Why are so many obsessed with widescreen laptops?

[AndyKH]

Ok please correct me if I'm wrong, but here it goes:

I've been wondering why so many people like the idea of wide screen laptops so much. The base of most laptops are quite 4:3 in form factor and it thus makes sense to attach a 4:3 display. If you choose to attach a 16:10/16:9 display you will simply loose screen real estate just to get that fancy aspect ratio.... so why on earth do manufacturers choose this road? Do any of you know widescreen laptops that actually have a 16:10/16:9 base so that it actually might warrant a widescreen display?

Flame away (if you have your arguments in checks) .

/Andreas

[JaneL]

Flame away (if you have your arguments in checks) .

This is a no-flame zone. Reasoned arguments only.

[pianowizard]

I've been wondering why so many people like the idea of wide screen laptops so much.....If you choose to attach a 16:10/16:9 display you will simply loose screen real estate just to get that fancy aspect ratio

Simple: widescreen gives you MORE real estate by offering more pixels per unit area. Compare a regular 12.1" screen, which is almost always 1024x768, with a widescreen 12.1" screen, which is always 1280x800. The latter's physical area is slightly smaller, but the number of pixels (= real estate) is 30% more.

Of course, if you compared an SXGA+ 14.1" display with an XGA widescreen 14.1" display, that would be a different story. Here I am talking about comparing regular and wide versions of the same resolution designation, i.e. XGA vs. WXGA, UXGA vs. WUXGA, etc.

Do any of you know widescreen laptops that actually have a 16:10/16:9 base

All widescreen laptops that I have seen have a 16:10 base.

[AndyKH]

Thanks for the replies

Pianowizard: you write that every widescreen laptop has a 16:10 base. I might have expressed myself wrongly as my native language isn't english. But I simply mean that the form factor of most laptops is more like 4:3 than 16:10. That widescreen displays always have a greater pixel density I didn't know. I guess what I'm saying that it would make more sense to use a 4:3 display if a display with same pixel density can be had.

[jlr18]

I personally prefer widescreen because I frequently need to compare two text or image docs side-by-side, and it's been a godsend for this purpose.

[Manarius]

I really enjoy widescreen for use with forums. I can see images without having to scroll left or right to see them. I do not like how some games don't work with it (Read: EA Games Need for Speed Carbon), the few games that I have that do work with it are wonderful.

[Puppy]

The answer is probably simple - because it is new (regardless of whether it is more or less useful) and because manufacturers are pushing it everywhere.

As for getting more screen space (more pixels) it is very questionable. I still prefer classic 4:3 1600x1200 over 16:10 1680x1050 resolution because it limits number of visible text lines in favor of getting 80 extra pixels horizontally. Well, 1920x1200 makes more sense. Especially I don't see much benefit of widescreen for notebooks because it makes them too wide and wastes too much space around the keyboard.

[tomh009]

Especially I don't see much benefit of widescreen for notebooks because it makes them too wide and wastes too much space around the keyboard.

One exception to this is the subnotebook category (eg X series) where using a 12.1" widescreen enables the use of a full-size keyboard rather than the roughly 90% keyboard with the 4:3 screens.

[Puppy]

One exception to this is the subnotebook category (eg X series) where using a 12.1" widescreen enables the use of a full-size keyboard rather than the roughly 90% keyboard with the 4:3 screens.

Agree, that's true. Unfortunately it does not seem to be the case of X series.

[tomh009]

It may yet be -- see this thread:
http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?t=38898

[anthean]

Tomorrow (11 Mar) my work group will receive 24 inch widescreen desktop monitors. This will be my first experience with widescreen, and hopefully will allow me to decide if widescreen is really better for my work (cube building).

My actual fear, however, regardless of pluses and minuses (and for whom, and under what circumstances) is that we as consumers will lose the choice.

If widescreen should turn out to be truly better, I want to be able to reach that conclusion myself, and not have it forced on me by a stampede of DVD watchers and computer game players.

[pianowizard]

As for getting more screen space (more pixels) it is very questionable. I still prefer classic 4:3 1600x1200 over 16:10 1680x1050 resolution because it limits number of visible text lines in favor of getting 80 extra pixels horizontally.

Like I said earlier, it's not fair to compare 4:3 UXGA (1600x1200) with 16:10 WSXGA+. You should be comparing UXGA with WUXGA (1920x1200), which has 20% more pixels.

Tomorrow (11 Mar) my work group will receive 24 inch widescreen desktop monitors. This will be my first experience with widescreen, and hopefully will allow me to decide if widescreen is really better for my work (cube building).

Congratulations! I have a 24" 1920x1200 monitor and it's the best monitor I've ever bought. Lots of pixels, and movies can utilize almost the entire screen. You will like it.

