inspiron 1545 I am "testing" with a 15.4" display and 768 x 1366 resolution. Even thought the display is physically wider, the resolution is coarser ( 1366 VS 1400) so it shows slightly less in the width while making the text much bigger. In the vertical dimension it displays about 1/3 less information. Looking around it seems that this 9:16 is the new standard for consumer laptops. I may be able to find a higher resolution model, in the 1080 x 1920 range, but I am afraid that will make text kind of tiny on a shorter screen. Why cant they amke the old 3:4 format; we ALL don't watch DVDs on out laptops.. I have a TV for that! I hear you.
I DESPISE WIDESCREEN!
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
1 edit | reply to pende_tim
Luckily, I don't have to have a laptop and I won't be getting one as long as crap 16:9 is king on them. I have a 19" LCD monitor that is fantastic and it has 5:4 ratio. With my next desktop, I will probably buy the same monitor again. Dell has not gone insane and its Small Business division still sells these perfect 19" 1280x1024 5:4 digital LCD monitors. They are the ones you see in the majority of businesses. It is interesting that these monitors are a lot more expensive than the crap 16:9 ones even though they are not as fast, etc as newer monitors but so superior for everything except watching movies which I never do on a computer.
Besides the awful ratio on the new monitors, most laptops have that garbage shiny screen which is hell on the eyes. My Dell LCD monitor has a nonreflective coating. That is something else I would never be without on a monitor. I did notice that HP now has a netbook with nonreflective coating. I can't understand why the OEMs starting putting that horrible glossy finish on in the first place as now the TV manufacturers (thank goodness) are finally also going to nonreflective coatings on their LCDs.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson |
|
Selenia
join:2006-09-22
Pittsfield, MA
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
| I love my Samsung SyncMaster so much that I got a couple more for the other main computers too. It's a 16:10, so you probably won't like it. Beautiful color, especially in games. It's not glossy. Have not noticed the trend but that sounds dumb. After all, they went to darker screens for CRT televisions long ago to prevent reflections that degrade overall picture quality in brighter rooms. Why would they regress now?
So yeah, my earlier post probably should have said "I hate 10:16 screens" on the text editor, but I was half asleep from work this week :P |
|
pende_tim
Premium
join:2004-01-04
Andover, NJ
·ProLog
·ViaTalk
·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | Same with my LG Studioworks 995E, a CRT based model. A few years old but head and shoulders above any of the newer LCDs.
@Mele20 : yes the glossy reflective is also terrible. I am sitting here with my back to a wide window in the kitchen. Today is the first really sunny day we have had in NJ since I received the Inspiron. The reflection on the display is is so "good" I can see a bird sitting in one of the trees outside. 
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. |
|
Vchat20
Landing is the REAL challenge
join:2003-09-16
Warren, OH
clubs: 
| reply to pende_tim
I have to wholeheartedly agree with this whole thread. Ya know after a while of using it the 16:10 screens aren't so bad and I dare say a nice sweet spot in aspect ratios. Not as narrow as old 5:4/4:3 screens and plenty of vertical room for most things without too much scrolling. But now it seems like everyone is moving to 16:9 which is really cutting it. Another *ugh* 'fad' that the unwashed masses are feeding with their wide open wallets.
It also does not help that most of the manufacturers are billing these as 'HD' screens and further reeling in the stupids with crafty marketing. Um. DUDES. You have had HD capable screens for AGES. 1280x800 screens? 720p+. CRT's have LONG been more than capable. 1280x1024 is real damn close to 1080p in the vertical realm sans the 16:9 aspect. 1024x768 (which has been around for like...2 decades?) is 720p+ as well vertically.
And sadly to get any decent screens with 16:10 above anything but 1280x800 there's gonna be a huge premium for the 'privilege'.
--
I swear, some people should have pace-makers installed to free up the resources. Breathing and heart beat taxes their whole system, all of their brain cells wasted on life support.-two bit brains, and the second bit is wasted on parity! ~head_spaz |
|
Steve Mehs
Go Sabres
join:2005-07-16
| reply to pende_tim
Widescreens rock! Much more pleasant on the eyes and the look more natural and modern. Never understood why the need for 4:3. I envy the kids being born today. More then likely they will never see a 4:3 screen. Be it a TV or computer display. Both TVs in the house are Sony Grand Wega widescreen HDTVs, I can't believe a few years ago you could actually buy 4:3 HDTVs. And my main computer has a 22" widescreen display. One of those glossy finish HPs widescreens, and if you don't think they look great, you don't know what beautiful is.
Very crisp display, excellent color saturations, very rich, be it web surfing or watching a movie on blu ray, this monitor is incredible. Even PC World, who gets on their knees for Dell and blows them harder than a toothless hooker, rated the 24" version of my monitor #1 a few times.
When I get a laptop next year it will be an HP Pavilion HDX, which is their ultra high end line, and obviously they are only available in widescreen, which is a good thing. Even when playing on my iPhone, I do as much as I can in landscape mode to give it that widescreen look and feel.
--
Don't Blame Me, I Voted For McCain
Welcome to The SSA, The Socialist States of Amerika, Lead By Your Dictator, Hussein Obama
Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, B. Hussein Obama
Obama = Terrorist |
|
Selenia
join:2006-09-22
Pittsfield, MA
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | For once I agree with Steve Mehs. I prefer 16:10 for computers for slightly less scrolling while retaining the widescreen benefit. I have all 16:9 TVs . I can't stand 4:3 at all. I can just tolerate it on a computer, especially one used for media and games. Not sure about the HPs he mentioned, but the Samsung SyncMasters are beautiful. Color matches the best CRTs I have seen, contrast is great, and it's bigger while taking up less room. |
|
pende_tim
Premium
join:2004-01-04
Andover, NJ | reply to Selenia
Re: [Rant] New Laptop Displays
Yes the 16:10 a is a good compromise but getting harder to find. |
|
