DisplaySearch: Transition to 16:9 displays is ‘unstoppable’

Many of us may find ourselves using PC and notebook monitors with 16:9 aspect ratios within a few years, if DisplaySearch has its facts straight. According to DigiTimes, the market research firm predicts that 16:9 panels will account for 90% of notebook displays and 67% of desktop monitors by 2010, adding that the transition is "unstoppable."

Wide-screen displays in most of today’s notebooks and monitors have 16:10 aspect ratios, leading to resolutions like 1280×800 and 1920×1200. With 16:9 panels, those resolutions would turn into 1280×720 and 1920×1080—that is, you’d get 9/10ths of the vertical pixels but (in theory) all of the horizontal pixels.

Users may not be thrilled about getting smaller panels, but DigiTimes says panel makers are "bent" on promoting the 16:9 aspect ratio. One manufacturer told the site it can make 20% more 15.6", 16:9 panels than 15.4", 16:10 ones using the same 5G substrate. As a result, DisplaySearch predicts that panel manufacturers will soon start phasing out 16:10 panels and push 16:9 panels in their stead. "Panel makers did it for square panels, and they know how to do it again," DisplaySearch’s David Hsieh comments.

Comments closed
    • Bauxite
    • 11 years ago

    You know, 16:10 and 16:9 are pretty close to the field of view ratio for human vision, if you count both eyes together as a single “screen” (your brain usually does)

    If you want to complain about getting more stuff on the screen, keep going for ever larger screens with more pixels, then you can stuff as many documents as your eyes can see anyways.

    16:10 is also very close to the golden ratio without making numbers really annoying to divide into regular subunits. Why bother fighting what nature already came up with?

    • sativa
    • 11 years ago

    The thing that /[

    • fpsduck
    • 11 years ago

    Most of pr0n I have are still 4:3.
    Some are 16:9 which I think it can utilise the display area nicely.

    I’ll never go back to 4:3 monitors any more.

    • ihira
    • 11 years ago

    I love how the majority of TR readers are saying their 1280×1024 LCDs are 4:3.
    Must be really really old.

      • Meadows
      • 11 years ago

      Do you know what the real shame is? Last time I was to a PC store, they were telling a customer about resolutions and ratios; the customer wanted a normal screen and didn’t know if 1280×1024 fits that description – then one of the “trained” employees told him “yes, that’s 4:3”, and I had to correct him. You’ve never seen such an angry look before. 😉

      • Flying Fox
      • 11 years ago

      I only see one guy mentioning 19″ (assuming 1280×1024) as 4:3. One = majority may I know what you are smoking?

        • Nitrodist
        • 11 years ago

        Perhaps something to do with that one poll where there was a descrepency between people who voted for 5:4 panels and people with 1280×1024 panels.

    • Ender
    • 11 years ago

    I have two 19″ 4:3 LCDs side-by-side running the desktop in a dual-screen mode so I guess I already have a widescreen display, albeit 2560×1024 2.5:1…

    • Lazier_Said
    • 11 years ago

    The largest selling point of 16:9 over 16:10 is you can advertise 1000 square inches of panel as 48″ diagonal instead of 47″.

    1000 square inches of 4:3 panel is only 46″!

    • absinthexl
    • 11 years ago

    I should probably grab a 1900×1200 monitor in the next couple years, then. Dual-monitor 1680×1050 is barely enough vertical resolution for DV editing with a large number of video tracks.

    • indeego
    • 11 years ago

    TR: Make note. Talking about resolutions and GPU’s overtaking another are popular discussion topicsg{<.<}g

    • green
    • 11 years ago

    the clincher for me was price
    when i was hunting for an lcd i could get get a 20″ 1680×1050 for $150-$300 less than a 20″ 1600×1200
    with that price disparity i said screw 4:3, i’m going 16:10

    overall i don’t mind it. i find i don’t maximize a single window
    i have things just ‘floating’ as windows (browser @ 1280×960)
    a gap on the left for desktop icons and a bar on the right for side-apps

    • dmjifn
    • 11 years ago

    Quote:
    One manufacturer told the site it can make 20% more 15.6″, 16:9 panels than 15.4″, 16:10 ones using the same 5G substrate. As a result, DisplaySearch predicts that panel manufacturers will soon start phasing out 16:10 panels and push 16:9 panels in their stead.

    Is the metric we’re maximizing here diagnol inches per dollar? I can’t wait for the 1m x 1 displays!

    • SpikeMeister
    • 11 years ago

    1920×1080 and 1280×720 are much nicer resolutions than 1680×1050 or 1920×1200! Look:

    1920+1080=3000
    1280+720=2000

    :O

    Seriously, as long as the cheaper manufacturing costs trickle down, why not? It doesn’t make a lot of sense to have heaps of different variations on aspect ratio, especially when things like HTPCs and 30+” monitors blur the line between PC monitor and TV screen.

    EDIT: Also, 1280×720 is vertically shorter than the web standard of 1024×768, so it would be a bad idea to sell those. What will they use instead? 1440×810? (1440+810 = 2250, halfway between 2000 and 2500 :D)

    ++++++++++++++++++
    Following the 16:9 trend:

    1280×720 (2000)
    1440×810 (2250)
    1600×900 (2500)
    1760×990 (2750)
    1920×1080 (3000)

      • Saber Cherry
      • 11 years ago

      I’m confused. You’re adding those numbers together… why?

        • Meadows
        • 11 years ago

        He got an F in maths back at elementary school, more than once.

          • danny e.
          • 11 years ago

          meh. ..

            • Meadows
            • 11 years ago

            Come now, it’s a true story.

            • SpikeMeister
            • 11 years ago

            Actually, I’ was in the top classes and even got the ultimate award at primary and I didn’t even fucking do elementary school you fucking American-centric Americans.

            I had a bit to drink tonight as you may be able to tell

            And you don’t think it’s a coincidence these numbers add up do you!?

            ITS A CONSPIRACY

            But not really.

            It just fits nicely in your brain.

            • SpikeMeister
            • 11 years ago

            PLUS we don’t get A/B/C/D/E/F marks here in New Zealand.

            • Meadows
            • 11 years ago

            Neither do we, I just settled for the lowest common denominator.

