16:10 Notebooks to See Price Drops

I hope there are more panels w/ 1600x900 resolution, it seems like the perfect resolution for me since it is a bit more than WXGA+ (1440x900) but less than WSXGA+ (1680x1050), not that I mind my WXGA (1366x768 which has more pixels than the former 1280x800) screen.

 

So theoretically spekaing, if 16:9 made a transition like 4:3 --> 16:10, i.e. they just made everything wider(add more side pixels than remove the top ones), do you think it'd be ok?

I mean, I don't think it's just vertical space loss that people are complaining about. Widescreen was already too rectangular for my tastes and if it goes even more rectangular, it'd become even more cumbersome >.< IMO My TV still isn't 16:9(but then again, that 60" bugger is still a projection one lol ) and honestly, I woulnd't really like it if it was >.> I'm more of a square person lol

 

For me the loss of pixels is a little annoying, but not the end of the world. Right now their are only a hand full of resolutions to choose from but I find it hard to believe that won't change in the future. (And since I generally gear toward smaller 13 inch and less notebooks the current ones aren't awful.) But from the 16:9 notebooks I've looked at in stores just seem overly rectangular and bulky. True, most the 16:9s on the market our media centers and 15+ inches which were bulky in 16:10 anyway. But they still look more cumbersome to lug around to me. I guess I need to try one first though. I actually like the 16:10 ratio over 4:3 in laptops because I've found my 16:10 to fit in better with my stack of textbooks than my old 4:3 did. It also allows for a full sized keyboard on a smaller (lighter) laptop. But when it comes to monitors, I'm not sure 4:3 still isn't better than windscreen.

 

Do you do anything but watch movies on your laptop? Because people that actually do work on them will tend to agree losing ANY vertical pixels is a big deal.

Dont get me wrong is they wanted to take the "multimedia" laptop in that direction i'm all for it. For multimedia 16:9 is a great resolution and fit the theme well.

But for a notebook that i do everything on, the loss of vertical size hurts alot. 120 pixels is a 120 pixels any way you look at it, and with the transition from 16:10 to 16:9 we are only losing and not gaining anything for it (unlike the 4:3 to 16:10 swap)

 

Don't get too caught up in the numbers and assume that because the math ends up producing the same values that the resolutions are direct extensions of each other. A lot of times a proper ratio can't be generated using the same horizontal pixel resolution.

Take 1680x1050 WSXGA+ as a good example. 1680x1050 is a 16:10 extension of 1400x1050 SXGA+ which was a 4:3 extension of 1280x1024 SXGA (a 5:4 aspect ratio). The reason why 1050 vertical pixels were used for the wide screen conversion is because you can not produce a perfect 16:10 ratio screen using 1024 vertical pixels. The math doesn't work.

The same thing happens again with the conversion from 16:10 to 16:9.....1050 vertical pixels can not produce a perfect 16:9 ratio screen but 1080 can (and 1080 is a nice straight 50% more than 720p). And this is where the confusion starts because the math of a 16:9 ratio with 1080 vertical pixels produces a value of 1920 horizontal pixels... which people naturally associate with 1920x1200. But you know there's probably a reason why 1920x1080 is named 1080p and not some version of UXGA.

A lot of it is just the coincidence of the math originating from 8 bits.

 

Truth is you can genuinely look at it that 16:9 screens did get wider from 16:10 screens since you now have larger screen sizes like 16" and 18.4" that are commonly available. 16:9 screens have approximately the same screen width as a larger 16:10 screen but also have approximately the same screen height as a smaller 16:10 screen.

e.g. 18.4" 16:9 screens have the screen width of a 19" 16:10 screen and the screen width of a 17" 16:10 screen.

So you can look at an 18.4" as an extra wide 17" or a chopped down 19". Since 19" notebooks were never commonly produced (there have been a few) while 18.4" notebooks are getting produced like 17" notebooks I tend to think 16:9 screens are wider.

But people get angry around here when you take that POV.....I guess they should have named it 17.78:10 aspect ratio instead.

