LED 16:9 Screens to be Mainstream for 2010

LED 16:9 Screens to be Mainstream for 2010

According to a DigiTimes report, the maintream notebook display for 2010 will have a 16:9 aspect ratio and LED backlighting. These types of panels will be on 70% of all notebook panels next year and some will have 3D and touch features.

Full Story (DigiTimes.com)

 

*Vomits all over keyboard*

Seriously. Touch in a non-tablet form factor and 3D are just gimmicks. I wouldn't want to be seen wearing 3D glasses in a coffee shop. Physically touching the screen requires more movement than using a mouse or keyboard, and just takes more time. Not to mention greasy screens aren't very clear.

Don't even get me started on 16:9.

 

why do you guys dislike 16:9 screens so much. I see so many people bash this and say to use 16:10 ratios. What's so bad about 16:9? There going to be standard anyway.

 

more vertical space.

its a BIG deal for anything that uses text(coding, word processing, spreadsheeting, web browsing).

 

I actually like 16:9, still have adequate space for work, plus I have the windows 7 taskbar on the left.

16:9 feels good to hold onto as well when carrying a laptop around, I prefer it to 16:10 anyway.

 

On the low end the 16:9 -> 16:10 transition doesn't matter too much i.e. 1280x800 (16:10) > 1366x768 (16:9). However the loss of vertical pixels gets much worse . . . at the top end, 1920x1080 (16:9) screens have 120 less vertical pixels than 1920x1200 (16:10). So, definitely a bummer.

I am planning to compensate for that lack of space by purchasing two 1920x1080 montiors and using them side-by-side tilted 90* aka 2160x1920 res.

 

Just connect to a TV. I think My samsung TV can do 1920 x 1200

 

TVs are just as bad. 1920x1080 is the max that TVs do.

 

That would be pretty sweet--though probably not the best for movies, but who cares!

 

It doesn't hurt some people as much though

e.g I moved on from a 1280x800 laptop screen to 1600x900 laptop screen, and now to a 1920x1080 laptop screen, so its only been a gain for my case who's never owned a large 16:10 screen.

 

Are you sure about that? I thought some TV's can do 2560 Res. At least i remember seeing that somewhere.

 

Would be a nice function for notebook displays. 1080*1920 sounds fine to me.

 

with windows 7, screen width really benefits when you can set apps to use exactly half the width of the screen with ease.
I like to have powerpoint slides on the left and word on the right for notes for class.
Plus, watching videos with a 16:9 is better than 16:10 as you can use more of your monitor and have less black bars.

 

16x9 *vomit*

 

That is why there are the other 30%..

All of you crying on this, it is not fully 100% of the screens, it does report 70%. Now if you dont feel like getting a 16:9 then go for the other 30% with 16:10 which will be workstations and business laptops most likely.

But as the 2010 part, I disagree. It is mainstream now. And it is Q3 2009.

 

you sir didn't get the point. the transition has begun, and in the end (2010+) there won't be any new 16:10 screens produced. same happened to 4:3 for the simple reason that it would be too expensive to produce both aspect ratios (as explained by ibm thinkpad reps, search in the thinkpad forums or at design matters thinkpad blog).

this makes me really mad. there is nothing better for texting and coding than 4:3 and at least 1200 vertical pixels. i hope the time will come, when notebook development will be driven by the pro's requirements rather than couch potatoe joes/janes demand to watch 16:9 movies without black border... yikes!

 

I know it is a shame to lose the vertical lines. My hope lies on higher resolution panel to remedy that.

I think it was Chaz (Charles P. Jefferies) who explained that from 4:3 to 16:10 it wasnt that big of a deal because of the higher resolutions that were introduced.

Now it is only to hope that the new 16:9 will start coming out with higher resolutions, and there you get a win. (unless people whine about screen being to wide and blah blah).

Well, those couch potatoes are more than 80% of the market. And if John Doe or Jane Doe wants a wider screen, and so do the other Mr and Mrs Doe, then THEY are influencing on the market more than the smaller niche of people who actually work with laptops and need higher vertical resolutions.

And also, it is to be noted, it is cheaper the 16:9 screen, so screen manufacturers will prefer to opt that, if it is being sold and it is cheaper to produce, since they win.