            • SpikeMeister
            • 11 years ago

            I’m inebriated. Not stupid. There was a serious part to my post too.

            • JustAnEngineer
            • 11 years ago

            Those two states are not mutually exclusive. 😉

            We have discussed monitor resolutions a few times in the past. Here is one thread:
            §[< http://www.techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=54988<]§

        • SpikeMeister
        • 11 years ago

        ALSO: Good job ignoring the serious part of my post. Good job.

          • Meadows
          • 11 years ago

          The serious part of your post doesn’t make any sense either. You’re basically acting to your own detriment by allowing manufacturers to reduce costs and shrink the display area, giving you less.

          This may encourage them to rinse and repeat, creating 16:8 or 16:6 in time, which will be similarly supported by movie-goers for the panorama they give, and will similarly be loathed by actual PC users (the several who have sided with me, at least).

            • ludi
            • 11 years ago

            Right, the transition to 16:9 displays and the associated manufacturing-level cost savings is going to produce smaller, less-useful displays at every price point while encouraging a race-to-the-bottom until it eventually has the aspect ratio of a scrolling banner marquee. Sure.

            In spite of the fact that the opposite has been true for, I dunno, the entire history of personal computing?

            • JustAnEngineer
            • 11 years ago

            Not necessarily. Two years ago, nearly every 20″ and larger LCD monitor that you saw used superior VA or IPS panel technology. Today, inferior TN panels are everywhere. Usually, the consumer wants CHEAPER stuff, not better stuff.

          • Saber Cherry
          • 11 years ago

          No offense intended. I honestly didn’t understand why you were adding numbers together, and I didn’t see a serious part of your post, since even in the section marked ‘seriously’ you were adding numbers together. I guess it was a joke that I missed.

          As for letting manufacturing costs trickle down, I’d rather they didn’t if I can only buy a product I don’t want. 16:9 is nice for movies, decent for games, but honestly not very good for work. I won’t argue that 4:3 is a better universal ratio than 16:9, but 16:10 is definitely better than 16:9 IMO. And I’d pay the trivial extra amount for it. Vertical space is typically free while horizontal desk space is limited; furthermore, LCDs distort at extreme angles so more squarish screens reduce distortion. And lastly, the argument that “Panel makers can make 20% more panels of size X using a 16:9 ratio compared to 16:10” is utter BS. If you make 16:10 screens of size X and would have some glass left over, well, you use different size screens in a ‘packing problem’ solution arrangement to use virtually all of the glass. Saying that 16:9 vs 16:10 will save money per square inch of screen is a complete lie, and phrasing it the way they do is not technically a lie, but intentionally deceptive.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 11 years ago

      Well there are already abundant 1366×768 panels, so I’m sure that’s what they’ll sell as 16:9 on the lower-middle end, though I expect 1280×720 to stick aroudn for a while.

        • Saber Cherry
        • 11 years ago

        Everyone who knows what a resolution is hates that resolution, though. It’s non-ideal for everything.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 11 years ago

          when it comes to TV signals, maybe, but for a monitor it’s no more offensive than the non-1080p resolution of 1680×1050.

    • Mystic-G
    • 11 years ago

    I can’t stand widescreen. That’s just my personal taste though.

    I’ll stick with 4:3 till it’s obsolete/unsupported.

      • PetMiceRnice
      • 11 years ago

      I hear what you are saying, but I use the fixed aspect ratio scaling in the graphics options of the Nvidia drivers on my video card. If I have an older game or some other game that does not support widescreen resolutions, then this will allow the game to run in the correct 4:3 or 5:4 aspect ratio. I will get black bars on the left and right of the screen, but that doesn’t bother me.

      Having widescreen to me is great because I still have my old games (like Microsoft Pinball Arcade and Diablo 2 for example) look the way they should and I can also take advantage of the wider field of view in newer games. It works well. The added width of the screen on the desktop is nice too when I have multiple windows open.

        • MadManOriginal
        • 11 years ago

        Wow did NV finally fix the scaling in thier drivers after all this time?

          • PetMiceRnice
          • 11 years ago

          Personally, I’ve never encountered an issue. Maybe I was just plain fortunate. I got my widescreen display in November of 2006 (Samsung 225BW) and the drivers always scaled my games correctly after I made the change in the control panel of the video card drivers. All of my old games that ran in 800×600 or 1024×768 or 1280×1024 scale correctly for me.

    • mkygod
    • 11 years ago

    So for the users that don’t watch movies or play games on their computers, what big benefit does widescreen give them?

    The ability to look at 2 webpages at once? Being able to view more columns on their excel spreadsheets?

      • SpikeMeister
      • 11 years ago

      Exactly…..

      • Majiir Paktu
      • 11 years ago

      If you don’t play games or watch movies, what difference does it make to you?

    • crazybus
    • 11 years ago

    Am I the only one bothered by the fact that Bioware labels 1280×1024 as 4:3 and all the 16:10 resolutions as 16:9 in Mass Effect?

    I suppose if they really are rendering slightly distorted at those aspect ratios and resolutions then it would be correct, but then the question becomes why?

      • MadManOriginal
      • 11 years ago

      Lazy developer doing a console port maybe?

        • JustAnEngineer
        • 11 years ago

        They apparently put a tremendous effort into the PC version, with more detailed textures, etc. to take advantage of better PC hardware. It looks good at 2560×1600 here, once I turned off the “Film Grain” effect. Only characters’ neck shadows look bad.

    • clone
    • 11 years ago

    if panel makers believe that 16 X 9 is so wonderful why the heck did they ever bother with 16 X 10?

    • Perezoso
    • 11 years ago

    I miss the time when laptops and computers in general were designed for work. Now everything is designed to cater to couch potatoes.

      • Tamale
      • 11 years ago

      hear hear!

      at least linux and XP stripped down are pretty darn good for getting work done.. the terminal especially 🙂

      • indeego
      • 11 years ago

      Yeah because when a widescreen comes on a desk all work ceasesg{<.<}g

        • Perezoso
        • 11 years ago

        I’m sure you can get some work done from your couch, but don’t tell me it was *[

          • SpikeMeister
          • 11 years ago

          Dude working on a widescreen is WAY better than working on a 4:3 monitor. For example: you can have a webpage open next to a Word document instead of having to alt+tab all the time. It’s fucking brilliant, I could never go back to a 4:3 for working.