 

Sigh . . . you are completely incorrect in your arguments, as myself and several other astute forum members have proven more than was necessary. To everyone confused by the above quoted post, please see here:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=362083&page=5

 

I have a question, the 16:9 aspect reatio appeared because of the black bars on widescreen movies right? So umm why didn't they just keep movies fullscreen and avoid all the hassle? -_- Honestly, I don't really see that big a disadvantage that my TV isn't 16:9 so why should the laptop market follow the same trend?

But I suppose for all our ranting, at this point those laptops DO exist and seems companies HAVE made the choice to follow this trend.

 

All notebook makers are moving to 16:9 because it is more economical to produce; more 16:9 panels can be cut out of a single sheet of glass than 16:10 panels. That is the one and only reason we have the 16:9 invasion.

And you're right, the TV market != notebook market.

 

16:9 was proposed back in the 1980's when it was discovered that if you take all the common aspect ratios films were shot in at the time and normalized them to take up an equal area that they all fit within an outer rectangle and shared a common inner rectangular area that both had an aspect ratio of 1.77:1...or ~16:9.

Using a 16:9 aspect ratio for HDTVs allowed films to be shot at any aspect ratio and still be displayed on a HDTV screen.....with the black bars.

Source: http://www.cinemasource.com/articles/aspect_ratios.pdf


Chaz is probably right that lcd manufacturers are making the change just to save costs on production but so what? It doesn't make a 16:9 aspect ratio the work of Satan.....the more money they can save that way the less employees they have to fire.


What "sucks" about the transition to 16:9 is that right now we're only seeing the two most common resolutions used for TVs with the highest vertical resolution offered for notebooks being 1080p. Better resolutions have to be (and I believe are being) created for PCs.

 

All I can say is, I certainly hope this is the case. Would be nice to pick up a good deal on a 16:10 notebook.

 

Well I don't think 16:9 is the devil, there are far worse things happening in the world for me to cry over 16:9 screens lol

But yeah, I'm just worried a bit about the form factor. The size is still bearable with 16:9, but I'm looking at the future past 16:9 >.>

 

I don't really care about 16:9 or 16:10.
What pisses me off is that there are so few laptops with high resolution options. Now when I buy laptops, I have to choose based on LCD options, instead of other features.
There used to be 1920x1200 on a lot of 15" laptops if you were willing to pay the price. Now you have to go to like 17" to get that, and only a few laptops even gives you that option. Most of them only go up to 1680x1050 or whatever the 16:9 equivalent is, if you're lucky.

 

Here's one reason I absolutely hate the idea of a 16:9 display: if you watch a 16:9 movie or video on a 16:10 display, you have ROOM for stuff such as subtitles and the taskbar. If your display is 16:9 too, you have two choices: A. Controls OVERLAP the movie. B. Movie shrinks, letterboxed on ALL 4 sides!

Here's what we should do to the LCD manufacturers' homes: reduce their ceilings to leave only 1 inch of free space, er, "black bars" -- let's see how they like it. Hey, same logic applies... saves costs, too.

 

lol ^.^
When I look straight forward, i think my eyesight is 16:9 or even 16:8(2:1).
If you know what I mean
just look straight ahead and see what you think.

 

People complained the same way when 16:10 started. You'll get over it, because you have to. The majority of people that buy laptops aren't on this or any other computer forum and use their laptops for watching Internet videos or movies, listening to music, or doing the occasional Office and Internet stuff, and if most of those people even have a preference, they generally prefer wider screens that match their TVs. Therefore, companies will make their laptops with wider screens because it's cheaper and people will continue to buy them, and the world will keep spinning.

 

Good luck with that. Resolutions are going down, not up.

 

LOL. Just LOL.

 

You take away those extra vertical pixels, and what do you lose? What programs require a 16:10 aspect ratio for optimal performance? Nothing. It's not like you're going to open your InDesign document and say "damn i can't believe i can't see those two extra lines of words". Scroll Down.

 

For everything I use my computer for, vertical pixels are more important.

-Word documents
-Spreadsheets
-Internet
-Coding
-Internet chatting (don't knock it, its a great way to keep in touch )

Horizontal pixels (or rather a 16:9 aspect ratio) are more important for:
-Made for TV movies.
Uhm, anything else?

Maybe I wasn't clear. I'd rather see 4:3 monitors. But a 23" 16:10 screen is better than the 17" 4:3 screen I was used to, so I accept the change. But 16:9 displays on computers are just asinine and a clear example of corporations pushing change whether or not the market likes it.

