Why are so many obsessed with widescreen laptops?

[flake]

I think on a WUXGA screen one could fit two 8.5x11 pages side by side with no scrolling. I know I would do it :)

[Ashe Too]

But wouldn't the text be tiny? My eyeballs are getting really close to 50, and, while my vision is pretty good, dinky text is a real strain.

[leesiulung]

Personally, I prefer full aspect rate (4:3). Primarily, the extra pixels in the height makes all the difference for reading. I'm more likeley to read down than I am to turn my head side to side.

In addition, to get the same height on a full aspect 20" monitor with UXGA resolution I would have to go to a 24" Widescreen that currently cost twice as much. I'm also a gamer and prefer to play my games on my full aspect ratio monitor.

Contrary to belief a lot of games are still only full aspect ratio compatible. I do prefer widescreens for movies, but rarely do I watch movies on my laptop.

I hope Lenovo will continue to give people the option, as most companies are no longer making non-widescreen laptops. Oddly enough, most people I meet in my work prefer the full aspect ratio. Perhaps, because we are all programmers....

[ptantra]

Personally, I prefer full aspect rate (4:3). Primarily, the extra pixels in the height makes all the difference for reading. I'm more likeley to read down than I am to turn my head side to side.

Ditto on all counts. When reviewing documents, I prefer the 4:3 aspect ratio as it is closer to a standard 8.5"x11" sheet of paper in proportion than WS, which is closer to legal paper. At work and home, I use twin 4:3 monitors and frequently pivot one monitor so I can view PDF's, full screen, in portrait mode. I like the fact the full screen image is about the same size, if not slightly larger, than a sheet of paper. I've pivoted a WS monitor before (because I needed to balance my need for page height & font size) and found there to be a lot of wasted screen real estate when viewing a PDF in portrait mode. A lot more mouse movement too.

All that said, I think WS laptops are cuter when they are small, but when laptops get bigger, they get "ugly" fast. I'm looking to get a new TP later this year and hope Lenovo would still offer 4:3 screens when I am ready to buy.

[pianowizard]

I guess that the people who benefit from widescreens the most (getting sarcastic here) are people who like to look at the pretty pictures and play games. But for people who work for a living, it just doesn't make sense to me.

It's quite the opposite for me. The 1920x1200 (WUXGA) monitors that I use both at work (a 15.4" Dell Inspiron 6000 laptop) and at home (a 24" Dell 2407WFP monitor) have been extremely beneficial to my work -- I am a biologist. I can view two pages of a Word document simultaneously, or view two programs side by side, e.g. a data analysis program on the left and a Word or Excel document on the right. This was hard to do even on the 1600x1200 (UXGA) Thinkpad A31p that I owned briefly last year.

But I understand the fact that most people grew up using 4:3 monitors and many of them would rather stick with 4:3 than to switch to widescreens. It would be a good idea for Lenovo to continue to offer 4:3 options for at least a few more years.

All that said, I think WS laptops are cuter when they are small, but when laptops get bigger, they get "ugly" fast.

I do agree with you on this, and that's why I think a 14.1" widescreen with 1680x1050 resolution would be ideal: just small enough so that it still looks good, and just enough pixels to give a reasonably large real estate. One of the T61 models is supposed to have exactly such specs, and that should be the most perfect Thinkpad ever.

[anthean]

We can (and do) argue til we are blue in the face whether widescreen is better than standard, and under what circumstances, and with what resolution.

The fact is that personal preferences are simply that--personal.

I dare say that, should it come to this, the last notebook maker still producing standard screen machines may see a lot of "refugees" headed their way.

[flake]

yah, personal it is. Squarish or rectanglish, up to you.

I think it is importent for people trying to make up their minds to at least compare "like" resolutions. IOW, compare UXGA with WUXGA, etc... The 4:3 and 16:9 should have the same height to really be a valid comparison.

I see a lot of argument here that is comparing apples and oranges. Trying to compare wsxga+ to xga doesn't make any sense since the pixel density is different. Of course the text is going to be small, etc...

Someone else pointed out that widescreen isn't bad in a smaller format like on the X series and personally I agree, a widescreen in the 14" and 15" range just becomes too bulky for me to lug around.

When it's sitting permenently on my desk however, there's no reason for me not to have 1920x1200 instead of 1600x1200 other than cost. At worst, given an odd chance that I'm actually maximizing a window, I'll have bigger margins on the sides. That's no big deal to me, but I can see how some people would be irritated by that given the "always maximized" way of working.