[tomh009]

Congratulations! I have a 24" 1920x1200 monitor and it's the best monitor I've ever bought. Lots of pixels, and movies can utilize almost the entire screen. You will like it.

PW, which monitor are you using? Is it S-IPS? (Less interested in movies, more interested in accurate colour reproduction ...)

[Temetka]

I find widescreen easier to work with in Linux. I can be in KDE or Fluxbox and 4 or terminal windows open with minimal to no overlapping.

That and it is very easy on the eyes. Now having stated that, the 14.1' 1400x1050 LCD on my T41 also works great in Linux. Again, easy on the eyes and I can have my many terminal windows open.

[pianowizard]

PW, which monitor are you using? Is it S-IPS?

It's the Dell 2407WFP, which I think you said isn't S-IPS in another thread.

[tomh009]

Ah, right. Too many threads!

Still thinking about what to get at home myself ...

[gator]

I never really like using widescreens till a month back. Two things happened recently, and I am beginning to understand why laptop manufacturers push it.

First, my roommate got a dell e1405 (a 14.1" model). It is a very, ver nice laptop and surprisingly good to use. The screen, though glossy, is not bad all. I love the size of these 14-inch widescreens ... they are perfect for carrying around anywhere, even more than the 4:3 ones. Watching movies on a widescreen is really kickass (and I own a mitsubishi 19" pro CRT!). But one thing still stands: the 15.4" widescreens are BIG and UGLY imho, more so than their 4:3 15" bretheren. I own a 15" T60 and I like it far far better than a old 15.4" dell that I had on loan from school ( I am not making a dell vs. lenovo comparison here - I am just talking about the screen size).

Second, my lab recently purchased a couple of dell workstations with 19" widescreens . Initally I felt very uncomfotable using them, so much that I used to take my T60 to school and work via VPN. Then my lab's wireless router went out, and I reluctantly started using the widescreens. After a week's time, I liked them so much that I could not help but think about the sanity of my laptop purchase. Widescreens are nice to work with once you get used to them - they have a few of disadvantages too ... the size is a bit awkward and for reading papers and doing writing work, I'd take a 4:3 anyday. For general purpose usage, a widescreen is a fantastic option for both desktop or laptop LCDs. Anyone saying 'I abhor widescreens' should use them consistently for a month or so and then see for themselves, seriously.

I spoke to Lenovo folks a while back and was very glad to hear that 14.1 widescreen laptops are going to be an option in the T61 series coming out around May '07. After I finish my PhD (a long, long way to go) and after my T60 ages to be retired ( a much longer way to go!) I will definitely get a 14 inch widescreen thinkpad, unless they make something amazingly better!

[sugo]

A widescreen laptop is a god-sent when I fly with an economy seat. However, 4:3 works better for web browsing. I do think that Lenovo should sell both versions and give users a choice.

[AndyKH]

Like I said earlier, it's not fair to compare 4:3 UXGA (1600x1200) with 16:10 WSXGA+. You should be comparing UXGA with WUXGA (1920x1200), which has 20% more pixels.

Well, if one has a limited horizontal space for the display, then the 4:3 aspect ratio 20" screen will give you more pixels than a 20" 16:10 screen.

But otherwise it's of course correct.

/Andreas

[anthean]

Just to report back after a week at work on a 24 in WUXGA LCD:

1. It (an HP LP2465) is a nice enough monitor.
2. No monitor is ever large enough.
3. My Thinkpad is shrinking.

As to whether I prefer the 24 in WUXGA over my home 20 inch UXGA LCD, well, that is truly hard to say.

But, in principle anyway, having a choice really matters to me.

[pianowizard]

2. No monitor is ever large enough.

Actually, I find that my 24" Dell 2407WFP is the biggest monitor that I can comfortably use and don't want anything larger than that. Even for this 24" LCD, I need to turn my head slightly to see things in the periphery. I would need to turn my head even more for larger screens.

[Fusion]

The 1400x1050 R60 was exactly what I was looking for.
I use Photoshop and Dreamweaver every day so I really didn't want widescreen, and 16"+ notebook displays make it giant and heavy.
I think that this display i a great combination of physical size/virtual workspace.

[sxr71]

Tomorrow (11 Mar) my work group will receive 24 inch widescreen desktop monitors. This will be my first experience with widescreen, and hopefully will allow me to decide if widescreen is really better for my work (cube building).

My actual fear, however, regardless of pluses and minuses (and for whom, and under what circumstances) is that we as consumers will lose the choice.

If widescreen should turn out to be truly better, I want to be able to reach that conclusion myself, and not have it forced on me by a stampede of DVD watchers and computer game players.

