16:10 Sadness

So, I’m still on my aging T400 because Lenovo, unlike Apple, can’t be bothered to produce a notebook that’s not optimized for watching video, even with their “premium” ThinkPad line. Am I forever doomed with an aging video card and hefty notebook or does someone know something about a future business-class notebook that is actually optimized for creating content (I have a tablet for watching videos/consuming content)?

Cheers (from the Death to 16:9 Club).

 

Feels bro...

 

All 16:10s in my sig.:hi2:

 

Out of curiosity, why bring back 16:10 ratios? With the same number of horizontal pixels, the gain of 16:10 over 16:9 is only 11%, whereas a 4:3 ratio would see a 33% gain. And yet, I frequently see threads about bringing back 16:10, but hardly ever see threads about bringing back 4:3. So why 16:10 and not 4:3?

 

16:10 is great for programming, among other things. To me, it allows for two comfortable portait windows side by side when needed. The 1.6 ratio (i.e.1200P and 1600P) is pure sweetness. 1.33 is blah IMO.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 4

 

A lot of folks have forgotten that 4:3 laptops have ever existed...while 16:10 was available as recently as T410 when it comes to ThinkPads...

 

You could always get a Chromebook Pixel, heh

Really though, who besides apple is shipping laptops today with a 16:10 screen? I might have to toss them some money in the future since they kept the screen ratio even with their new high-resolution panels.

 

Most movies are not even in 16:9, more like 16:6 or 16:5, because when I torrent movies onto my Note 2 which is 16:9, I still have two black areas on top and bottom.

 

people just love to complaint, that's why.

There is no study indicating that 16:10 is more productive than 16:9. These numbers are aspect ratio, it does not affect productivity. What directly affect productivity is the screen size and number of pixels, the more pixels you have, the larger your screen is, the more productive you will be.

For example, a 15.4" screen with 1920x1080 16:9 will be more productive than a 15.4" with 1680×1050.

 

I concur with this. 4:3 is great for editing a single document, but 16:10 allows one to work with multiple windows side by side more easily. 16:9, IMHO, leaves too little screen real estate on the top and bottom of the screen and forces more scrolling.

I might have to wait to see what a Chromebook Pixel 2 or similar might be…

 

14" SXGA+ was the best blend size and real estate in my opinion.

 

If Apple keeps 16:10 in the new Macbooks I might switch over. 16:9 belongs on televisions not computers.

 

Funny you should mention that, as that's exactly my situation. My previous notebook, an Asus Z71V bought in 2005, had a 15.4" screen with 1680x1050 resolution, and I was very comfortable with it. My current notebook, a Lenovo Thinkpad W530 bought in 2012, has a 15.6" screen with 1920x1080 resolution. I am quite satisfied with the screen resolution of my current system, as it provides more pixels (both horizontally and vertically) than my previous system, and thus more workspace, without increasing resolution to the point that either text becomes unreadable or I have to deal with unevenly-applied scaling.

I am baffled that people are enamored with Apple's 16:10 offerings. They are designed to natively run at 1440x900, which is considerably less screen real estate than 1920x1080, the highest commonly-available 16:9 ratio size. Even the Retina models are designed to be run at this resolution and just use pixel doubling. All other resolutions require scaling, which has issues in Windows and OSX.

Now, I can understand frustration from those who previously had 1920x1200 resolution screens and are being forced to lower resolution because there are practically no other options. But for the folks who just want the particular aspect ratio that was popular a few years ago and is no longer being manufactured as much, I just don't get it, as it doesn't seem like that much of a difference.

 

If you're blind as a bat, maybe.

16:9 is a problem in lower-res screens. But as djembe said, once you start going to 1080 (and beyond) it's really not an issue I find, at least in comparison with what some may call the good old days. And these are common sizes these days.

 

As the aspect ratio shifts from 16:10 to 16:9, you have to adjust to a finer resolution to keep your vertical work space. That is fine if you can tolerate the finer resolution without scaling (which defeats the purpose of the finer resolution). I don't use any displays over 13". If you're working in smaller media, like a 10" tablet, the changes are significant. I've had a 10" 1080p Surface and 100% was quite small. With a better aspect ratio, you could scale up the type a bit (lowering the effective resolution) for document work. In a tablet/hybrid, it also adds functionality to portrait mode.