 

yeah...

I'm starting a petition. Depending on my schedule, I should have it available before the end of next week hopefully.

But seriously, there is NO advantage to the consumer for using a 16:9 screen over a 16:10 screen. The argument about it being a HDTV/Movie format won't cut it because 1) Notebooks are NOT HDTVs and 2) If you were to watch HDTV or a Movie on your computer, it would be with the lights off and you wouldn't even notice the black bars, which a lot of pro-16:9 guys seem to complain about. Also, 3) Not all movies and HDTV shows use a 16:9 resolution anyways, so you'll still see black lines regardless.

The reason why the 4:3 to 16:10 transition didn't meet much resistance is because the 16:10 panels actually ADDED more pixels over 4:3 screens (for instance, UXGA at 1600x1200 and WUXGA at 1920x1200) without making the screen physically bigger than its 4:3 counterpart. 4:3 screens at 1600x1200 were 19 inches at minimum. Compare that to where around the same period of its introduction, WUXGA resolutions were available even in a 15.4 inch format. 16:9 is SUBTRACTING pixel real estate in exchange for more physical real estate. So basically notebooks are getting wider while showing less on screen.

If 16:9 becomes mainstream now, this is how notebooks will look like 7 years from now:



Manufacturers will look for a way to cut costs and find a way to get people into believing that it's beneficial to them when it's really not.

If you are hardcore about watching HDTV and movies the "proper" way on your notebook, just buy a HDTV or an external monitor. Heck, most HDTVs now come with a DVI and a HDMI port. They don't put DVI and HDMI ports on notebooks to make them look pretty...

 

I sure as hell didn't. I was excited.

I agree, although I still prefer 16:10 to 4:3.

 

(I'm sorry in advance for the long rant.)

The LCD panel fabricators/OEMs switching to virtually 100% production of 16:9 ratio screens might be an example of companies pushing change regardless of whether the market/customers want it, but I don't see anything reversing that change based on my conversations with notebook manufacturers.

You are correct in the assumption that if enough notebook manufacturers demanded it, the LCD panel fabricators/OEMs would supply 16:10 (or even 4:3) ratio screens ... but it will ONLY happen at a substantial increase in cost.

The LCD manufacturers have all teamed up to support 16:9 since it gives them the best profit margins for production of both HDTVs of various sizes and notebook/desktop LCDs. Sure, they could retool/adjust their production for different screen ratios ... but they'll make notebook manufacturers pay an arm and a leg for it.

Profit margins are already unbelievably thin for notebook manufacturers, so none of them are embracing the idea of paying 4+ times the cost of the 16:9 screen just to get a 16:10 screen.

I suppose if enough consumers band together and tell notebook manufacturers that they're willing to pay more for a notebook with a 16:10 screen then we might see them again. But do you honestly think you can find a MINIMUM of 300,000 customers to PAY IN ADVANCE for a notebook with a 16:10 screen ... which will cost at least $400-$500 more than an identical notebook with a 16:9 ratio screen?

It's similar to an issue Lenovo had with the screens in their ThinkPads a while ago. I'm not talking about screen ratio's here, but some of their business clients wanted a particular type of display in the ThinkPads and Lenovo could only do it if they could get a minimum of something like 200,000+ pre-orders (paid in full in advance).

Despite customer interest, Lenovo couldn't get enough pre-orders for that particular display to make it worthwhile. I'm certain it will be the same type of problem (only worse) with 16:9 vs 16:10 ratio notebooks. Now that notebook manufacturers are retooling and redesigning notebooks for 16:9 ratio screens it would not only cost more to obtain 16:10 panels from the OEMs, but it would cost more for the notebook manufacturers to design new notebooks that can fit a 16:10 ratio screen.

Bottom line, money talks ... and I don't see enough consumers or business clients willing to put down enough money to talk notebook manufacturers and LCD fabricators into producing 16:10 ratio notebooks.

 

The majority doesn't care about resolutions or displays, that's the one and only problem.

 

16:9 was never designed to get rid of black bars. It was designed so that films shot using any aspect ratio could be displayed on a TV screen with an equal area, and without cropping or distortion, by using the proper masking (black bars).