Sure widescreen is great on 24", but try it on a 12.1" laptop and you'll see.

[sxr71]

I'm sorry but the more pixels per given area is not a valid argument as you can have a non-widescreen 12.1" display with SXGA+ and more pixels per unit area than the 1280x800 12.1" widescreen display.


Widescreen IMHO is just not useful in a small screen (it's great on my 24" monitor). I would hate to have to squint to read anything, and if I zoom in on a page then we are at square one in terms of how much of a document page I can read without scrolling.


There is a reason why documents are printed on paper in the "portrait" format and that is because it is much easier for the eyes to not have to keep moving left and right. Your eyes would much rather move up and down slightly than left and right.


In the case of films, the rationale for widescreen format is because it fills your peripheral vision better and is more immersive. You can only really focus on one spot at a time though. So no real action ever goes on in those side areas it just to make it more immersive. It might be good for movies, but I'd rather use my 24" monitor or my projector for that. My laptop is for getting work done.

The move to widescreen is definitely driven by economic factors where they can cut more individual screens from the large glass substrate if they cut in the 16:10 ratio. It is cheaper to make widescreen displays, and that's why you see them so much these days, it wasn't done to please the customer.

IMHO at 12.1" widescreen for most uses is just horrible. Maybe when you get to 20-24" you can afford the loss of the vertical dimension.

[wolfman]

I tend to agree with this post. I had a 15.4 inch wide screen display on a Dell laptop from work. While occasionally it was nice to have the extra width (for example in eclipse), most of the time it felt awkward to me and tiring to my eyes. At home I have dual 20,1 inch 1600x1200 displays attached to my desktop and while I have to turn my head to see the edges, I don't seem to get the eye irritation that I got when using the widescreen laptop display.

That said, I'd still settle for a widescreen display before one with a glossy finish - they really do a number on my eyes. I must be very sensitive to the glare or something, but I surely hope they continue to offer matte finish.

[anthean]

Sure widescreen is great on 24", but try it on a 12.1" laptop and you'll see.

That is a good point, and of concern to myself also.

I am not arguing either for or against widescreen--just that my choices are being taken away before I have even had an opportunity to reach a conclusion.

[K. Eng]

I like two things about the widescreen format.

(1) The notebook is less deep. This gives you more desk space in front of you if your notebook is on top of a table.

(2) The notebook is less tall with the LCD lid up. This can be helpful when the machine is being used on an airline or train tray.

[pianowizard]

I'm sorry but the more pixels per given area is not a valid argument as you can have a non-widescreen 12.1" display with SXGA+ and more pixels per unit area than the 1280x800 12.1" widescreen display.

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.

IMHO at 12.1" widescreen for most uses is just horrible.

IMO, the advantages of the widescreen are the most obvious for 12.1" laptops. About 30% more total pixels, much better for playing movies, can view wide web sites more easily, and the machine is shorter with the display lid up (as K. Eng pointed out). To me, 1280x800 is the absolute lowest resolution that's useful, and I just can't stand 1024x768.

But if there were 1400x1050 non-tablet 12.1" laptops, I would prefer them to 1280x800 ones. Movies would still not look good because of the shape of the monitor, but pixel count is more important to me.

[flake]

I would flat out love to have a widescreen display. Both graphics apps and programming IDEs have interfaces where the main workspace is bordered by pallets and toolboxes, etc...

There is a certain amount of tweaking/auto-hide settings that can be done to minimize these things and gain back work area but simply having more area on the sides would be better.

Having a wide screen would also be convenient for multi-tasking. I like to have email, IM and web pages up simultaneously and even at home on a UXGA screen windows are now overlapping quite a bit. This was not the case a few years back.... Now it seems like overeager web designers are optimizing for 1024 or even 1280 pixel width on their pages :( Too many elements distracting from content, thinking that people won't scroll, but I digress

[Ashe Too]

Great forum and great thread. I've been lurking for a while and this is my first post (hi ya'll).

I don't get the enthusiasm for widescreens. My wife has one. It's got a beautiful screen, but there's not much web content that needs more than 1024 at this point. When content does fill a wide screen, I don't like to have read too far across before I read down to the next line and who likes to scroll?

I'm a lawyer (good jokes are welcome) and work with documents. The aspect ratio of a piece of paper is portait, whether it't 4:3 or 16:9. The widescreen forces me into a lot more scrolling if the document window is maximized. I personally believe law practice doesn't lend itself well to multi-tasking - it simply requires concentration and avoiding distraction, so keeping apps open beside a document window is a zero priority.

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.

And now that the screen resolution is so darn high on machines with 256+ dedicated video memory, who can read that itty-bitty text anyway?