[Ashe Too]

I guess I'm unclear on how anyone with normal vision at age 35, 45 or 55 can work comforably with a 1680 or 1900 widescreen at 15.4" - at least when it comes to viewing websites, isn't the text just tiny?

[furball4]

Right, but when you compare laptops of comparable physical dimensions, widescreen laptops tend to have more pixels. For instance, excepting the X60T and several Toshiba tablets, all 4:3 12.1" laptops only have 1024x768 resolution, whereas all widescreen 12.1" laptops either have 1280x768 or 1280x800 (usually the latter). Also, compare the highest-res 15" 4:3 with the highest-res 15.4" widescreen Thinkpads currently available: 1400x1050 versus 1680x1050.

This has nothing to do with the format being better, it just means that manufacturers have chosen to make their widescreen displays at a slightly higher pixel density. The question then becomes "why not make 4:3 at a slightly higher pixel density?" Why not a 12.1" screen at 1280x960? That is the format and density that makes the most sense of all IMO and yet it has never existed that I know of. They should have been putting that screen in all sub-notebooks for the last six years. But the LCD is the single priciest thing on the laptop and no laptop maker is calling the shots on production. We get what we get.

[dr_st]

I can view two pages of a Word document simultaneously, or view two programs side by side, e.g. a data analysis program on the left and a Word or Excel document on the right. This was hard to do even on the 1600x1200 (UXGA) Thinkpad A31p that I owned briefly last year.

Considering the fact that two A4/Letter-sized pages in portrait mode, side-by-side, are much closer to a 4:3 than a 8:5 aspect ratio, a standard screen would be much more convenient for this purpose than a widescreen. Of course, this is not the case with Excel sheets that stretch wide, and most programs do tend to use more width than height, so the extra pixels on a widescreen would benefit. But just for viewing documents side by side? 4:3 is better.

[pianowizard]

I guess I'm unclear on how anyone with normal vision at age 35, 45 or 55 can work comforably with a 1680 or 1900 widescreen at 15.4"

I bet almost everyone would agree it's more comfortable to see huge giant text/images than small ones. But many people find it even more important to be able to view multiple windows/documents simultaneously, or to view web sites or spreadsheets without horizontal scrolling. So they would rather get as many pixels as possible and sacrifice the comfort of viewing big objects.

Right, but when you compare laptops of comparable physical dimensions, widescreen laptops tend to have more pixels......

This has nothing to do with the format being better, it just means that manufacturers have chosen to make their widescreen displays at a slightly higher pixel density.

Thanks for elaborating on what I was saying.

The question then becomes "why not make 4:3 at a slightly higher pixel density?" Why not a 12.1" screen at 1280x960? That is the format and density that makes the most sense of all IMO

I also think 1280x960 makes a lot of sense and suggested at least once on this forum that it might be ideal for the X-series's 12.1" 4:3 screen, because XGA is almost uselessly low whereas SXGA+ makes things way too small for most people.

Considering the fact that two A4/Letter-sized pages in portrait mode, side-by-side, are much closer to a 4:3 than a 8:5 aspect ratio, a standard screen would be much more convenient for this purpose than a widescreen.

Interesting argument, and it forced me to consider more carefully why I've always found it easier to view two MS Word pages/documents side by on a widescreen laptop. It turns out that I often use the "Track changes" feature, which widens the page a lot (by almost two inches). A widescreen can still accommodate this added margin but a 4:3 screen would have difficulty. Furthermore, when I view two documents side by side, I usually also try to squeeze in a third window next to them, e.g. a web browser, a calculator, etc. For example, on a 1920x1200 screen, I would use the leftmost ~1400x1200 for viewing the two documents (each at 100% magnification), and the remaining 520 pixel lines on the right for the third window.

[garyd9]

For me, the widescreen gives me more screen real estate in certain applications. I spend quite a bit of time writing code (C++) and the newer tools seem to want to shove lots of dockable windows on both the left and right sides. On a 4:3 screen, this usually means either having those dockables minimize, or having to scroll to see longer lines.

Another example is photoshop... I tend to work with landscape images more often than not.

Of course, there's the obvious "to watch movies," but the truth is that I haven't actually watched a movie on a computer in the last few years (other than to see if it works.)

