16:10 Sadness

'Context creation' is too generic term. Eventually is about the kind of 'content creation' and the used software.

Firstly, most people who do create content as their job function, in the office, rarely do so being limited to a single sub-16" screen, most awkwardly firmly attached to a keyboard. There are better options. And when it's really about content created on the go, 16:9 vs 16:10 matters less than other factors. And then, it's about the software/OS/type of work done/where the toolbars are displayed (to the sides or on top/bottom of the document) etc.

Secondly, it's really about software. If software starts to accept the fact than 16:9 is here to stay, and Windows desktop mode will start, at last, ship with vertical taskbar by DEFAULT (so user can actually read names of opened documents and applications), the number of complaints about 16:9 would go down. There is nothing wrong with it, for a given screen area.

Finally, and most importantly, it's about physical area. With different aspect ratios, it would be more fair to advertise laptop screens by screen area in sq.in than diagonal. But marketing chose the diagonal. And 14" 4:3 is approximately the same area as 15" 16:9.

In other words, 16:9 permits more compact devices for a given diagonal and manufacturer's effort, and who would blame the manufacturer of mobile devices who wants to make them smaller, yet preserve the inches in the marketing material ?

Further, in tablets or smartphones, when screen can be rotated, this whole discussion is in completely different context. For example, I personally find 4:3 tablet screens too wide in vertical orientation, and much prefer 16:9/16:10 to that, as there are distinct "wide" and "narrow" modes, just rotation way. E.g. books, when used in reading software that trims blank margins, work beautifully in 10:16 or 9:16.

Tbh. I suspect the whole reason we see iPads in 4:3 is because the 10" IPS panel Apple procured for the first iPad in sufficient quantities/quality, happened to be 1024x768. And it stays until this day because iOS apps aren't as good in handling different aspect ratios as Androids/Windows apps are.

 

I agree on desktop it is less of a deal-breaker since like many, I turn a 23" 1080p monitor in a cubicle at the hospital to portrait and find it quite pleasant. In fact if I were to go for dual-monitors there, I would prefer dual 1080p (at 22/23") to duel 1200p at 23-24" - just out of personal preference (the latter being a little too wide since I believe it is more "natural" to look up and down than scanning left to right).

At home and office, I use a combination of 1680x1050, 1600x1200, and 1280x1024 multi-monitor setup - all in portrait.

That's a good point you raised. I wasn't thinking much about that. But on mulling it over I don't believe that is even a substantial explanation behind the current dearth of 16:10 / 4:3 panels on the mobile platform. Why is that expensive Apples and cheap Androids don't feel the same marketing pressure to advertise 16:9 that Windows tablets/laptops from the top of price chain the to bottom invariably do?

My answer: the Sultan of Redmond decreed it. Pure and simple.

Here I partially agree and disagree - recognizing that personal preference plays a large role.

I agree with you that 4:3 is not universally ideal despite its closest approximation to the 11x8.5 letter aspect ratio. With various menus taking up perhaps 100-200 worth of pixels, 16:10 is often superior.

However, the difference in the mobile platform is not just 16:10 vs 16:9, especially in portrait mode. It is rather the minimum width that makes a deal-breaking difference. Perhaps 1280x800 is only marginally better than 1366x768 (some might claim marginally worse). But 1050p is vastly superior to 900p. I have been using the LT1423p in 900p for a few days so I am acutely aware of that.

Many websites / fora have a minimum width of 1024 at 100% DPI scaling. I know and you would know that from experience although I am not saying this is universal. Anyone who used a 768 - 900p portable device in portrait can vouch for that, as I can.

In the medical world, a hard-coded 1024p minimum width is even more inflexible. Don't ask me why - it is what it is. I personally think many of the so-called "legacy", yet mission-critical software were designed with 1280x1024 resolution at 100% scaling in mind as "default".

So what about 1080p in portrait mode? Now the DPI density on a 11.6" SP2 or a 12.5" TPY start to stretch the limit of eye power especially since we both know some legacy fonts don't scale at all. Even the ones that do stop scaling over Citrix.

My colleagues who bought SP2 found out the hard way themselves.

My LT1423p is a wonder in this regard but I still have to pan it left and right often.