My point is, end-users, that actually need the higher vertical resolution are [insert description here]

 

As long as i dont get a super glossy 16:9 screen with fancy 3D and touch in 1366x768 il survive.
Im so used to my 15" 1920x1200 that low resolution screens just hurm my eyes.

 

Couldn't agree more, would be great for tax payer's insurance levies for repetitive strain injuries....even more so on monitor's, gimmick is right, and consumer's are dumb enough to think something like that is an improvement if the marketing is done well, for example....OMGOMG FULL HD++++++ that people have plastered all over their sig's like it's some big improvement over what was the norm before

Is a 16:9 screen bigger in area......no it isn't, it's smaller for a given diagonal dimension.

Are the notebook's smaller, no. most have a bigger footprint, despite a smaller screen in area.

The only 16:9 resolution that has the same amount of vertical pixel's is 1600x900 over WXGA+, that's good if people have very short memories and don't remember the TRUE 16:10 mid resolution of 1680x1050 which most manufacturer's just happen to have dumped a year before their widescreen TV format push....the conspiracy theorist in me think's this was not by accident due to the fact it's harder to pimp a resolution in their fancy 16:9 OMGFULL HD++++ format that get's shafted in both direction's.

There are no good point's of squashing a squashed aspect even more, except for watching movies that are in the wider format's....big deal, it's a loss in every other way.

 

Higher resolution only goes so far. Physical vertical size still matters, especially for those who find it difficult to read small text.

 

Only reason you say that is because you have a 16:9 screen.

 

As someone who regularly uses excel and just switched from a 4:3 1400*1050 to a 16:9 1366*768, I think that the outrage is a bit overblown. Its definitely a bummer with the vertical space but few tasks are seriously hampered by it.

 

As it does the laptop wider, I dont see this as a terrible thing.
I would fully support it, if the resolutions would go up. Being 900P the basic and standard, I bet NOBODY would complain.

 

That surprises me. I do a lot of work on documents and less screen height means more vertical scrolling. That wouldn't be so bad if notebook manufacturers could figure out how to integrate a wheel.

John

 

I try to use a mouse whenever doing lots of excel work. Its definitely an inconvenience when not using a mouse but not so much of one that I want to condemn the whole 16:9 movement.

 

I don't care about "3D", but I'm thrilled most will have LED backlighting finally. It was slim picking back in February when I bought my laptop. I don't regret my choice, but I got it because it was one of the few models using it.

 

LED backlighting - yay. 16:9 - sucks. 1366x768 resolution on a 15" screen - you gotta be kidding me. Screen resolutions (and form factor) are all taking two giant steps backward. It's making me stick with my 2004 Asus M6Ne (15" 1400x1050) just so I don't have to give up any work area. All those notebook makers out there are seriously turning me off from looking at any of their new offerings. (And if I ever get this 15.4" 1920x1200 screen working correctly in my dv5z I'll be a lot happier too...)

 

i've had a 15" 1900*1200 screen on my dell inspiron. notebook broke and i bought a used thinkpad t42p with 1600*1200. needless to say the ips panel is superior, i found this to be the perfect resolution: the increased text size mades for improved readability and remaining 1200 vertical pixels is just perfect for programming/texting and such.

 

This is the crux of things for me ... and for many of us in the office - we are a small publishing company, and more height and less width means more scrolling.

I have been working with a 15" T42P the past few days and have it side by side with a 16:9 ratio laptop ... the difference is amazing when it comes to text. It almost looks as if literally the 16:9 screens fir half the text on the screen as the 15" T42P.

Phooey.

 

Yes indeed! I have been using the 1600x1200 screen res too! I find it very useful for full page docs....

 

Love it or hate it, it doesn't matter b/c you don't have a choice. It IS going to be mainstream so either stick with your current laptop forever or make the best of it and learn to use it.

 

QFT!

It is going to be mainstream eventually. Simply go WUXGA and that will do it for the time being. If so bad it is, use an external display with 16:10 and there you go, no harm done.

 

Wait until those are 16:9 only as well.

 

A lot of them are already

 

Of course, of course ... no illusions about that.

But I can still express my dissatisfaction, can't I?

 

But an external display's life pan is longer than a laptops...