          *Right clicks on taskbar > Show windows side by side*

          😀

            • dmjifn
            • 11 years ago

            I personally have yet to warm to widescreen for development. Most of my development is text, not buckets of widgets and workspace managers, so I miss the vertical space. High res 16:10 is fine, portrait orientation is a decent compromise. Under a 1000-1200 pixel vertical stinks.

            • Meadows
            • 11 years ago

            You just imagine it’s so. Let’s say you have 1680 horizontal pixels, so you boast your ability to have two windows next to each other. Your co-worker has a real screen with 1600 horizontal pixels; no matter how we look at it, 80 minus is negligible, less than 5%. Therefore, he can keep two windows next to each other, as well.

            But the cold, hard fact is that you still have only 1050 vertical pixels while he has 1200, over 10% more. That means he still sees more information at a time in those two windows, no matter how you shuffle your wide useless screen.

            The same could be said about all other widescreen resolutions and their normal counterparts. The only resolution that’s universally useful would be 2560×1600. It’s so large in both dimensions, you wouldn’t feel a shortage in either.

            • crazybus
            • 11 years ago

            Now you’re arguing resolutions rather than aspect ratios. I agree that in most cases 1600×1200 > 1680×1050. For example on a 20″ screen the 4:3 ratio typically will give you both more pixels and cm². To a lesser degree 1280×1024 > 1440×900. The individual’s usage patterns will have to decide that one. By the way, 20+” 4:3 LCD’s are getting to be a rare breed nowadays.

            I don’t think anyone who really makes use of a 1600×1200 display would “upgrade” to 1680×1050. In my opinion it’s not valid to write off an entire aspect ratio category based on a total resolution comparison between two display sizes (20″ 4:3 and 20-22″ 16:10) that a user may or may not be considering. Display resolution is an independent factor from aspect ratio.

            • shank15217
            • 11 years ago

            it makes multi-monitor displays take up way more space than 4:3 ratio monitors. How long is your desk?

            • SpikeMeister
            • 11 years ago

            Longer than it is high

          • Usacomp2k3
          • 11 years ago

          Glossy screens let you work in more environments. widescreen sub-notebooks give more screen space in tight spaces (like air-planes). Used right, widescreen monitors more regular work to be done, too.

    • DrDillyBar
    • 11 years ago

    My 2005FPW has served me well these last 3 years.
    Going wide for me was great, as I replaced two 15″ CRT’s.
    I also use dual 17″ 12×10’s at work, and for work tasks, I’ll take the 5:4 LCD’s any day.
    Edit: As for the 16:9 bit…that the article is about… I think it’s tied to Vista, HDMI, DRM and Displayport. In a “dictate content flags for TVTuners” kinda way they aren’t able to right now. The movement of all LCD’s panels to TV resolutions is just a symptom.

      • Flying Fox
      • 11 years ago

      Vista and HDCP-capable displays already lock us down with the DRM stuff. What are you talking about? 😮

    • Steba
    • 11 years ago

    What’s up with this Meadows character? Seems like a bit of a hater. Madmanoriginal, your absolutely correct.

    Meadows keeps sticking to this vertical space importance like its makes such a big difference. If you have a decent sized monitor (19″+) and are running a medium/high resolution, the effect of decreased vertical space is minimal if non existent in actuality. How much vertical space do you need? Using the 16:9 as mentioned is enough to fit plenty of information vertically. Have we become that lazy that we should use 4:3 to squeeze an extra half page of typing to reduce the crazy workout of clicking a mouse?? I mean c’mon. 16:9 is way better unless you’re that lazy.

    Saying 4:3 is better for work is wrong. You may lose a bit of vertical space but generally when you’re working, programming etc, your using multiple windows which 16:9 is much more effective at.

    Your whole focus at one point theory is crap. Though it may be true you only focus at one spot at a time, the widescreen takes advantage of all your peripheral vision which maybe less focused but is constantly scanning and viewing to take in the “whole story”. As madman mentioned, your FOV is wider than it is tall and taking advantage of this is really noticeably better. I’m using a 52” sharp aquos HDTV 1080p 16:9 as a monitor and the immersive qualities of the wider screen are far more valuable than some vertical space. Viewing moves or playing games on a widescreen at the proper distance removes much of the “outer environment” which takes the experience to a higher level. If I had the same 52” monitor in 4:3 setup, playing crysis wouldn’t be nearly as cool.

    Meadows-“You won’t give a rat’s ass about the field of view of your own eyes”.

    That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Let’s try a little experiment that shows how much less important vertical space is. Imagine a monitor that was one foot tall and two inches wide and your attempting to read a sentence or two on it. It would look something like this.

    My
    Name
    Is
    Meadows
    And
    I wish
    I had
    A 16:9
    Monitor
    But I
    Wont
    Admit
    It.

    Now imagine you had another monitor that was one foot wide and only two inches tall. The same sentence would look like.

    My name is Meadows and I wish I had a 16:9 monitor but I won’t admit it.

    It’s obvious that a wide aspect ratio is much more practical than gaining vertical space because it’s not only what our normal vision is based on but it’s also what our normal everyday functioning is based on. We read left to right before we read up and down.

      • willyolio
      • 11 years ago

      actually, i’m currently using a 32″ 1080p HDTV as my monitor. i can certainly say the lack of vertical space is rather annoying for mundane tasks. i’d rather go back to my good old 1280×1024 monitor for general web browsing.

      for gaming and movies, though, it’s absolutely fantastic. win some, lose some. oh well.

        • Usacomp2k3
        • 11 years ago

        That doesn’t make any sense. the 1080 vertical pixels on the 1080p are more than the 1024 in a 5:4 setup.

      • Meadows
      • 11 years ago

      No thanks, I wouldn’t take a screen with 16:9 ratio even if they threw it at me for free. It’s just garbage.

      • Saber Cherry
      • 11 years ago

      I disagree with a lot of what Meadows says, but you’re absolutely wrong in saying that 16:9 is better in every application. Neither is always better (For example, I like 16:9 for video and games, and 4:3 for web browsing and viewing scanlated manga). Claiming that ‘people who like 4:3 monitors are lazy’ is childish, and if you can’t imagine scenarios where 4:3 is better, you lack imagination.