I would go so far as to claim 1050p as essential and ideal for mobile platform in portrait mode for "mobile professionals". Anything less you'll have to pan constantly from left to right, which is quite annoying and productivity-defeating. Anything higher you are liable to requiring magnifiers (pls don't joke about Windows' built-in magnifier).

That's possible. But it doesn't explain Apple's insistence of 16:10 on laptops and we will see what aspect ratio it chooses for its iPad Pro.

 

They did, by requiring Windows 8 minimal screen resolution of 1366x768. Making the popular and cheap 16:10 1280x800 screens technically non-compliant.

This has been apparently lifted, as there are quite a few 16:10 windows tablets now, blessed by Microsoft (e.g. Dell Venue 8 Pro, Acer Iconia).

Yet it's indeed puzzling, looking at Samsung example, who isn't really dependent on what LCD manufactures are doing and can definitely build any LCD of any aspect ratio, w/o lame excuses we heard from Lenovo like 'there is a conspiracy of LCD manufactures who aren't willing to produce screens we want, and we don't have enough buying power to force them'.

All Samsungs' 10" Android tablets are 16:10 (2560x1600 etc). Yet ATIV Tab devices, from the same Samsung, are all 16:9 1366x768. Yet for 13" Samsung is happy to throw in 3200x1800 (16:9) screens, so DPI/Windows/scaling isn't the issue either.

 

That's good to know. Here's hoping for the next iteration of DisplayLink-powered LT14xx and Cintiq DT to be 1050p ...

 

I think the marketing people have taken control of the screen manufactures. Hydis did make a very nice 4:3 IPS screen with LED but not a single laptop uses it from the factory, only medical equipment and custom laptop modders.

I agree it would be nice to see them make 4:3 and 16:10 again.

 

I would pay 50-100$ extra for the equal laptop but with 16:10 aspect ratio. Period.

 

Unfortunately 99.9% of ordinary Joe's want the cheapest laptop possible, the outcry of maybe 1% of laptop market isn't going to change what has already been in motion for years now.

 

That would be great if someone would risk and create 2 versions of their flagman model. Like GS for MSI, or some Alienware model or Razer Blade 13" etc. 50-100$ would take 3% of total price and that is a joke for a price.

 

You have to think of it from a laptop manufacturer's eyes. Making a 2nd model could potentially confuse consumers, as well as create double SKUs for the same laptop (imagine all the different versions of laptops across all the different countries), supply chain issues, marketing and having consumers see the value of a top tier model. Would I pay extra for a QHD screen, yes don't get me wrong, but the average joe doesn't and OEMs cater to what sells to 99% of people, not the 1%. Alienware I would say is a good example of enthusiasts making a difference (people screaming for IPS screens and 1080p, and they put an IPS panel in the Alienware 18 and a 1080p IPS panel in the Alienware 14). But if you wish manufacturers to do so, get a petition and have 100k people sign it. That will grab manufacturers attention real fast.

 

I would have bought the new MB air 13" since it had 16:10 1440 × 900 and insane battery life. But the TN panel killed it for me. Ended up getting the Samsung ativ book 9 with 1080P IPS matte screen. Also just picked up a X230 Lenovo and that only has 720P but its still IPS. Both are very nice displays. My oldest computer is a HP 6500 CTO 15.4" 16:10 with LG glass. That's from around 2007 and its a bit dim compared to the newer displays but its still very nice looking. That one is easy on the eyes and great for the web. Don't need to wear my glasses with that one. If one really wants 16:10 then just go with Apple. For a TN they are better then average. Other then that, like I said earlier in this thread the glass manufacturers figured out how to cut more panels with 16:9 and saved money. Then they started putting in num pads on the 15.6 inch displays soon after. Also, my Samsung 10" tab 2 is 16:10 720P which is a nice fit IMO. My biggest issue with MS surface is they went to 16:9 which make it very awkward to hold especially in portrait mode. MS should have done the surface in 16:10. That was a huge mistake IMO.

