16/9 ratio : more wider screens...

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20080527PD214.html

According to this news from Digitimes, TFT panel maker want to push 15.6" 16/9 screens to replace 15.4" 16/10 current screens. Basic resolution will change from 1280x800 to 1366x768 (work area +2,45%). Get ready to scroll more and more !

 

I would not like as horizontal is less important than vertical for office applications as far as I am concerned.

 

There was another thread about this , I just read some about it.
I like the idea,most of the movies are 16:9 anyway...
I don`t see why gaming couldn`t become a 16:9 adventure.

 

I agree with Powerpack totally

 

Awful. Why do manufacturers think people don't need vertical screen space? A sheet of paper is not 16:9. Time for me to grab a 4:3 Lenovo T61 while they're still out there.

 

I hear they are going to start teaching kids to 1/4 turn their sheets of paper in school.

 

LOL.
I guess since everyone tends to expand horizontally,screens tend to follow

 

I do a search about 16/9 before posting and I did not find any. But I'am still not common with this forum.

14" 1400x1050 was so nice for a lot of applications. But it's dead now... I try a T61 14.1" 1440x900, but the Windows desk is damn reduced. So I switch to 15.43 1920x1200.

In 2015, we will get 1400x600 to see 2.35 movies !

lol !

 

You meant 14000 x 6000 right?

 

With high enough resolutions, you can fit the entire height of a page on the screen regardless. What I think is bad about this is that it is one more tweak that old software won't work well with. At work, they give us 1.25 ratio (1280X1024) screens, and there are enough apps that have problems with that (and we don't even use games or anything like that). Yes, there are ways to program things so it doesn't matter, but that doesn't mean people do. I think all screens for mainstream comps should be 4:3 or 16:10 and just leave it that way. It covers the vast vast majority of user need.

 

They are pushing for 16:9 because it is cheaper for them. Cheaper to make, but prices stay the same. More profit, at our expense.

 

Maybe,maybe not. LED screens should get more popular,and the standard LCDs will drop in price.
Regarding the change in aspect,we're moving towards cinema type screenage...

 

This is nothing new. I have an old Fujitsu P2020 with 1280 x 600 display. It didn't get much use because I have other activities aside from watching widescreen movies. 600 pixels vertically is not enough (and is one reason why I'm not keen on some of the low cost ultra-portables).

It would suit me if a few more manufacturers would reintroduce 1400 x 1050. I did look carefully at the Toughbook CF-Y7 but, aside from the price, the display housing makes it relatively thick.

John

 

LCDs wont drop in price just because LEDs are starting to become more popular. They are already cheaper than LED to produce. They will only drop in price further if it becomes cheaper to produce

 

Yes, more ratios will lead to more issues. Some applications looks bad or even did not work with *exotic* resolutions.

16/10 is of course not brand new. Most time, they are used for small units or specific market. What is really new, is that panel manufacturers wants to push 16/10 ratio for all screen size. They want to make 16/10 the new defaulf form factor. 1280 x 600 can be nice for ultra-portables used most time to read informations but not to create them. I don't think it's possible to be *productive* with a 15.6" 1366 x 768. Scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll...

 

16:10 is the current standard for widescreen computers. 16:9 is what would be new.

 

i had an eee pc in my hand yesterday. all i thought, why widescreen.. the 1024 width is enough for ordinary tasks, but the height should be much more.. even square would help. and it wouldn't really enlarge the device to have more height (not the 900 series, the 700ers..). but it would make it much more useful

i'm typing on a 1920x1200 screen now, and the 1200 is about enough to work nice for me, i don't care about the width (but no need for a second screen anymore)

and i like to use my tablet in vertical mode, much more usable then. web-browsing, writing, etc..

the only thing widescreen is cool for is movies, and it's not what i need a notebook for. mostly, at least.

 

As noted already, the wider displays are cheaper to produce. Why, because the area is less:

14.1" 1024 x 768 (or 1400 x 1050) = 95.43 square inches.
14.1" 1280 x 800 = 89.35 square inches
14.1" 1280 x 768 = 87.71 square inches

They all have the same diagonal but, as the height reduces, the area decreases so 14.1" 1280 x 600 would be 76.40 square inches.

Less area = less materials = less cost.

John

 

LCDs will have to drop prices to keep the market when LEDs will become more popular,even at higher prices.
Or they won`t sell,since LEDs are getting cheaper.

 

To avoid confusion, LED is a backlighting technology for the LCDs which is more efficient than CCFL lighting.

There are also OLED (organic LED) displays but I think it will be some years before these become an option for notebooks.

John

 

golden ratio, why not.