      • JustAnEngineer
      • 11 years ago

      That’s easy enough to address. When you’re editing pages of text, you can rotate your 24″ 1920×1200 LCD to the 1200×1920 portrait mode.

      I just run two or three text windows side-by-side on my 2560×1600 display.

    • zqw
    • 11 years ago

    I would love to buy a true 1:1 1280×720 cheap and fast TN monitor for console gaming.

      • A_Pickle
      • 11 years ago

      There’s a little 17″ Gateway that you might want to get, then. 🙂

        • derFunkenstein
        • 11 years ago

        Yeah, that’s the monitor my wife has. It’s actually not bad, but I need something taller for myself – after she installs her web browser tool bars (blech), there’s only about half the monitor height that’s usable on the internet.

          • JustAnEngineer
          • 11 years ago

          Press F11. Toolbars vanish.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 11 years ago

            When you press F11 in OS X, everything vanishes.

            Sure, she’s using Vista, I’m just sayin’.

            • JustAnEngineer
            • 11 years ago

            Either way, problem solved. 😉

    • neon
    • 11 years ago

    In 2010, Steve Jobs will announce that MacCube UltraX will come with a 16:16 display with 3 axes of rotation.

    Pathfinder!

    • crazybus
    • 11 years ago

    I don’t understand why people feel it is necessary to run their web browser full screen with a high resolution display, and then complain that the content doesn’t scale to fit. Since most websites aren’t designed for more than 1024×768 displays, even a 1680×1050 display easily gives you enough room to run your web browser in a window with space left over for other apps.

    I also think it’s funny how people extend their display preferences or requirements on to everyone else. There are easily as many cases where additional horizontal space is just as beneficial as extra vertical space. Video/audio/photo editing are all quite widescreen friendly. Also, widescreens can work well for spreadsheets and Powerpoint presentations. If you have enough resolution, being able to view multiple documents side-by-side is easily possible with a widescreen as well. To say that widescreens are only good for movies is naive.

    ps. I have a 1680×1050 display that pivots to 1050×1680 on occasion.

    • SpiderTECH
    • 11 years ago

    Ever notice that most 16:9 movies are still letterboxed because our displays still are not wide enough. They should work on wider displays if they are going to cater to the movie goers. I’ve never understood why even Widescreen TVs are not Wide enough to display Widescreen movies.

      • crazybus
      • 11 years ago

      Clearly because not all movies are made at the same aspect ratio. Why should a film director restrict themselves to a single display proportion?

      Where do you draw the line? Should all TV’s be 2.66:1 CinemaScope just because some movies were filmed that way? Are we aiming for 360° TV’s?

      • Generic
      • 11 years ago

      The vast majority of movies are shot in 2.35:1.

      Neither 4:3 nor 16:9 have ever been the aspect ratio for films. There will always be some sort of stretching, letter-boxing, cropping, anamorphic lens, etc. needed to get a “full picture” regardless of how big of a screen you have.

    • Hance
    • 11 years ago

    I will stick with my old 4:3 lcd for as long as I can. Widescreen monitors to me look like you couldnt afford the top 1/3 of your monitor so they just chopped the top off of it.

    • Hattig
    • 11 years ago

    Argh, 1280×800 is barely high enough as it is, dropping it to 720 pixels high would be a step back to 1998 in terms of screen height.

    Why not increase the horizontal pixel count instead? 1440×810 sounds good to me as a replacement for your bog standard 1280×800 resolution display.

    I guess it could mean larger keyboards on subnotebooks without increasing the overall size of the system – just making them more rectangular.

      • crazybus
      • 11 years ago

      1366×768 for 16:9 screens is probably more likely, which is overall slighty more pixels than 1280×800.

        • matthewcollin
        • 11 years ago

        Acer already has a 16in notebook out with that exact resolution. Still a bit too low res IMO.

    • danny e.
    • 11 years ago

    yuck.
    … wont be so bad if they start getting 25 or 26″ monitors with higher res. but i wouldnt want to go from 1200 to 1080 vertically.

    • crabjokeman
    • 11 years ago

    crabjokeman hugs all 1680×1050 pixels of his ViewSonic VX2025wm and hangs on for dear life.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 11 years ago

      why does crabjokeman talk about himself in the third person?

        • CasbahBoy
        • 11 years ago

        CRABJOKEMAN SMASH!

        • eitje
        • 11 years ago

        it’s easier to deal with the horrifying crabjokes if he can psychologically distance his psyche from the man who is the brunt of all of the crabjokes.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 11 years ago

          CRABJOKEMAN: my crabs! let me show you them!

    • Draxo
    • 11 years ago

    Does that mean that all web pages will be malformed to fit into a 16:9 display?

      • danny e.
      • 11 years ago

      yes. every web page will be broken. the entire internet will need to be rewritten.

        • Draxo
        • 11 years ago

        What I meant was we are scrolling up and down when viewing web pages, @1800 by 1440 I still need to croll up and down. with these wide panels all you will get is large banner ads and one paragraph per page.

          • provoko
          • 11 years ago

          yup, total obliteration of the net

      • JustAnEngineer
      • 11 years ago

      I’m sure that the hip web-design gurus will force everything to be even narrower than it is now. That are apparently convinced that they should re-write their web pages to fit on a dinky i-Phone screen used by the 0.001% elitists instead of the 1920×1200 or 1680×1050 LCD monitors used on the vast majority of PCs.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 11 years ago

        You really think 1920×1200 (or even 1680×1050) is on the vast majority of PC’s? Even on brand new PC’s, I’m pretty sure that 19″ LCD’s are more standard, and that’s only 1440×900

    • Umbragen
    • 11 years ago

    Am I the only one that still thinks these LCD’s suck ass? I haven’t seen true black since I switched, even when the damned thing is off it’s bleak shade of gray. There’s little wisps of light bleed and odd color distortions. And the more they stretch out the horizontal dimension the more viewing angles become problematic. There has to be better tech out there somewhere.