I know on a 15" laptop I would much rather run 1280 x 800 then the newer 1366X768. In that case scenario I would take the vertical space over having a num pad anyday. Probably the most awkward system I have where I feel squeezed for vertical space is my Toshiba fusion 14" notebook with 1366X768. Only reason I bought that was its was the smallest one I could find that I could configure a BD burner and have a 12 Cell battery to give me 6 hours battery life which was pretty decent with sandy bridge i5 mobile processor. It also has the best speakers I have ever had on a notebook (hardon Kardon). Probably overall the best multimedia machine Toshiba ever made and they don't make it any longer which is why i will never sell it. The bottom line is I have too many computers now LOL. I also have a mint condition 18" HP HDX 1080P. That is a nice screen but its a tank. But at that screen size I don't have to scale and it has a nice balance. I use that alongside a 25" 1080P HP monitor in extended mode. Lots of realstate there!

 

Hybrid tablet/keyboard combinations are more and more reverting to 16:10 aspect ratios. The new Lenovo Thinkpad 10 tablet is 16:10 (its predecessor was 16:9) and has a keyboard/cover. Hopefully, this movement to hybrids will preserve the 16:10 aspect ratio or resurrect its use.

 

More SKU's is of course complete nonsense argument. Lenovo has 1000s of parts that are nearly the same. Just think of that plastic transparant piece over your wifi / bt indicator lights. They have different versions for that depending on whether you have wifi / bt / wwan.... making a different lid with a screen instead of additional plastic wouldn't be too hard to do.

 

New Surface 3. 12", 2160x1440 (3:2), 216ppi.:thumbsup:

 

Another year, another 16:9 fail by Lenovo. While Lenovo gets many more things right this year, the top notebook manufacturer in the world still can’t produce a screen that isn’t 16:9 in their latest premium line, so you’ll still have to buy a MacBook or Surface Pro to get this or better. For what’s it’s worth, details on Lenovo’s new ThinkPad lineup for 2015 may be found at http://www.anandtech.com/show/8825/...ell-updates-for-t550-t450s-e550-e450-and-l450 and many other places on the web and 16:10 is still nowhere in sight.

Yet another reason why Apple is valued at ~$700 billion dollars. Maybe 2016 Lenovo…

 

Well to be fair the Surface Pro is 3:2 not 16:10...

 

Which is superior to 16:10 anyways, though I can live with both. When my 4:3 T61 is too slow for the current times I'll be getting a SP3 or Retina MBP 15" assuming the current state of laptop screens remains static.

 

16:10 is returning.

 

Anything less than 13.3" doesn't count.

 

I think the most recent "top spec" 16:10 aspect ratio laptops you can get is probably the original alienware m17x and/or the dell xps m1730. These laptops themselves are also already quite old too though.

 

Not really, courtesy of Panasonic:

Dynamism - Panasonic RZ Series

Panasonic Toughbook 52 - 15.4" - Core i5 3360M - Windows 7 Pro - 4 GB RAM - - CF-52VAAEY1M - Notebook Computers - CDW.com

I'll agree with you that "workstation" units are unavailable in the 16:10 format, though...

 

Oh true that didnt realize they actually still made some laptops in 16:10, these are getting more and more rare though i dont even know if i have ever seen a 16:10 in new zealand since the m17xr1 or the m1730. However it appears the performance of these laptops isnt too much better than the aforementioned m17xr1 or m1730 though so if price is a consideration the older models can still present a somewhat ok value.

 

The last 16:10 notebooks:

hp EliteBook 8740w - the only 16:10 IPS (the DreamColor panel, good luck finding one) of decent real estate; MXM-3B; up to i7 940XM; 4 RAM slots; pretty thin and light for what it packs;/; mediocre cooling; only one HDD slot, swapping the DVD gives you second drive option
Alienware M17x-R2 - WUXGA RGB LED although TN (still pretty decent panel, no color control); 2x MXM-3B; up to i7 940XM; 2 HDD slots; great cooling;/; 2 RAM slots
DELL M6500 - WUXGA RGB LED although TN (still pretty decent panel, not that good sRGB emulation); up to i7 940XM; 4 RAM slots; 2 HDD slots; good cooling;/; proprietary GPU
lenovo W701 - WUXGA RGB LED although TN (still pretty decent panel); up to i7 940XM; 4 RAM slots; 2 HDD slots; good cooling;/; proprietary GPU

Those are off the top of my head, feel free to add more notable mentions. I don't count disposable notebooks (soldered everything) like MacBooks, so there's that.