But you're right PCs aren't HDTVs and black bars aren't a serious concern, resolutions are. Higher 16:9 resolutions need to be added for use on PC screens.

Screens became physically smaller during the transition from 4:3 to 16:10. A 17" 4:3 screen had a physical area of 138.7 sq. in. while a 17" 16:10 screen had a physical area of 129.6 sq. in. The reason why 16:10 could display more pixels over a smaller area was because it could now offer 1.6 horizontal pixels for every vertical pixel instead of 1.3 horizontal pixels for every vertical pixel. That allowed 16:10 to add pixels and still produce a readable DPI. 4:3 couldn't do that because it had a tighter aspect ratio and an increase in either horizontal or vertical pixels would produce too large a bump in DPI.

For example going from 1680x1050 WSXGA+ to the next higher standard res. 1920x1200 WUXGA on a 17" 16:10 screen increases the DPI from 116.5 to 133.2 while going from UXGA 1600x1200 to QXGA 2048x1536 on a 17" 4:3 screen increases the DPI from 117.6 to 150.6. If they bumped 1600x1200 to the non-standard 1920x1440 on a 17" 4:3 the DPI would be a bit more readable at 141.2 DPI but then more people would have yelled about losing 220 vertical pixels when they switched to 16:10.


The same thing is happening with the transition from 16:9 to 16:10. Screens physical area is getting smaller but diagonal lengths are increasing to compensate. A 15.6" 16:9 screen has a smaller physical area than a 15.4" 16:10 screen (103.4 sq. in. vs. 107.4 sq. in.)....but again because the 16:9 screen can offer 1.78 horizontal pixels for every vertical pixel instead of 1.6 horizontal for every vertical the smaller screen area can show more pixels.

A 13.3" 16:10 screen displays 1.024 million pixels at a 1280x800 resolution at 114 DPI within a physical area of 80.23 sq. in. while a 13.1" 16:9 screen displays 1.049 million pixels at a 1366x768 resolution at 120 DPI within a physical area of 72.96 sq. in.

Now that 13.1" screen has already been bumped up to 1600x900 (1.44 million pixels) at 140 DPI on the Sony Vaio Z while for 13.3" screens to get past 1440x900 (1.3 million pixels) at 128 DPI would require a bump to 1680x1050 (1.76 million pixels) and 149 DPI.

The difference isn't as big as the jump from 4:3 to 16:10 but it's still there.

 

I don't think we need to worry about them getting wider, at least not right away. Part of the reason it's easier to produce 16:9 is that it is standard widescreen, so no need to change the ratios every run. If they make it wider they may save some by having less area, but they lose whatever they save by keeping it a standard. Now if EVERYTHING, including HDTVs start getting wider we need to worry.

The only good thing I can really hope for out of this is that with everything finally settling on common ratio, maybe software designers will finally start designing software for widescreen. And webpages too. I mean on a WXGA (what I have), webpages are still designed for XGA so stuck with 256 practically useless pixels on the side. Not enough to run a second window unless it's like a narrow IM window of something. Sure I could get a higher resolution, but how high a resolution can you get in a 13 inch laptop? WXGA+ if your lucky, but even then you can't run two SVGA windows at 100%. So why bother? And think about it, most people who walk into to BestBuy are going to get the lowest resolution anyway. I just hope with this software and webpages (and even Windows) will drop the 4:3 ratio for development and start designing things for widescreen. (Whether it be for full screen or half screen I don't care.)

 

Thanks. Good luck to you too on getting 4:3 back!

 

I would like to see the real figures if anyone has them. How much, really, are the LCD manufacturers gaining by producing 16:9 screens instead of 16:10? Is the next step really something even shorter, since the same argument was used to switch from 4:3 to 16:10?

Is it really easier for manufacturers to produce mainly S-IPS 42" 16:9 panels just because they're producing TN 15.6" 16:9 panels? I think it's just because customers aren't pushing back enough.

The standard resolution years ago was 1024x768... now, 1366x768 is OMG 720p, down from 1280x800. Where's the progress?

I had a work Dell D610 for some time, and it had a super useful SXGA+ resolution (1400x1050). A "1080p" panel only has 1080 vertical pixels. More scrolling.

