Will MSI release any more 16:10 laptops?

Will we see a gx640/gx740 sandy bridge update?
Whose hoping we will? I sure am...

 

About as much chance as them bringing back the 3.5" floppy drive.

 

>_>

I dunno about that... if it were true then they wouldn't have released the gx640 and gx740 in the first place...

 

The GX640/GX740 seem to have been the end of the MSI 16:10 era. They've moved on to a new 16:9 chassis with better cooling and sound system.

 

LOL!

I think the reasoning behind this is televisions and cost.
I think monitor manufacturers make them the same res as TVs for easy compatibility, and to keep some prices down.

 

do some 17" tvs use the same panels? that would be interesting.
There is always more to know about lcds...

for easy compatibility lol I wish they used the same form factor motherboard on their new series

 

Unfortunately we live in a world where economists define quality. And their idea is: as cheap as better (more profit for company). And of course there is no cheap quality! That's why they all are now doing this crappy 16:9 resolution. You'll say that's not true - this is the standard. But where do the standards come from? - same companies, ruled by (or getting the ideas of) the same economists.
As I know there are 3 major manufactures of LCDs (correct me if I'm wrong) and if all of them decide to go for crappy resolution in order to increase profit we can't do much. Now will see 16:10 resolution in high end products and most likely not in notebooks, or in very few of them.
May be some of you have wondered why you like more aspect ratio of 16:10, than 16:9? Nope, it's not only because of more space available. There is something more. It's the number itself. 16:10 = 1.6; 16:9=1.78:1. Aspect ration of 16:10 is very near to the Golden ratio used for more than 2400 years by architects and artists. It's considered to be the most aesthetically pleasing ratio. And it's the most common ratio met in natural world. If you want to learn more - read the article.

 

But the golden ratio doesn't explain why so many people complained when we went from a 5:4 (or 4:3 or whatever it was) ratio to 16:10.

 

Actually I don't care about the aspect ratio nearly as much as the standard interface of nearly all CCFL screens which are predominantly 16:10.

Nowadays its much harder to tell if you can upgrade your screen...

 

Whoa! slow down there Copernicus. :GEEK: JK'ing, great post

 

I think you're jumping to a few conclusions abotu economists that aren't quite true. It is true that economists create models for maximizing profit, but thats only on the introductory level and at that point it's really just a simple optimization problem. When you dig deeper into economics, real economists are concerned with improving society and standard of living on the whole. Consumer preferences as well utility maximization for the entire economy is considered. If the consumer hates the change in resolution to 16:9 less than the manufacturers of screens, multimedia companies, and the such gain, then there is a net gain for the economy. If this drives cost down it gives consumers more buying power. Maybe you'd prefer a machine with better components rather than fret over the screen size. If there was enough demand and outcry for 16:10 then it would've stayed. Normal consumers don't fret over these things, you can blame ignorance for the change in screen aspect ratios if you want, but the role of economists is not of one purely concerned with big business and capitalism, it's just demand and supply.

 

===== OFF TOPIC =====
Yeah, writing that I thought that here might be a lot of poeple graduated economics and that I might affect them ... and I think that we all must dig deeper in the economics, because it only seems that those people are conserned about improving society and standard of living. For example if a country has a higher GDP it is considered that in this country the standard of life is better, right? But think a little bit what GDP is? - it is the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time. So now this means it includes, let's take for exapmle, health care and military, which take big share of GDP (OK, I'm talking about developed countries here). So then if a country spends more money on health care and military, it will mean that there will be more growth and more jobs, which will have a positive effect on GDP. And a REAL iconomist will conclude that there is rise in the standard of living in that country. BUT what exactly heath care and military is? - well it is SICK, DYING and KILLED people. So if there are more sick, dying and killed people there will be better standard if living?!? THANK YOU OH, MIGHTY ECONOMISTS.

 

which is why using real gdp or every real gdp per capita is a deceptive measure. These things are taught only in introductory courses for a reason. To see the truth you look at breakdowns of consumption, investment, government, and the like. GDP is also a flawed measure for its inability to include the underground economy (not illegal transactions, transactions that are just not accounted for such as small cash transactions).