4:3 would be preferable for tablets, but 16:10 is a decent compromise for side-by-side work on smaller displays.

 

2 reasons 16:10 is alot better:

1. Toolbars and option tend to be at the top and bottom. This takes up alot of vertical space (especially with the ribbon interface, and how Metro apps leave this Top relatively blank) 16:9 to 16:10 wouldn't be just a mere 11% increase but a good 20-30%.

2. 4:3 dosen't allow for side-by-side multitasking whereas 16:10 is still wide enough to have windows side-by-side. Currently, Windows 8 tablets are barely usable in portrait mode since 16:9 tablets rae way too tall, a wider(smaller) screen can fix this.

However, a key advantage of 16:9 screen it's just wide enough to have 3 apps running side-by-side. Especially with the top and bottom bezels, the active windows will actually feel more like a square.

 

I can't deal with the crappy off-Retina (i.e. screen real estates actually useful for productivity purposes) scaling quality the Retina displays bring to OS X - as usual, never criticised by the Applemorons in the press and beyond - so when I have to inflict the Retina Crapbooks on myself I have an OS X utility to set it to 100%. For me it's absolutely doable - and a 10" FHD screen should be less of a problem.

I don't really do betas OS-wise so my first personal experience of 8.1 will be with release - will be interesting to see if Microsoft gets the balance better between legibility at non-doubled resolutions and reasonable representation of graphics.

 

Even though I love 4:3 and 16:10 and have a W500 with 1920x1200 screen, I am still the most productive on my 1920x1080 desktop monitor, simply because it is the biggest of my screens. When it comes to viewing comfort however, I like using 4:3 more. 16:10 is like the perfect blend of productivity (very close to 16:9) and viewing comfort IMO, which is probably why so many people want it back.

 

Like everyone said, 16:10 provides more vertical space. Most people use their notebooks for web, documents, NOT MOVIES. The real push to 16:9 was from glass manufacturers back in 07 since they could cut more panels from 16:9.. less waste and more profit. OEM's had to follow along. But for 90 percent of what people use their notebook's for the 16:10 was superior. I'm assuming once the air gets a high resolution panel the 16:10 will go away.

 

Really?
- Highest 16:10 Resolution currently on the market: 2880x1800
- Highest 16:9 Resolution currently on the market: 3200x1800

I would call that a draw. The only disadvantage: The text on the 16:9 display is smaller because of the higher Pixel density. Microsoft is trying to fix that with Windows 8.1 (of course, the independent software developers have to cooperate and optimise their software so that it scales correctly. But thats not impossible to do).

 

It is valid, because there is no 3200x2048 screen and it doesn´t seems like one is coming soon.

Sure, but that isn´t the reality.

Desktop-monitors are a different topic. Even 4:3 desktop monitors are still in production.

I am not saying 16:9 is better, I like 16:10 more. But I think it isn´t fair to generally say "16:10 has more vertical space".

 

I got dat sixteen-ten, sixteen-ten sadness, whoa, oh-oh oh whoa.

 

Perhaps, I don't have one of those so I dunno. Seems likely though. An even bigger 2k monitor would also do the trick. (you know, those huge 30 inch ones)

 

Having owned three 15" QXGA (2048x1536) laptops over the past several years, I'll say that one must possess a *tremendously good* eyesight in order to enjoy them, and this is coming from someone who's been using 15" UXGA (1600x1200) since the days of A22p...

Presuming one is interested in running the screen at its native resolution, that is...

 

what laptop has 2048x1536???

 

IBM R50p was offered with an optional QXGA IPS screen made by ID Tech.

I've also owned a modded T43p, and a T601 [a 15" (4:3)T60 frame holding a T61 motherboard] FrankenPad with this panel.

Take a look here:

forum.thinkpads.com • QXGA vs. UXGA - several *very large* pictures warning

 

Holy crap.

If I want to build a QXGA, what do I need to buy? T61p and a QXGA screen?

