Widescreen LCD's on ThinkPads: This is an upgrade?!

[600X]

The Sony Vaio Z Canvas has a 3:2 display. Yes, it's another convertible, but my dreams of 3:2 becoming mainstream are slowly coming true if this trend continues. An updated version of the Chromebook Pixel with a 3:2 display is being planned as well.

I'm going to make the bold prediction that 3:2 is the future.

[fatpolomanjr]

That would be amazing.

[kony]

I'm sure as hell happy using 16:9, because it is so much more convenient to have two documents side by side on the screen. Makes working on documents so much easier. I'd never change this back to 4:3. 16:10 was also fine enough, but back at the time I didn't really need widescreen laptop, so it was rather a drawback, especially in games. That said, I'd gladly vote for wider support of various height-width panel "sizes", because I can clearly see why 16:9 might not seem perfect to everybody as it is to me. There should be many laptops with a range of dimensions from 16:9 through 16:10 and 3:2 up to 4:3, forcing everybody to use only one is indeed a lousy solution. I guess it's good for cutting expenses though...

[600X]

I agree, ultimately you can't satisfy everyone with one format. Just like you can't satisfy everyone with just one screen size. There needs to be choice, which is something that just doesn't really exist at the moment. But it is very slowly being addressed. Very, very slowly.

[exTPfan]

I'm sure as hell happy using 16:9...

16:9 makes no sense on a laptop --- to accomodate them, manufacturers have to widen the bezels.

For example, if the bezels on an X1 carbon were the same width as those on an X61, then the screen would be 16% larger in area (12x8 inches versus 12.2x6.86).

Those saying they prefer 16:9 are saying they prefer plastic to screen, which seems odd to me.

(Incidentally, Lenovo falsely advertised the X1 carbon as having the thinnest bezels of any Thinkpad ever.)

[Qing Dao]

I agree, ultimately you can't satisfy everyone with one format. Just like you can't satisfy everyone with just one screen size. There needs to be choice, which is something that just doesn't really exist at the moment. But it is very slowly being addressed. Very, very slowly.

Exactly. 16:9 definitely has its uses. 16:9 does best with video, first person games, and working with documents side by side. However, there are some definite reasons why 4:3 may be superior to 16:9 in most cases. First of all, 4:3 is closer to the perspective that your eyes can see. Secondly, the default layout for programs and operating systems puts toolbars, menu bars, etc at the top and bottom of the screen, exacerbating the height and width difference. In addition, photographs are shot mostly in 4:3, although some programs like lightroom use the space to the sides to good effect. Lastly, 90% of websites are STILL tailored to best suit 1024:768 4:3 displays. Many web pages either have large empty bars on either side of the main focus area, or they stretch things out sideways from the default 4:3 it was tailored for.

I'm sure as hell happy using 16:9...

16:9 makes no sense on a laptop --- to accomodate them, manufacturers have to widen the bezels.

For example, if the bezels on an X1 carbon were the same width as those on an X61, then the screen would be 16% larger in area (12x8 inches versus 12.2x6.86).

Those saying they prefer 16:9 are saying they prefer plastic to screen, which seems odd to me.

Don't be silly. The X1 carbon has a webcam in the top part of the bezel, and the bottom part looks exactly the same as an X61 to me. They can make bezels any way they wish. The form factors of computers with 4:3, 16:10, or 16:9 screens are different. They don't just play with the bezel thickness to accommodate different displays.

[pianowizard]

I agree, ultimately you can't satisfy everyone with one format.

Not only that, but each user may want to have different display ratios in different situations. For 12-inch or smaller laptops, I tend to like 4:3 more because 16:9 is too short, and because when the screen is so small I don't want to view windows side by side anyway, even if the resolution supports it. 16:9 does enable larger keyboards, but I didn't mind the keyboards of the 10.4" 240/240X/240Z/i1124 Thinkpads, or the 10.4" Sony Vaio X505. On these subnotebooks, I didn't even mind 1024x768. For 15-inch or larger, 4:3 is so tall it's a bit clumsy to carry around. For mid-sized laptops, if we are comparing 1600x1200 with 1920x1080, I am more or less equally happy with either aspect ratio (with a slight preference for FHD). Unfortunately, the only mid-sized UXGA laptops ever made were Dell's Latitude C610 and Inspiron 4100, which are now so old that they are virtually useless. That's why I had a 14.1" T42 Thinkpad modded to have UXGA, but eventually its GPU died. 1400x1050 is great for 12.1" but too low for 14.1"

16:9 makes no sense on a laptop --- to accomodate them, manufacturers have to widen the bezels.

16:9 doesn't have an intrinsic requirement for thick bezels. Look at how narrow the new Dell XPS 13's bezels are:

http://www.dell.com/us/p/xps-13-9343-laptop/pd

Lastly, 90% of websites are STILL tailored to best suit 1024:768 4:3 displays. Many web pages either have large empty bars on either side of the main focus area

...which is why I almost never maximize a browser. My main desktop computer has five monitors, two of which are 2048x1152. I put two browsers on each of these 2048x1152 screens, with each one a little more than 1024 pixels across.