 

My Omnibook 6000 from year 2000 or so is still alive and kicking. I think most monitors from that era are recycled a long time ago

 

I like that LED backlighting is becoming standard; that's a really nice thing ^_^

As for the 16:9 aspect ratio, we'll all get over it some day. If there's one things human beings are good at it's adapting to random stuff that gets thrown our way. If it wasn't for such an ability, we wouldn't have people living in deserts and people living in snowy wastelands. While arguably, there is a thick(and I mean thick) line between survival and using a computer, the fact remains that we can do it if we really need to lol

If the situation really gets worse, perhaps even software developers will take the aspect ratios into account and change the interface and usability of their applications(although this might be a stretch, but it's possible).

 

There' still plenty of non 16:9 monitor's to choose from, heck, dell still sell's 5 4:3 model's alone including the high spec IPS 2007FP 20" @ 1600x1200

The only thing anybody can do about it if they don't like the 16:9 downgrade on notebook's is don't buy them....it's what I've done this year and will continue to do....it's their loss not mine, I'll happily go back to desktop's and save huge amount's of money doing so.

Here's a link to a simple tool where you can compare screen size's,aspect's,screen area, different format video [if it's important],resolution.


http://www.tvcalculator.com/

 

nah, the other 30% will be 16:9 but without led backlight

 

I love how the marketing "genius's" trick the ignorant masses into thinking the new screens are superior, when the only benefit they bring is to fill the pockets of greedy conglomerates. Other then lining their pockets there is absolutely no improvement going this route for the end user.

End of an era, and I'm hoping that lenovo or dell business will hold out a little while so i can buy a beefy 16:10 that will hopefully allow me to sufficiently work and play for a few years before I have to buy into this stupidity. thinking about single screen multitasking or coding with 10% less screen height is daunting, I tried it on my moms new laptop and it was painful for me. Otherwise Ill have to ride out my t400 for sometime...

 

If 16:9 doesn't give you enough vertical space-just buy a larger size. That's not ripping anyone off.

It's not a shock we're switching to 16:9 given that's the standard for everything save (many) films. 4:3 was a standard forever, so not a shock we've finally gotten to 16:9.

 

Except that if you were running 1920x1200, you can't get a larger size unless you go external, which for many defeats the purpose.

 

Losing 10% of my screen space for the same price is a rip off no matter how you slice it. They are taking 10% screen real estate to save themselves money, yet the savings are not passed on to the consumer. Rather the ignorant masses are fed poor information and as usual they gobble it up. Now if 16:9 laptops were cheaper and weren't marketed with lies and bad information Id be less upset. But then again this is the real world.

And no externals are not a cure for the 16:9 disease. While it may be nice while Im parked at work or home, but when Im out and about Ill be wishing they offered external LCDs there.

 

Let's stay on-topic here; create a new thread if you want to ask non-related questions or create a poll. Thank you.

 

Having to buy a larger size for more money isn't ripping people off?

 

And what the hell, I don't want to lug a larger size around. 15" is the limit for portability for me, anything larger is a pain to stow on a plane, or use in a plane seat, etc. (And 15" is actually pushing it there. I would love to have a 1920x1200 that fit in 14".)

It amazes me how 1366x768 has become the standard resolution, even for 15" screens. Coming from my 1400x1050 15" Asus M6Ne and my 1680x1050 15.4" dv5z, this low of a resolution is completely unusable. It's all crap. The screen manufacturers deserve to suffer a huge hit in their sales for trying to pawn this crap off on the consumers.

 

The standard resolution on most consumer (at least at the base level) was WXGA aka 1280x800... not much different than the current 1366x768.

 

You know, I'm actually in favour of the new resolution. And I am a coder / analyst, so I have Excel open practically all day (heck, even now at 3am in the morning) and that's at the same time as having a c# dev environment open, maybe SQL MS, FastStats, etc.

You see the thing is, I always ache for width rather than height. My toolbars nearly always go left or right, which reduces space and often means I need to break my code into separate lines to read properly, which really is annoying if you have to do it all day long. Excel, well sure I can't view as many rows, but I can now view more columns. Swings and roundabouts if you ask me, and certainly not anything to be up in arms about in my opinion.

 

I like 16:9, otherwise we would not have my favorite screen size, 11.6!