 

Instead of boycotting or petitioning notebook manufacturers maybe people need to start boycotting and petitioning the LCD makers?

It doesn't seem like it'd really matter how much pressure is put on the notebook makers, since they're not the ones making the LCDs.

Or maybe someone could just sneak into one of the LCD factories at night and(or possible create a virus that) change all the computers to instead cut the screen at 16:10 instead of 16:9.

Either way, the LCD companies should be getting the complaints I think.

 

The problem being that the LCD panel makers dont care... they make next to nothing selling screens to OEM's and ODM's because thats such a small part of an already cheap piece of tech. They make their money off TV's so making 16:9 screens is cheaper (more profit) and works off the same protocal that the tv does so its a win win for the panel makers.

It sucks because we have no voice because we have no way to speak with out money. Because you cant really just go to your local best buy and get laptop parts they manufacturers have no data to tell them what sells and what doesnt so what ever they ship to the OEM/ODM is what "is" going to sell

Its complete bullocks because no matter how much it stinks theres nothing we can do about it. I guess i'll have to wait for a 2400x1350 17-20in (i guess 18.4 is the new 17 now...) laptop panel to come out before i have anything nearing my desired resolution

 

I volunteer for that job Though I would just make it 1,024,000:1 just for laughs

 

I see many people disagreeing about the change from 16:10 to 16:9, but why is 16:10 so much better?

I mean, wouldn't 17:10 be even more useful as that is closer to the size of a sheet of A4, meaning you could have exactly 2 x A4 pages on screen. So it would make more sense to have petitioned for that instead when 16:10 was the norm.

 

no, everyone who wants a small notebook, too. i have a 12". i'd prefer it to be 1:1 actually. it would still be as wide and fit everywhere, but i would have much more screen.

i now won't have a chance to get >800 pixels at height at any time, and that's ridiculous low. no, i get a more fat notebook (in width) and still less pixels height. it just sucks. i have NO app that really gains from width (yes ableton live would, but still, there every loss in height hurts just as much, if not more). and i have a wide variety of apps.

i don't even care about it for movies, as movies have borders anyways even on 16:9. and with media player classic, i can zoom in to remove the borders when i don't want to. and then, the bigger screen area of 16:10 or 4:3 gives me much more "movie for the buck".

and the first notebook i've had was 1280x1024, so it was 5:4, which gave me even more height.. a friend of mine has a 14" with 1600x1200. want to see 1200pixels height in the future on a notebook? not even 18" will cut it.

and yes, i'd KILL to get 1200 pixels height on a notebook.

(i do have a tablet with 1280 pixels height when in tablet mode.. but then, the width of 800 pixels isn't really much, again.. ).

width is overrated. all want slim people, i want slim notebooks

 

I never said it was designed to get rid of them. That's the argument pro 16:9 people use to justify its lower resolution over its 16:10 equivalent.

Again, there is no point in having more horizontal space and more horizontal pixels per vertical pixel when a 15.4 inch 1920x1200 screen can display more data on screen than a 15.6 1920x1080 screen. Also, even though there is less area the panel itself occupies, it doesn't change the overall dimension of the notebook that much, so the argument of 16:9 screens occupying less space is weak. Compare the Dimensions of the old HP DV7 to the new one with the 17.3 inch 16:9 screen. Do the same with the old Asus G50v and the new ones too.

 

If that were true than your original argument that 16:10 "ADDED" more pixels over a 4:3 screen would also be pointless since by the same reasoning you use above 1920x1440 could display more data on a 17" 4:3 screen (141 DPI) than 1920x1200 can display on a 17" 16:10 screen (133 DPI).

But lucky for you your original argument wasn't incorrect (but the one just quoted is) and the reason why 16:10 can add more pixels over a 4:3 screen is because it adds more horizontal space and adds more horizontal pixels per vertical pixel.

And 16:9 adds even more pixels than 16:10. 1.78:1 > 1.6:1.

That goes against your other original statement that " 16:9 is SUBTRACTING pixel real estate in exchange for more physical real estate. So basically notebooks are getting wider while showing less on screen."