 

Fujitsu already has 16" / 18.4" displays... i wonder what aspect ratio they are....

 

No thats wrong. Its not like these are two competing stores - it is technology from the same companies who are producing CCFL screen. LEDs are not getting cheaper - they are just starting to become available. CCFL screens are still much cheaper. The price will stay constant unless CCFL production gets cheaper.

Screen manufacturers are going to do whatever is profitable to them. Once LED costs are low enough to be comparable to CCFL, then manufactures will just phase out CCFL screens, not offer it at a lower price. Why would they continue to produce an inferior technology that they have to sell at loss to be competitive with LED?

 

haha, I was gonna put that up! nice one!
(1+root5)/2 all the way!!!

But seriously, people do more than just watching movies.
I don't mind screens going wider that much, but if they start to decrease the height in absolute pixel numbers like 1280*800====>1366*768, that would piss me off!

even if I ONLY watch DVDs on my laptop, I would need a much wider screen than that, like 1440*550.

 

I would strongly prefer the 16:10 ratio, I find that 16:9 would just be...well...too wide, I personally don't think it would look good. I like things the way they are now!

 

I agree.

I was so in love with 14" SXGA+... I can't deal with 14.1" WXGA+ : too small working area. I dream about 14.1" WSXGA+ with *Big* GPU like Quadro FX 570m. 14.1" widescreen is a nice form factor.

 

Pascal keep this in mind. A 15.4 WS is 14 SS with extended width. A 14.1 WS is a 13 SS so nothing ever really was out there like what you ask for. But there are 15.4 WS w/WSXGA+ so you can have the WS version of what you had. Don't focus on the # only.

 

I know what I dream about (14.1" WS 1680x1050) never exist before... A lot of nice laptops are there now and wasn't before.

PS : Due to my poor english, perhpas my answer was not clear. And I'am not sur I fully understand your replay : Don't focus on the # only.

Now, I'am as happy with my T61p 15.4" WS WUXGA as with my A21p 15" SS UXGA.

 

All I am saying is 15.4 is the same vertical as 14 Standard.

 

Just extended, right?

 

Correct, and I have the impression people tend to lump 15's with 15's and that is wrong. A 14 WS is more like a 13 SS. That explains many of the resolutions offered. It is not like the MFG's have changed their offerings. I don't think they ever offered higher resolutions on 13's SS so why would they offer it on a 14 WS? Also I don't compare 15.4 WS to 15 SS as the former has more characteristics in common with a 14 SS. Just trying to spread the word.

 

Again I would strongly prefer 16:10 widescreen, it's a perfect balance between standard and true widescreen.

 

Yeah, this just makes the screen smaller and thus less material needed to construct it.

 

I could not agree more. The reason I agree is the last thing I want is a reduction in vertical resolution. I would even handle a 16:11 just fine. 16:10 lets me have my task bar visible with out affecting say a movie.

 

And I COULD NOT AGREE MORE my friend. I have personally found 4:3 a little too....well square, and while I haven't really seen any 16:9 laptops out there, imagining it would just be too...wide. I mean it's all about balance, balance between width and height. We can't have a screen too high (which would be the case in 4:3 ratio) yet we can't have a screen that would be too wide (in the case of the 16:9 ratio). There is a PERFECT balance of width and height at the 16:10 ratio. And you're right, 16:11 might even be nice.

 

So we all agree 16:9 sucks! Yes? It is moving the wrong direction. All those who hate wide screen (people who actually use notebook for work or something else useful) are going to see it go just too far.

 

Agreed!!!!

 

Fine, I agree it`s terrible.
Let`s picket!

 

That's it ! :yes:

 

Its really dissapointing

 

1280X800 is just perfect...


otherwise it all starts looking Small.


On HDTV .. 16:9 is perfect but not for Laptops

 

why do people care so much about 16:9? they can't deal with the two black bars ontop of their widescreen movies? -_-

i rather have more vertical space because i'm certainly not watching movies 99% of the time

 

This will never happen. Nobody is going to buy a 16:9 screened laptop unless they are movie buffs. Have fun browsing the web or using MS Office on a 16:9 screen. What a nightmare.

 

Personally...on a 15" screen, everything is huge and you can't multitask for your life (or at least I can't). Maybe I'm used to my 1280x1024, but I don't see why we don't have higher resolutions as standard. 1920x1200 in 14" laptops please

 

Holy crap this sure took off, it's been a while since I've seen a thread on NBR where EVERYONE agrees on something (in this case, everyone agrees that 16:9 ratio sucks and 16:10 ratio is far better!)

GO 16:9!!!

 

Well when I saw the Grimster agree I ran and hid in a cave!

 

lol ha ha ha ha nice!