Finally - and this is the biggest reason of all for me: When traveling, I use my laptop. On an airplane, unless paying for 1st class, there's very limited vertical space for a laptop screen if the person in front of you wants to recline. A 14" 4:3 is practically designed to fit in this space. The 15.4" 16:9 uses the same vertical space as the 14" 4:3. An extra 1" or so of usable screen real estate is A Good Thing for me...

(edit to make bad grammer better )

[pianowizard]

On an airplane, unless paying for 1st class, there's very limited vertical space for a laptop screen if the person in front of you wants to recline..

But there is one instance where I have found 4:3 monitors to be more suitable than wide ones: An LCD monitor on a small desk. Just last week, I had to decide what monitor to get for my office desk. I have a 24" 1920x1200 widescreen LCD at home, which I totally love, but it's really wide and takes up a lot of space! Desktop space is precious at work, but I also want to have as many pixels as possible on my monitor. So I opted for a 20" UXGA monitor (Samsung), which probably takes up even less desk space than a 19" WXGA (1440x900) widescreen, but has 48% more pixels. I now use this Samsung monitor in conjunction with my 1920x1200 Dell Inspiron and couldn't be happier.

A similar rationale explains why the 17" and 19" LCD monitors use the unconventional 5:4 aspect ratio of 1280x1024. This resolution allows them to minimize the desktop space they occupy while maximizing their pixel count by expanding upward.

If they ever make a 23"-ish QXGA LCD monitor, I would get one!

(edit to make bad grammer better )

How about spelling? LOL! I just did a Google search for "grammer" and "grammar". 3,710,000 hits for the former and 48,800,000 for the latter. Amazing!

[garyd9]

How about spelling? LOL! I just did a Google search for "grammer" and "grammar". 3,710,000 hits for the former and 48,800,000 for the latter. Amazing!

I have a good excuse: I was up ALL night hitting the refresh button on my browser to see if by some miracle the status on my ordered T60p changed... It'd simplify my life greatly (I think) if it was delivered Wed.

[anthean]

So I opted for a 20" UXGA monitor (Samsung) . . . .

About three months ago I bought a 204B SyncMaster (Samsung 20 inch UXGA), and the main flaw is that color saturation is not consistent from top (more saturated) to bottom.

This is not an inconsequential flaw, and did take a while to get used to. But overall, it is good monitor, and the resolution matches my current vision capabilities.

[dr_st]

But many people find it even more important to be able to view multiple windows/documents simultaneously, or to view web sites or spreadsheets without horizontal scrolling.

When it comes to spreadsheets, there is little choice, but when it comes to websites, unless it displays high-res images, I'd consider _any_ site that requires horizontal scrolling at XGA to be poorly designed.

It turns out that I often use the "Track changes" feature, which widens the page a lot (by almost two inches). A widescreen can still accommodate this added margin but a 4:3 screen would have difficulty. Furthermore, when I view two documents side by side, I usually also try to squeeze in a third window next to them, e.g. a web browser, a calculator, etc. For example, on a 1920x1200 screen, I would use the leftmost ~1400x1200 for viewing the two documents (each at 100% magnification), and the remaining 520 pixel lines on the right for the third window.

That's an interesting explanation. I think you totally need QXGA.

[pianowizard]

when it comes to websites, unless it displays high-res images, I'd consider _any_ site that requires horizontal scrolling at XGA to be poorly designed.

I too would never write a web site that requires horizontal scrolling at XGA, but sometimes it's beyond the website designer's control, e.g. a forum member posting a huge image or long URL. And even for some websites that are viewable at XGA, I find it easier to view them at higher resolution, e.g. on eBay, the auction titles are split into two lines at XGA.

That's an interesting explanation. I think you totally need QXGA.

I agree!

About three months ago I bought a 204B SyncMaster (Samsung 20 inch UXGA), and the main flaw is that color saturation is not consistent from top (more saturated) to bottom.

That's the exact same one I got! Mine has two fairly minor flaws which could be major for some people: 1) moving the mouse induces drifting ripples on the screen, and 2) some websites' text looks weird. I am not sure it's the Samsung monitor's problem though; perhaps it's just too hard for the laptop's video card to drive both the internal 1920x1200 display and the external 1600x1200 via the VGA port (that's a total of 3520x1200 or 4,224,000 pixels!!!). But I don't mind, because it wasn't bought with my own money and I can adjust to suboptimal monitors pretty quickly. As long as I have all the pixels I need, I'm happy!