[exTPfan]

The X1 carbon has a webcam in the top part of the bezel, and the bottom part looks exactly the same as an X61 to me.

The X1 carbon is 2.05 inches taller than its screen; the X61 is 1.05 inches taller. There's room on the X1 for a webcam and a 16:10 screen, which would be 11% larger than the current screen (or no webcam and a 3:2 screen, which would be 16% larger).

[Qing Dao]

The X1 carbon has a webcam in the top part of the bezel, and the bottom part looks exactly the same as an X61 to me.

The X1 carbon is 2.05 inches taller than its screen; the X61 is 1.05 inches taller. There's room on the X1 for a webcam and a 16:10 screen, which would be 11% larger than the current screen (or no webcam and a 3:2 screen, which would be 16% larger).

The hinge is completely different. When open, part of the bezel is hidden behind the lower part of the computer. If we just look at the part that is visible, the bezels are the same or proportionally smaller than any 16:10 Thinkpads.

If we look at the progression of 15, 14, and 12" Thinkpads from 4:3 to 16:10 to 16:9, the overall shape of the computer definitely changed along with the screen, even with the addition of a webcam necessitating slightly taller bezels. Even generic laptop sleeves and covers going from 16:10 to 16:9 don't fit very well.

[ajkula66]

Yes, I own a X301 which doesn't fulfill that requirement, but I do not do any editing on it for the reason previously stated.

The statement above does not hold true anymore.

I ended up selling the X301 for one reason only: my own inability to deal with 1440x900 on *any* LCD regardless of its size. Other than that, I'll miss the little guy. Its build quality was nothing short of stunning.

For my personal set of circumstances, a 15.4" 1920x1200 is the best fit, with 15" 1600x1200 coming in as a close second. Everything else is...not that good.

For the first time in several years, *all* systems in this household are 1400x1050, 1600x1200, 1680x1050 or 1920x1200. The way I feel right now, it's going to stay that way for quite a while.

[600X]

Unlike a lot of people here, I hardly care about the resolution. I don't want to say that I don't care at all, because I'd certainly cringe at the sight of a 1366x768 15" display. What's most important to me is the screen quality and of course the aspect ratio itself.

That's why I am often more than willing to downgrade resolutions when I do my screen mods, because I usually gain a good IPS panel in the process. I used to have a wonderful T500 with a SHARP WUXGA display, but I put the scaling to 125% because I found 100% too small. I think that equals something like 1680x1050. On my FrankenPad, I find the 1400x1050 to be perfect. On 14", I like 1280x960 the most (1400x1050 with 125% scaling) and on 10-13" I'm happy with 1024x768.

But I do agree with pianowizard that even one person might want different aspect ratios for different situations. Which is why I couldn't be happy with only 4:3 laptops, even though it is my favorite format. However, I would still be happier in that situation than when I only had 16:9 laptops.

[brchan]

So it seems:

-4:3 is best for work like programming, viewing more lines of text in documents, webpages
-16:9 is best for movies, games, media, and entertainment
-16:10 or 3:2 is a compromise of the above two, and the sweet spot.

I have found that laptops with 4:3 ratio are easier and less awkward to handle/carry than widescreen laptops, especially from the side. The footprint also fits very well into most bags.

[pianowizard]

For the first time in several years, *all* systems in this household are 1400x1050, 1600x1200, 1680x1050 or 1920x1200.

Hey I like this exercise! Here are the resolutions of all my current laptops (green) and LCD monitors (blue):

3840x2160: 28" Dell P2815Q
2560x1600: 30" Dell 3008WFP
2560x1440: 27" Dell U2711, 27" HP Promo ZR2740w
2560X1080: 25" LG 25UM65
2048x1152: 23" Dell sp2309w, 23" Samsung 2343BWX
1920x1200: 17" HP EliteBook 8740w, 17" Gateway NX860X, 22" Lenovo L220X
1920x1080: 13.3" Sony Vaio Pro13
1600x1200: 20" Dell 2007FP, 20" NEC MultiSync LCD2070NX
1400x1050: 14.1" Panasonic Let's Note CF-Y9
1280x1024: 15.4" Dell Inspiron 7500, 17" NEC AccuSync LCD72V, 17" Dell E176FP, 17" Acer V173
1280x800: 10.1" HP Pavilion x2
1024x768: 12.1" IBM Thinkpad X31

The way I feel right now, it's going to stay that way for quite a while.

After some massive selling of monitors and laptops in the past half year, I too don't expect my current inventory to change much in the near future. The only changes I am fancying are: selling the Gateway laptop, and buying a bigger 4K monitor because the Dell P2815Q's 157 DPI is killing me!

-4:3 is best for work like programming, viewing more lines of text in documents, webpages
-16:9 is best for movies, games, media, and entertainment
-16:10 or 3:2 is a compromise of the above two, and the sweet spot.