The reason why 16:9 has less maximum pixels right now is because 1080p is the highest resolution offered on notebooks....but as Ive been explaining the potential (and likelihood) is there for manufacturers to offer resolutions higher than 1080p, at readable levels, in less screen area.

A 17.3" screen could display 2048x1152 (2.36 million pixels) at 136 DPI with a screen area of 128.35 sq. in. compared to a 17" screen displaying 1920x1200 (2.3 million pixels) at 133 DPI with a screen area of 129.6 sq. in.

 

so even the future best possible for 16:9 is still 48 pixels shy in vertical height

It looks like i'm going to need a 140 ratio on a 16:9 to not really feel cheated (2240x1260) but not sure how readable that will be (but it will probably be 18.4 so it will more than likely be ok)

 

Yeah you'd lose 48 pixels vertical (for +128 pixels horizontal) because you can't get a 16:9 ratio out of 1200 vertical pixels and 2240x1260 would be too much resolution for anything under a 17.6" screen.

 

Yeah there is....don't buy a notebook which has a 16:9 aspect ?

That's my plan.

 

What happens when notebook manufacturers phase out all their 16:10 models? Are you going to build one yourself?

Dell is already well on its way. They've just released the Studio XPS series, both models of which are 16:9 only. The slightly older Studio 15, a series that's barely a year old, has now lost all 16:10 models, leaving only one 16:9 model, and I'm sure the same fate will meet the Studio 17. The XPS series (M1330, M1530 and M1730), all of which are 16:10, are being discontinued. Where will it end? Will it end at all?

 

That's a good point regarding the 1920x1440 17 inch screens, I just found out that there are a couple of such screens laying around. My rebuttal to that would simply be that there are no 17 inch 1920x1440 notebooks. During the 4:3 to 16:10 transition, there were 15.4 inch 1920x1200 16:10 notebook screens (the Dell Inspiron 9100 series for instance), compared to 15 inch 1600x1200 4:3 notebooks (IBM ThinkPad T60s). I was trying to point out in my original set of arguments that the transition to 16:10 allowed manufacturers to get higher resolutions/more pixels in notebooks (15.4 inch) compared to 4:3 screened notebooks. That said, I was a bit annoyed of the transition from 4:3 to 16:10 more so for personal reasons, but no where near as annoyed as with the 16:10 to 16.9 transition.

To your first paragraph/sentence, I guess a better way of phrasing it would be that you are getting less for the same size, if not more. But technically, if you were to calculate the amount of space the panel takes up per space the entire chassis takes up, then 16:10 equivalent panels would be more efficient in that respect. This could change with newer chasses (plural of chassis?) that are 16:9 specific, but the current state of affairs is not helping the 16:9 change/movement at all.

1080p being the maximum is the problem. It's probably going to be the maximum too because it's relatively a high enough resolution. I'm still not convinced that a 15.6 inch 1920x1080 screen is better than a 15.4 inch 1920x1200 screen, or that a 17.3 inch 1920x1080 screen is better than a 17.1 inch 1920x1200 screen as of now.

Edit: Mathematically, a 17.3 inch 2048x1152 screen would be better than a 17.1 inch 1920x1200 screen in that there is more pixels per area, but it becomes subjective because the difference in DPI is minute.

 

What happen's is,I won't buy notebook's anymore,I'll build a desktop.

 

this issue is relevant to ALL lcd screens. the highest res for 16:9 desktop monitor is 2048*1152, not bad but you still lose some pixels.

 

Yeah if they can make it fly with notebook panels... then moniters are deffinatly next.

We're going to be living in a 16:9 world and that makes me a sad panda

 

Yup I understood your original point about 16:10 offering higher resolutions over 4:3 and I tried to offer evidence to support why that was...but I also tried to explain that 16:9 is doing the same thing.

It just doesn't look like it because the resolution numbers are all different. If 16:9 could offer 1200 vertical pixels I think more people would see that but it can't because the ratio math wouldn't work out. You'd need 2133.334 horizontal pixels to make 1200 vertical pixels work.

You can't have a fraction of a pixel. That'd be like turning on half a light bulb.

I'd argue that it already has changed citing the popularity of 18.4" notebooks being produced by most major notebook manufacturers because of the size savings of not having to add extra height to go along with the extra width gained from 16:9.