      • Krogoth
      • 11 years ago

      You probably have used TN panels which are not best examples of what LCDs can do. Although, LCDs cannot match CRTs at contrasting and color accuracy.

      SEDs were meant to be deliver the best of both worlds, expect the technology is currently lock-up with patent and legal BS. 🙁

      • DrCR
      • 11 years ago

      Try VA or IPS. A LCD3090WQXi should suffice I would think, if it doesn’t utterly shatter your budget. 😉
      §[< http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/06/26/nec-multisync-lcd3090wqxi-30-widescreen/1<]§

    • d2brothe
    • 11 years ago

    Yes, horizontal scrolling is quite a pain.

    • l33t-g4m3r
    • 11 years ago

    16:10 is the best compromise.
    I can run 1600×1200 and 1920×1080.
    1920×1200 is awesome in games that support it, and most of the time you get a wider view than 4:3 resolutions.

      • Tamale
      • 11 years ago

      I totally agree. I find 1680×1050 and 1920×1200 to be really nice resolutions. The black bars on widescreen and 4:3 content are both tolerable.. and lets face it, although lots of NEW stuff is wide screen, there are going to be programs that people will want to watch for a VERY LONG TIME that were only produced in 4:3 and again, let’s face the facts.. no one’s going to go and re-make every family guy episode in wide screen to fit modern displays better

    • Ryu Connor
    • 11 years ago

    q[

    • derFunkenstein
    • 11 years ago

    Guys, this seems to have nothing to do with demand or Joe Sixpack – it seems to have everything to do with getting manufacturing costs down.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 11 years ago

      I think we realize that, it’s the fact that it will be done regardless of whether it’s better i[

        • ludi
        • 11 years ago

        What’s good for the manufacturers ultimately means cheaper products for us, so unless there is some vast usability difference between 16:9 and 16:10 that I’m overlooking, I say…bring it on!

          • MadManOriginal
          • 11 years ago

          Maybe it just means more profit for the manufacturers. Current LCD prices seem to cover the spectrum pretty well imo. ‘Cheap’ still means ‘cheap’ when it comes to LCDs and it’s one area where you generally still get what you pay for.

            • ludi
            • 11 years ago

            Everything in this industry is commoditized down to the scraped bones, with design decisions sometimes being dicatated by fractions of a penny. If manufacturer ‘A’ finds it can produce a 16:9 screen cheaper than a 16:10, it gains a cost advantage that allows ‘A’ to undersell ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D’. If the market doesn’t see any advantage to paying more for a 16:10 display, ‘A’ begins to take sales from ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D’, and those have no choice but to take the same cost-cutting route and restore the competitiveness of their own products.

            I know it’s fun to believe that everything that comes down the pipe is a craftily designed scheme to Screw You, but if that were the case, we wouldn’t have fully-featured laptops starting at $350.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 11 years ago

            Cost-cutting doesn’t necessarily translate in to lower prices, companies often cost-cut to increase profits and if costs are lower and ASPs are lower where’s the real benefit to the company’s bottom line? None, they are just forced to do it to compete on price which is what most ill-informed buyers look at. In this case the end user is unarguably getting less so it ought to cost less. And if manufacturers decide this is what they’re going to do no matter what people don’t have a choice in what they’re going to buy, it’s sort of like TN creeping in to all monitor sizes with cost-cutting and ill-informed buyers working together toward crappier products.

            • ludi
            • 11 years ago

            See, while your points are valid in the general sense, you keep coming back to “The Manufacturers” and then speaking in terms that necessarily imply collusion on a grand scale, like there’s some smoky backroom conspiracy going on. That’s the point at which I conclude that you haven’t been studying the market dynamics of this industry very much.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 11 years ago

        Not everyone realizes that, because there are piles of people in these comments shouting “Oh this is so joe sixpack can watch DVD’s without black bars!” You realize that, which is good. Everyone else who doesn’t understand it is f’ing retards.

    • Krogoth
    • 11 years ago

    16:9 FTMW. It can do 4:3 with little distortion.

    5:4 should die in a freaking fire!

      • derFunkenstein
      • 11 years ago

      5:4 panels can scale 4:3 correctly with letterboxing, too.

        • Jon
        • 11 years ago

        I like 5:4 ratio or 1280×1024 resolution. It’s the native res of pretty much all 19″ LCD’s. Better than 1024×768.

        • Krogoth
        • 11 years ago

        If you want to make your circles to look like ellipses. That is fine by me.

        5:4 ratio should just die. It is a marketing motivated aspect that should have been dead back when it was introduced in 2D VGA. It happened because the VRAM necessary to get the next logical step, 1600×1200 was too expensive for customer-grade video cards. 1280×960 looked “too small”.

          • NeXus 6
          • 11 years ago

          Circles don’t look like ellipses on a 5:4 display unless you drop down to a 4:3 screen resolution without any scaling.

            • Krogoth
            • 11 years ago

            because most applications are not written with 5:4 in mind. 😉

            • willyolio
            • 11 years ago

            i find most of them are. i’ve been using 1280×1024 for about 5 years now and i’ve yet to encounter a program that doesn’t support that resolution.

            • ChronoReverse
            • 11 years ago

            Besides games, I doubt any modern Windows application would have any trouble with a 5:4 screen ratio (and frankly wouldn’t care).

            Even in the case of games Nvidia has had fixed aspect ratio scaling for ages (in various working and non-working forms) and even ATI has it working now.

            • JustAnEngineer
            • 11 years ago

            The biggest modern application that has trouble with 1280×1024 vs. 1280×960 is the windows desktop, in my experience. Many users just do not understand that circles should be round.

            • ew
            • 11 years ago

            Unless your pixels are not square then everything on the Windows desktop will be fine. As long as the physical aspect ratio matches the aspect ratio of the resolution then the pixels will be square. From what I understand 1280×1024 panels also have a physical aspect ratio of 5:4. So there is no problem.

            • JustAnEngineer
            • 11 years ago

            The first problem is that some graphics card drivers and many many games support 1280×1024 but not 1280×960 on 4:3 CRT displays, so everything is squashed. A typical 19″ (18″ viewable) CRT should run at 1280×960 most of the time.