 

You need a 15" T60 frame, a 14" (4:3 only) T61/p motherboard, and the panel itself.

The EDID on the LCD must be flashed prior to use otherwise you'll get no display.

The panel itself runs around $350, and all the sellers are from China...so good luck with returns if it turns out to be defective.

Someone I know recently bought one on taobao and received a *glossy* LCD...correct resolution and all...no comment.

All in all, quite an expensive and time-consuming enterprise building a T601 with a QXGA LCD is.

 

Lol, that's crazy.

 

True. But that's the fun of FrankenPadding...

I'm considering building my final FrankenPad, a 16:10 machine, but have yet to confirm that what I have in mind will actually work - even on a theoretical level - before sinking a couple of grand in it...

 

^^^ You've piqued my curiosity. When will you divulge more details about the 16:10 Frankie?

 

it's cool to have a QXGA on a T6x, but it makes no economical sense. The extra pixels would make little marginal utility and the cost and effort is just not worth it IMO.

 

Glossy QXGA? I might be interested in that...

Also someone on nb51 was able to put a W500 motherboard into a 4:3 T60 chassis. (15") Wouldn't that be something for you too ajkula66?
?

 

Er... Doesn't anyone see the logical flaw in the 'comparing 3200 x 1800 vs 16:10 is unfair because the former has more pixels' argument when they're saying that 1920 x 1200 is better than 1920 x 1080?

 

Sure, but that case would be bad for 16:10.

 

I know what they're going for of course, but it looks like they're too hung up on the aspect ratio, and not over how relatively effective it is in actual productivity use once you get beyond a certain point in terms of resolution.

 

This is a hobby, it is not suppose to make sense.

 

I did see that. However, the amount of cutting required severely weakens the frame so I wouldn't go there. A brave and noteworthy experiment nonetheless.

 

Exactly. I think the fans of 16:10 are more concerned with productivity. There is a finite limit where finer resolution is usable without scaling. If, like me, small ultralight devices are a must, 16:10 is the ticket. Unfortunately, they are an endangered species.

 

People who truly concerned about productivity would not have the time arguing about aspect ratio on the Internet.

 

Everybody needs a hobby.

 

That's not been reached in e.g. FHD at 10" as I remarked earlier. I don't see 16:10 being any sort of panacea for that kind of use either, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

I don't know many Surface Pro users using their 10" display at 100%. Most are using it at 150%. I did use mine at 100% but I was in a clear minority and the type size was borderline for lengthy writing.

 

I haven't been lucky enough to own a high dpi device over an extended period of time. Currently my W500 has the highest dpi of my machines at 147. I've been eager to test something closer to 200 at 100% for a longer time. I've seen Full HD on 13,3" in the shop. It seemed OK to me, sure text is smaller but the sharpness compensates for it.

 

I don't wear glasses and never have. I just don't like the resolution cranked up so high, I have to squint to see it. On a SXGA+ LCD I get near as much vertical resolution as FHD, but at a much more palatable pixel density. If you do a lot of side by side stuff, I can see where wide screen would be advantageous.

 

These talks about actual productivity are rather pointless without context: OS, software used, tasks performed etc.

If software is made with wide monitors in mind, starting from Windows 8 and ending with various software develoment / image processing IDEs (with multiple tool windows positioned side by side to the document window), 16:9 is not worse than 16:10 or 4:3 with the same number of pixels, just different. To work with 2 documents side by side - the wider the better, all other things being equal. Etc. For desktop publishing, or reading, something like 3:4 or 10:16 would be probably ideal, yet nobody makes such laptops and no complaints

 

Not the ThinkPad X Series.

 

AFAIR in these too wider keys like Enter/Shift/Backspace had to shrink. Only with wide screens it was finally possible to make 12" laptop with full = the same as larger series = keyboard.

As to aspect ration, there is only one perfect one: round

 

Have to agree with power7 here. They had to make some keys narrower on the right side of the keyboard.

 

You'll get no argument from me about the size of the keyboard. I think my point was saying the keyboards were improperly sized implied they were not as good as the standard sized keyboards, which was not the case in my experience.