Dedicating money is to help the sick? Is that inherently wrong? Some countries have corrupt health care systems, but you should blame greed for that. Extending life expectancies is one of the main reasons why the western world developed so quickly as opposed to Africa during and post the industrial revolution. As countries become less sick and live longer, their labour force grows for a longer period of time, and is theoretically better.

As for military, not many developed countries have a huge chunk dedicated to military. There are a few that everyone is drawn to become explosions draw attention, but there are plenty of non-militaristic developed nations

 

... it doesn't matter - I don't want to argue

 

Will a mod please NOT close the thread just because it is off topic. It will take you 5 more seconds to rename & move it.

Also I dont mind it guys, its kind of interesting.
As long as we can keep it non argumentative.... Which brings me to a good point. How can either of you have a specific and confident opinion on something so incredibly broad? I just do not understand, I mean if either of you actually think that you know for certain and are doing anything other merely speculating the truth then we should end this right now.
And if we get any nearer to political discussion the thread will be closed very soon.

I'm not like you guys and don't pretend to know anything about economics but when I keep seeing "standard of living".... I just saw a show about the corruption of death investigations. A certain country has no funding for forensic pathologists and elect coroners (who are not medically licensed) to make a lot of decisions and ultimately determine cause of death, or simply cremate the bodies because they have no way to preserve them. The forensic pathologists are often unprofessional and corrupt and can lie to win a case in favor of the police.

And guess what is pretty much the most popular type of TV show in this country? pretty much the biggest misportrayal of something that is all happening in the same place I have ever heard of.

But back on the off subject, at least as much as I can be, I don't think life expectancy has anything to with why the western world developed faster, that is quite a leap.
Have you guys read guns germs and steel?
I'm fairly certain that the biggest thing having caused africa to be the way it is today is the lack of steel. Pretty much completely prevented the entire continent from having an industrial revolution.

Anyway.
Just keep in mind that the only thing you can possibly be arguing about is the fact that certain people are more crazy in some places as opposed to others.

 

Lol niffcreature, you kinda just hit the nail on the head when it comes to economics. Half of what they do is speculation and not applicable to the real world because of all the external factors that you can't control. It's a funny field where at the end of the day, you're not entirely sure what conclusion you're supposed to draw is. Perhaps i failed to mentioned that most of what I've wrote is theoretical. Economists still argue over that we don't really know what got us out of the great depression for god's sakes. Nothing is concrete.

I wasn't arguing so much that I know everything, just wanted to point out that the answer to the of question "why 16:9 over 16:10?" is not blame the economists for everything!

 

I've read a bit of guns, germs, and steel and heard a lot about it from other people. It is true that steel was rather important. Definitely on my reading list. It's kinda all circular where tech leads to more productivity/longer life span/etc. which leads back to faster rate of tech.

===
END OFF-TOPIC

I wish they would keep pumping out 16:10 laptops but sadly it's not going to happen

 

I hit some nails with some c4 lol. meaning I do that all the time with subjects I know nothing about.
Everything is entirely theoretical because of the platos cave analogy. Our laptops are built on theorems. Which is why I sound like I know what I'm talking about on these forums.
Humanity has long past become greater than the sum of its parts which is really the cause of everything including the existence of humanity itself.
but don't listen to me or your might become schizophrenic.

Speaking of which there is a schizophrenic who after deciding that no treatment was working wrote an extremely successful book on economics theory. Case in point. lol

ANYWAY yes
===
END OFF-TOPIC

I would love for 16:10 to stick around, but now I'm remembering something I thought about a while ago... Its way to complex for me to remember... but I think in some select cases there are 16:10 screens that are as wide as 16:9 screens meaning horizontally not diagonally.
So I think someday I will be able upgrade a laptop to 16:10 and an actually bigger screen... because they are measured diagonally... and there is always space left on top and bottom, 18" 16:10 may be possible in 17.3" 16:9 chassis lets not relapse but I'll do some math with the pythagorean theorem later.