            The next problem is that many users don’t understand aspect ratios at all, so you end up with folks feeding a 1280×1024 LCD monitor with a 1024×768 analog signal. Not only is everything stretched, the scaling artifacts usually look awful. Blech!

    • MadManOriginal
    • 11 years ago

    It makes sense to have monitors and TVs have the same aspect ratio I suppose. But I don’t like how it’s being shammed on to the less than savvy average buyer as a ‘more inches’ (15.6 vs 15.4 in the example) when the real motivation is cost-cutting, they ought to be advertised by total pixels but advertised LCD stats have pretty much always been fudged. Those are the same clueless buyers who don’t understand that black bars on a 16:10 screen show the same picture as a bar-less 16:9. A 16:10 widescreen is just about perfect imo as a monitor for actual PC use and not entertainment use, 16:9 would seem a little too wide to me. A 16:9 24″+ 1920×1080 will give me barely any more vertical space than my 20″ 1680×1050 :-/

    Alas IPS panels have all but dissapeared from the consumer monitor space so I’ll have to stick with my NECs for a long time.

    • axeman
    • 11 years ago

    Well, since everything is going widescreen, at least they are going to a standard. I never really saw any good reason for 16:10 over 16:9. Sure, for work purposes I would rather have more vertical real estate, but since widescreen displays have got crammed down our throats, we might as well just go 16:9 and be done with it.

    • Jon
    • 11 years ago

    The whole point of a laptop, as far as business is concerned, is portability, what’s the point of lading down business users with extra weight when they’re traveling? It’s far more convenient to pull out a laptop with a 14″ display than one with a 15.4″ or 17″ display. As far as space goes, the 14″ makes more sense, think airplanes, Starbucks etc. I don’t like the idea of carrying around a gigantic behemoth just to send and receive emails while I’m on the go. The manufacturers are going to have to cater to both crowds, those that want bells and whistles and couldn’t care less about portability and those that do care about it. Business users don’t need widescreen displays to compose emails, documents, spreadsheets.

    I can attest to this with the 1500 laptop users we have in my company.

      • d2brothe
      • 11 years ago

      Agreed, size is more important.

      • crazybus
      • 11 years ago

      I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at. Technically a widescreen display allows you have have a relatively larger keyboard and/or smaller notebook size than a 4:3 display. Which is why some of the subnotebooks are already 16:9. If you are already making compromises wrt display resolution I would rather have less than optimal vertical pixels than horizontal. As has been said, it’s usually easier to scroll vertically than horizontally.

    • Hdfisise
    • 11 years ago

    I don’t mind this, its easier to scroll vertically then horizontally for me.

    • d2brothe
    • 11 years ago

    I’m just curious as to why we had 16:10 in the first place, I was rather confused a few years back to discover there were two widescreen ratios…almost as confused as I was to discover that some LCDs weren’t the same ratio as traditional CRTs… I ask, why do this to us.

    Oh and a word to all you complainers about wide panel displays–deal with it, they’re very popular, and its NOT JUST joe sixpack who likes them for DVDs, they’re extremely useful for doing development, and the new versions of office make good use of the width. Oh, and I can also watch movies on them :P.

      • Meadows
      • 11 years ago

      Development and all sorts of creative work favour tall screen real estate over a wide one.

      You don’t want to see just one horizontal stripe at a time when photo editing, you want a larger view of the portion you work on. You want to see 50 and not 34 lines at once when programming. Not to mention browsing – you scroll less with a normal screen. Heck, I don’t even like the concept of widescreen gaming. The only area where it’s half-decent is those stupid widescreen movies.

      I’ll use 4:3 monitors for as long as they are available at all, and I’ll make sure to be very gentle to the last one so I can keep it for a long time still.

        • Buub
        • 11 years ago

        Agreed. I hate to keep losing vertical screen space to this trend. My code goes up and down the screen. There’s only so much space I can use sideways.

          • d2brothe
          • 11 years ago

          Vertical space is nice for code, but eclipse has multiple windows that reduce the horizontal space for code, an java code is none to short.

          I’m not sure what your complaint is about widescreen browsing either, I enjoy having the ability to open multiple windows. And gaming, I love widescreen gaming for the same reason widescreen movies are good, your field of vision is wider than it is tall, thus a widescreen view feels more immersive.

          WRT browsing, coding, and office, I think my main point is, if you have sufficient vertical space, then horrizontal space becomes important. I don’t know what resolution you run at but I have zero difficulty putting far more than 50 lines of code in view on my widescreen monitor, (1050 vertical resolution), anything >1000 pixels high is probably enough vertical space for coding.

            • Meadows
            • 11 years ago

            I was just throwing ballpark numbers.
            My screen resolution is 1920×1440 (4:3) on a 21 inch CRT. The best screen I’ve ever owned. I run many games at 1600×1200 for performance reasons though (and also because that resolution still looks very good).

            Oh, the flexibility of the venerable CRT architecture.

            • Krogoth
            • 11 years ago

            At the cost of variable geometry. This was a PITA in dealing with different ratio aspects (5:4 DIAF).

            I used to love and swore by CRTs, but they are ultimately niche solution that had its time in the spotlight.

            LCDs are practically as good for all intends and purposes unless you need the advantages of CRTs.

            • Meadows
            • 11 years ago

            And lo and behold, I do need those advantages. I have the room to accomodate the monitor itself, and it’s a desktop so portability is no issue. No, I don’t go to stupid LAN parties. I need its accurate colour reproduction for image editing (LCD colours are vibrant and all, but not accurate), its vast resolutions (despite the monitor’s actual size – it can do 2048×1536 (4:3) in 21 inches) and its microscopic response times for games.

            • Krogoth
            • 11 years ago

            The need for color accuracy is fine and flexibility for handling different resolutions without scaling problems. The refresh time is a moot-point as most games are capped at 60-85FPS for timing purposes. Ghosting on LCDs only happens with older or cheapo models.

            • Meadows
            • 11 years ago

            I wasn’t discussing refresh time.

            • ludi
            • 11 years ago

            Good idea. One should only go to the cool LAN parties.

            • Metalianman
            • 11 years ago

            I cannot believe that I’m really going to say this but I agree with Meadows for the very first time in my life!!! I have to admit that I find uses for both CRT and LCD Monitors just like I find uses for both 4:3 ratio and 16:10.