I don't think we can generalize like this, because each aspect ratio comes in many different resolutions and sizes. For example, 1400x1050 actually displays fewer lines of text than 1920x1080. Also important is each person's preferred pixel density (assuming Windows' default scaling is used). For instance, the R50p's 15.0" 2048x1536 panel can display a huge number of lines so you might think it's great for programming and viewing web sites, but at 170.67 DPI, not many people would enjoy using it for prolonged hours. For me, the optimal pixel density is 150 DPI for laptops and 100 DPI for desktop monitors. Once we have picked a favorite pixel density, we look around to see what each aspect ratio has to offer. For laptop panels close to 150 DPI, these are the ones I like most:

4:3:
12.1" 1400x1050 (144.63 DPI)
14.1" 1600x1200 (141.84 DPI)

16:10:
15.4" 1920x1200 (147.02 DPI)

16:9:
12.1" 1600x900 (151.72 DPI)
14.0" 1920x1080 (157.35 DPI)
15.0" 1920x1080 (146.86 DPI)

I suspect one major reason certain people still like 4:3 more than all other ratios is that they prefer relatively low pixel densities, say ~130 DPI. To get at least 1050 pixel rows at close to this pixel density on a widescreen, we would be looking at 15.4" 1680x1050 (128.65 DPI), 17.0" 1920x1200 (133.19 DPI), 16.4" 1920x1080 (134.32 DPI), and 17.3" 1920x1080 (127.34 DPI). If the user doesn't do much side-by-side tiling, these are needlessly huge laptops!

[600X]

I actually prefer gaming on 4:3. In this case though, it's not like I will say no to 16:9 either.

[Qing Dao]

I suspect one major reason certain people still like 4:3 more than all other ratios is that they prefer relatively low pixel densities, say ~130 DPI. To get at least 1050 pixel rows at close to this pixel density on a widescreen, we would be looking at 15.4" 1680x1050 (128.65 DPI), 17.0" 1920x1200 (133.19 DPI), 16.4" 1920x1080 (134.32 DPI), and 17.3" 1920x1080 (127.34 DPI). If the user doesn't do much side-by-side tiling, these are needlessly huge laptops!

You are succumbing to the fallacy that 4:3 is just 16:9 with the sides chopped off. We could just as easily say that 16:9 is 4:3 with the top and bottom chopped off. Also laptops of the same size come in various amounts of ppi. A 15" 1600x1200 screen has a higher ppi than a 15.6" 1600x900 screen.

[exTPfan]

I suspect one major reason certain people still like 4:3 more than all other ratios is that they prefer relatively low pixel densities

Now you are being silly. The X61 in my sig has 150dpi and the T601 and T42p have 133dpi, which are both more that an X1 carbon with 1600x900. We like 4:3 because we like 9 inch tall screens on a computer the same width as an X1 carbon.

[pianowizard]

You are succumbing to the fallacy that 4:3 is just 16:9 with the sides chopped off. We could just as easily say that 16:9 is 4:3 with the top and bottom chopped off. Also laptops of the same size come in various amounts of ppi. A 15" 1600x1200 screen has a higher ppi than a 15.6" 1600x900 screen.

Now you are being silly. The X61 in my sig has 150dpi and the T601 and T42p have 133dpi, which are both more that an X1 carbon with 1600x900. We like 4:3 because we like 9 inch tall screens on a computer the same width as an X1 carbon.

Was my last post really that hard to comprehend? "One major reason" doesn't mean "the only reason". It doesn't even mean "the main reason"! And where the heck did I say all 4:3 laptop screens have lower pixel densities than all 16:9 laptop screens?

Actually, I should have said I *know* instead of *suspect* because quite a few 4:3 fans have told me they prefer low pixel densities when not scaling. This is essentially what 600X said above -- see his/her Mar 01, 2015 11:50 am post. I've been on this forum for nearly a decade and wrote at least a tenth of my 8000+ posts in threads discussing LCD panels. So, I've heard lots of things that you newbies haven't heard.

I have an Excel file listing virtually all laptop and desktop LCD panels ever made, and I check it whenever I write about pixel density, screen dimensions, etc. There is no way I would have thought that all 16:9 panels have higher pixel densities than all 4:3 panels. 4:3 laptop panels range from 85.33 DPI (15.0" 1024x768) to 170.67 DPI (15.0" 2048x1536), whereas 16:9 ones range from 97.94 DPI (16.0" 1366x768) to 262.25 DPI (14.0" 3200x1800). Clearly, the overlap is substantial.

BTW, like I said in my previous post, your X61 has 144.63 DPI, not 150 DPI. An unfortunate fact about 4:3 laptop screens is that there aren't any panels with pixel densities between 144.63 DPI (12.1" SXGA+) and 170.67 DPI (15.0" QXGA). 13.3" UXGA with 150.38 DPI would be incredibly awesome. Sony had some 16.1" UXGA desktop replacements at one point. 16.1" QXGA (159.01 DPI) would have been quite interesting.