That's all purely subjective opinion though. Some giants actually think a 19" 4:3 notebook isn't that big....and that's why I don't date giants. Hai-Ohhh!

 

Which is why, if they want wide spread adoption of 16:9 panels they need to make haste with coming up with 2240x1260 panels to make the high resolution screen users happy.

The lose of vertical pixels = bad. Gaining an even higher resolution than 1920x1200 = good so everyone is happy

 

haha, touche on that zinger. But yeah, the max resolution isn't there right now which is part of the reason why a 16:10 to 16:9 transistion is pointless.

Also, looking from a historic point of view, let's say they do come out with a 16:9 screen with 1200 vertical pixels (or 1260 vertical pixels, which seems more probable given the math). The trend seems to be making screens wider physically and in terms of DPI. Unchecked, computer screens and notebooks could be getting wider and wider in respect to its depth. It seems the concept of having a better field of view would be driving this trend, but at the same time, you want to be practical about having a balance between FoV and productivity. Having more horizontal space to work with doesn't always translate to higher productivity, especially when dealing with notebooks given the sizes of the ones that sell the most.

 

I don't know about that,businesses would I imagine be the biggest buyer's of monitor's,and they are notorious for not being forced into anything....as MS has found out the hard way with Vista.

Another point is why would home user's buy a more expensive widescreen monitor over a HDTV with TV and free to view etc built in,seem's in a way they would be cutting off their own noses to make monitor's the same aspect and resolution's as a TV.

Dell's business model's bar one are all 16:10,so maybe common sense will prevail in that area hopefully,I imagine as per normal,their new business model's will do another round with the same cases but new hardware.

If they do start making all the monitor's squashed aspect's,I will buy one of the last 1280x1024's,or at worst 16:10,which shouldn't need to be replaced for year's,by which time we'll probably be discussing the next useless thing they come up with.

 

It would be 2048x1152 since that resolution is readable on 16" screens (borderline on a 15.6" screen @ 150DPI) and above. I'd expect it from Dell or Acer first since they've both got 23" (Acer also has a 27") desktop monitors using the resolution. Dell still needs to put out an 18.4" notebook to compete with Acer and HP while Acer has been pretty innovative lately.

Samsung is the other(first) company putting out a 23" 2048x1152 screen and they tout it for productivity by advertising how it's essentially equivalent to a dual screen lcd able to display 2 A4 size pages or 2 1024x768 standard res. web pages side by side.


Notebooks getting wider and wider to an extent checks itself.

Physically adding some width (but not as much as that pic Ichime posted) and sacrificing some depth is beneficial for chassis design since the extra width makes room for a better keyboard (especially on smaller notebooks) and the shorter depth trims down what is usually a lot of excess palmrest space. But there's a limit because going too short would require making the touchpad smaller or eliminating rows of keys...and going too wide would turn larger notebooks into surfboards.

Economically it's checked too because 16:9 HDTVs aren't going to change their aspect ratio (it would upset filmmakers, movie studios, and the TV industry) so any money saved by cutting PC screens at a wider aspect ratio than those of TVs would have to be weighed against the expense of having to set up extra equipment to do so.

And finally it's also checked by resolutions because there is a point where it all turns around and the ratio of horizontal pixels to vertical is too high. We'd end up seeing the opposite of what we've been talking about with 16:10 being able to add pixels over 4:3 in smaller screen areas. When that ratio point is passed then notebooks would have to get huge to maintain the same vertical pixels or you'd end up really losing pixels....both vertical and total pixels.

For example if they ever went to a 16:8 aspect ratio (or 2:1) it would require a 20.1" notebook screen with an area of 162 sq. in. (18"x9") to support a 2400x1200 resolution at the same DPI that a 17" notebook shows 1920x1200 or a 17.3" notebook shows 2048x1152. A 17.9" 2:1 screen could only support a 2160x1080 resolution in the same physical screen area and at the same DPI of a 17.3" 16:9 screen at 2048x1152.

2160x1080 is only about 27,000 pixels less than 2048x1152 but it shows that you would start to lose more and more pixels after you pass a certain aspect ratio.


But 16:9 isn't past that aspect ratio point. If notebooks do ever reach that point I'll yell bloody murder along with you.