            Example.

            I cannot write code, browse, edit pictures or even open DreamWeaver and Flash on a widescreen… I just can’t. And I have to admit that because of performance reasons I prefer playing games on a CRT [4:3 ratio] monitor.

            On the other hand I do need widescreens when I edit music (try maximising the window and just open the track flat out through the screen. I really helps) and whenever I do the mistake to watch a movie on a screen instead with my projector.

            Personally I do prefer 4:3 instead of 16:10 and I do prefer CRT monitors from LCD ones, but that’s my opinion and that is why I do find use for both… I just hate seeing CRT and 4:3 ratio just rotting. Many of us still prefer it and suits at our needs much better than a 16:10 or a 16:9 monitor (I recently had to use a 16:9 and absolutely hated it!).

            • Scrotos
            • 11 years ago

            This is why I like those LCDs that pivot, like the Dell 2407WFP. When I want to do widescreen stuff, I have 1920×1200. When I want to work with a bunch of text, I have 1200×1920. I like the flexibility that I can change my screen depending on what I need to use it for.

            …then again, I also have one of them old 15″ Radius Pivot CRTs on the Mac where you could do the same thing. Heheh… that thing’s heavy.

            • d0g_p00p
            • 11 years ago

            man, that must be a super eye straining monitor.

            edit: what monitor do you have that does that eye splitting resolution anyway?

            • Meadows
            • 11 years ago

            My eyes are never strained, when on some days I’m literally using the computer all day (doesn’t happen that often). No computer has ever been able to strain my eyes – and I use 60 Hz on this CRT most of the time. I’m just resilient to all sorts of such rubbish. Other habits of mine include a preference for high blood sugar ratios usually achieved with cola, and chaotic sleep patterns sometimes. Nothing knocks me out, lol.

            My vision is crisp as always, by the way.

            The monitor is sharp even at the corners (for the most part). I believe it’s a good model.

            • srg86
            • 11 years ago

            wow on a CRT I like to run at 100Hz, as the typical 85Hz I see flicker and 60Hz hurts my eyes!

            • Meadows
            • 11 years ago

            I don’t see any flicker even at 60 Hz unless I pay very careful attention. I’ve been using computers since the age of 4 and I’m a long-time gamer too, I guess my brain has learnt to sort of tune out the flickering. I’m serious, I just don’t see any and I never get headaches or anything either.

            • SpikeMeister
            • 11 years ago

            Have you ever used an LCD for an extended period of time, say for a week, and then gone back to the CRT? Because I used to think I couldn’t see the flicker at 60hz either, until I moved away from it and moved back. I couldn’t believe it.

            • Meadows
            • 11 years ago

            I won’t use an LCD for as long as I can keep using CRT screens.

          • cobrala
          • 11 years ago

          Yes, this is a terrible development for power users.

        • Saber Cherry
        • 11 years ago

        l[

      • z-d
      • 11 years ago

      New versions of Office? The ones that take up about 200 vertical pixels for toolbars, instead of around fifty for older versions? Unless there’s a way to make that thing vertical, it’s really bad news for wide screens..

        • d2brothe
        • 11 years ago

        Yes, the ones that open, one, two, or even three panels on the right side of your screen for various things.

          • z-d
          • 11 years ago

          Ah, understood. Wasn’t familiar with the interface tweaks.

        • BenBasson
        • 11 years ago

        At 1920×1200 I can view two pages at an acceptable zoom level with no Office tweaks and the entire toolbar is visible. It’s only a problem for smaller widescreen methinks.

        • Usacomp2k3
        • 11 years ago

        …Or, if you double-click the ribbon tabs, then it auto-hides….

      • A_Pickle
      • 11 years ago

      I’m inclined to agree. I love widescreen, and of widescreen, I love 16:10. My eyes are side by side, and with vertical screens, I miss a lot of data that would otherwise be on the sides. I have to glance up to get any of the extra data that the 4:3 crowd is crazy about, and with widescreen, I largely don’t have to do that. Again, my eyes are side by side, not one over the other.

      To each his own, I suppose — but don’t be telling me my widescreen is an inept piece of useless technology.

        • Meadows
        • 11 years ago

        Your eyes aim to one point at a time, so your argument really holds no ground when we consider you always have to move them regardless of the screen you use. My eyes are quick, but it takes more effort to scroll. I want to have more visible at one time, and the horizontal dimension is not the one where I’m falling short in everyday applications.

        True widescreen in games is difficult to achieve realistically, so that’s one more negative point. To make it “realistic”, one must extend the FOV of the camera – and most engines start distorting meshes when the FOV is too broad. Try it once – whatever’s in the edge will be stretched and generally look sucky.

        I’m usually not conservative, but there’s the rare occasion when you don’t want to fix it when it’s not broken. The good old 4:3 ratio is one of those things. I’d like to reiterate that widescreen only has good utility with a sodding large television set for watching films.

          • d2brothe
          • 11 years ago

          Yes, well you seem to have unaverage eyes. Also, I didn’t say field of focus, I said field of view, your eyes focus on one point, but they have a field of reduced vision around them which is wider than it is tall. This is why widescreen can be better in movies, television AND games (which CAN be done right, and HAS been done right).

          For other things, its as you prefer, but like I said, you seem to have some rather unaverage eyes, as soon as I realized I could change the refresh rate on my monitors, I realized how unpleasent it is to look at flashing, especially if one is not looking directly at it.

            • Meadows
            • 11 years ago

            This isn’t like martial arts, where your complete sight is important. You’re looking at coded information. You’re reading, typing, deciphering, comprehending things that the monitor shows. You won’t give a rat’s ass about the field of view of your own eyes, their point of focus is what matters. Your eyes can point AND focus very rapidly, but shuffling information and scrolling and stuff – those are not so quick. Why not have more information at once before you need to resort to those actions? That was my point. 4:3 provides it better than any other method – except for 5:4. But I do hate that as well.

            If you want to talk about games – well, games may be the only place where your complete sight might count – but even then, you will probably focus on the HUD (especially the crosshair) or chat or what have you just as much, and the immersion is lost on those.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 11 years ago

            Of course you’re right and everyone else is wrong in an absolute sense :rolleyes: these are opinions after all. Filling more of one’s FOV is a basic requirement of visual immersion.

            What you’re talking about with ‘point focusing’ can be simply correlated to total screen real estate as far as monitor utility goes and doesn’t seem to have much to do with aspect ratio itself. The common 4:3 ratios do have more screen real estate than their corresponding 16:10 ratios but filling more of the FOV affects i[

            • Meadows
            • 11 years ago

            g{

            • crazybus
            • 11 years ago

            Did you miss my previous post? Why are you imposing your usage patterns on everyone else? You obviously have a preference for a taller aspect ratio, others can (and do) make good use of wider displays.

            What the heck are “everyday programs” anyway? There are loads of places where a wider aspect can be beneficial. Just because you might feel it’s necessary to browse the internets in a maximized window or work on a single document (in which case a widescreen monitor in portrait mode works great) filling the screen does not mean that the extra horizontal space is wasted on everyone else.

            • Meadows
            • 11 years ago

            My screen resolution of 1920×1440 actually trounces what the majority uses (whether widescreen or not), so I can assure you, I’m able to use multiple windows and _[

    • Saber Cherry
    • 11 years ago

    Looks like I better buy a new display soon. At this rate, by 2015 the displays will all be 16:1, and just think of how many of THOSE you could pack into a substrate!

      • aBott
      • 11 years ago

      Then you can watch Ben Hur with no black bars!

    • zgirl
    • 11 years ago

    All they are doing is catering to Joe Sixpack who wants to watch a DVD on his laptop and not have any black bars.

    I honestly hate this since on a laptop I prefer vertical space over horizontal.

      • DASQ
      • 11 years ago

      Yeah, but at the same time, if you visited a website that had a lot of ‘wide’ content versus scrolling vertical on a laptop that wasn’t widescreen, you’d be bitching then.

      More and more websites have ‘smart’ CSS that will scale to your horizontal pixels. TR has a ‘go wider’ button.

        • zgirl
        • 11 years ago

        I have no issue with widescreens, but not at the sake of vertical resolution. I’ve encountered far more times (like 90%) where I would have rather had vertical space. Then times when I which I more horizontal.

        @ #4, LOL most developers I know feel the same way I do. So just because you prefer it doesn’t mean everyone else has to.

          • d2brothe
          • 11 years ago

          Same to you, just because you feel that way, doesn’t mean everyone does.

            • zgirl
            • 11 years ago

            I didn’t claim that either or make the insinuation that you did.

            Seems to me, just from these thread comments, though that your view point is in the minority. Yet you acted like it was the only opinion that mattered.

            And before it gets of track even further. I know why they are doing it, but it doesn’t mean I have to like it.

            • ludi
            • 11 years ago

            I bought my first LCD for part-time business use when widescreens and 4:3s were at similar pricepoints for a given diagnol size, and I went with widescreen because it’s easier to open wide drawings or multiple documents concurrently and see the whole horizontal layout, while simply scrolling vertically.

            At some point, a screen is going to run out of content space. Because most Western languages read characters along the horizontal axis, it just makes sense to extend the screen horizontally and then allow overflow to be handled by vertical scrolling.

            If that doesn’t work for you, just get a graphics card that supports rotated resolutions and then mount your widescreen sideways — now you have LOTS of vertical space.

            • zgirl
            • 11 years ago

            ummmm, thank you for missing the point. In my very first post I complained about laptop screens. Last time I checked it was rather hard to rotate a laptop screen and still be able to use it.

            I could care less about desktop LCDs for the very reason you mention.

            But you did know that laptops are outselling desktops, right? Right?

            • ludi
            • 11 years ago

            Yeah, I did miss that, possibly because I was a bit annoyed by your tone. Seemed snappish.

            However, I am actually less sympathetic to your claim in that context, because a 4:3 screen increases the depth of the laptop proportionate to total screen area. For cars, planes, field work, and other confined applications where deeper isn’t feasible, making the screen and keyboard wider is basically free real estate.

            If you’re just using the laptop on the home desk most of the time as many people do, just buy the docking station and whatever desktop LCD suits your needs.

            • d2brothe
            • 11 years ago

            I also tend to agree with that, I have both a 15 inch non-widescreen laptop, and a 15.4 widescreen laptop, and the non-wide 15 inch looks positively monstrous next to the other.

        • BenBasson
        • 11 years ago

        What websites are you visiting? TR is the only site I know of that resizes horizontally even remotely sensibly, and I still end up with huge margins either side. I can’t think of a single reason to maximise my browser window at 1920×1200.

        At any rate, I don’t see why reducing vertical space is a good idea. Black borders aren’t the end of the world, and that space is useful all the time you’re not watching a movie on a PC monitor, which is probably most of the time.

      • Usacomp2k3
      • 11 years ago

      Except most dvd’s are 2.35 aspect ratio…

        • zgirl
        • 11 years ago

        and your point is…?

        Seriously I hate posts like this. Thank you Captain Obvious. However the home theater market displays are typically 16:9. Everything gets scaled to it. The point here is companies don’t want to spend extra money on a resolution that, in the productivity sense allows for more screen real estate vertically, but because everything else is using the defacto 16:9 why shouldn’t they.

        Next time say something useful.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 11 years ago

      No, the reason in this case is surprisingly unapologetic and unobscured – it’s all about getting manufacturing costs down.

      Don’t forget that alot of movies are way wider than 16:9, so there are still black bars.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 11 years ago

    I look at this like a cow looks at an oncoming train. MOOOOOOOOO-*splat*

    As long as I can rotate them, I’m OK wiht this. I like having a workspace that’s taller than it is wide.

      • Spurenleser
      • 11 years ago

      “rotate them”: remember that horizontal and vertical viewing angles are very different.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 11 years ago

        By “rotate” I mean turn it 90 degrees so that it’s taller than it is wide. Pivot maybe? I might ahve used the wrong word.

          • Usacomp2k3
          • 11 years ago

          He’s just meaning that with a panel rotated 90 degrees, you are more suceptible to viewing angle problems. For example, say a monitor normally has 150 degree viewing angle horizontally but only 100 vertically, when you rotate it, suddenly you can no longer move your head side to side as much while having the same visibility.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This