Most laptops will be 16:9 by 2012…thoughts?

[pianowizard]

I just came across this article, “Transition to 16:9 PC monitor panels inevitable”. At least 70% of the members of this forum seem to prefer 4:3 over 16:10, so I wonder what you have to say about the 16:9 aspect ratio, which is even wider/shorter than 16:10.

Here’s my take. For me, the total number of pixels is more important than the shape of the monitor. As long as the pixel density is reasonable, the more pixels the better. In my view, there are three categories of laptops: ultraportables (<4 lb), “mainstream” laptops (4 – 6 lb), and desktop replacements (>6 lb). Here are the highest resolutions in each category:

Ultraportables, including netbooks
4:3: 1024x768 (several 12.1” tablets have 1400x1050 but they are rare exceptions)
16:10: 1280x800 (the X200s Thinkpad has 12.1” 1440x900 but that’s a rare exception)
16:9: 1366x768 (the 1600x900 Sony netbook is just ridiculous)

Mainstreams
4:3: 1600x1200
16:10: 1680x1050
16:9: 1600x900 (1680x945 may become available in the future)

Desktop replacements
4:3: 1600x1200 (the 15.0” 2048x1536 panel was never preinstalled in any laptop, and the pixel density is too high for most users)
16:10: 1920x1200
16:9: 1920x1080

As you can see, as far as total pixel count is concerned, the 16:9 aspect ratio is an improvement over both 4:3 and 16:10 for ultraportable notebooks, but not as good as 16:10 for the other two categories. Especially disappointing to me is the transition from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080, which applies not only to desktop-replacement laptops but also to external LCD monitors.

[Puppy]

Especially disappointing to me is the transition from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080, which applies not only to desktop-replacement laptops but also to external LCD monitors.

Yep, another idiotic step from classic 4:3 format toward "computers are for entertainment only" mantra. I hope that at least professional LCD's category still keeps reasonable formats. I also expect substantial notebook displays quality decline in next years (super-cheap TN using buzzwords like "LED", "SuperLED", "X-LED" and such marketing crap, contrast typically below 100:1, zero viewing angles, no black color, more distracting dithering etc.) even in top models.

[basketb]

As someone who does not hate 16:10 (as long as it's WUXGA), I do not like the move to 16:9 in general. However, as long as they come up with a resolution that has at least 1200 vertical pixels, I don't mind.

[RealBlackStuff]

Give me 4:3 or rather: 5:4.
My external monitor (19" LCD) has 1280x1024, which I think is the best of both worlds!

[Harryc]

I have a 16:9 external LCD and I really like it. It's a Samsung SyncMaster 2033sw, and the resolution is 1600x900. Interesting that it is the optimal size to watch DVD's. Anyway, it's not my favorite for laptops because you can't fit a 20" or larger LCD on a laptop.... It would be too short if it were any smaller than 20".

[jdhurst]

<snip>Yep, another idiotic step from classic 4:3 format toward "computers are for entertainment only" mantra. I hope that at least professional LCD's category still keeps reasonable formats. I also expect substantial notebook displays quality decline in next years (super-cheap TN using buzzwords like "LED", "SuperLED", "X-LED" and such marketing crap, contrast typically below 100:1, zero viewing angles, no black color, more distracting dithering etc.) even in top models.

Computers have been devolving from business tools to consumer toys for years. If this process continues unabated (as it has so far) then I predict in my working lifetime that business will wise up, stop using desktop computers, and go back to mainframes and terminal screens. The loss in business productivity (already occurring) while people play with their toys will become astronomical.
... JDH

[killer]

"Most laptops will be 16:9 by 2012…thoughts?" You've made an interesting post, pianowizard. It's a bit like, "The end of the world is nigh ... discuss."

I do hope you aren't looking for an essay.

That said, there is an upside and a downside to everything. I have seen the X200 laptops which have a wide screen to allow for a full-size keyboard. They look rather good. Because the screen is small it needs the width.

I prefer my 15" T43 with 4:3 format but it does take up a lot of room and weighs a few kilos.

In summary, my opinion is that 16:9 is great for TV viewing. For a laptop I prefer 4:3 ratio.

[BillMorrow]

if anyone cares, i prefer 4:3 or wUXGA in desktop displays..
anything less than 1200 height is pretty limited in the lines displayable..
thats why i won't easily part with the last thinkpad with the IBM logo, my T60p UXGA..
the perfect laptop format, IMO..
the rest are just entertainment devices..

[GomJabbar]

"Most laptops will be 16:9 by 2012…thoughts?" You've made an interesting post, pianowizard. It's a bit like, "The end of the world is nigh ... discuss."

The end of 4:3 is nigh...
I'm a little verklempt.

Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic: 16:9 is neither useful nor cost effective for business use. Discuss.

[bill bolton]

I'll give you a topic: 16:9 is neither useful nor cost effective for business use.

That has a huge assumption built in, which is that all business use implies a basically similar purpose.

In fact it doesn't.

Whether anyone likes any particular aspect ratio is purely a personal choice. Trying to justify personal choice on the basis that a whole class of users will somehow automagically share that view is just plain silly.

For my needs, both personal and professional, wide screens are a great boon!

Cheers,

Bill B.

[i-SnipeZ]

I can't stand widescreens at the moment but I know I will need to learn to live with them. Im in love with my T61's 4:3 and will be until I find a widescreen that is matte and doesnt look junky at the same time.

[ajkula66]

Having pushed myself to use a widescreen machine (W500) almost exclusively (with a reason) for the past two months, all I'm going to say that I could possibly get used to any format-more or less-as long as it involved a decent screen quality. However, most of today's LCDs are downright crap, and I haven't owned a desktop since 1992 or 1993...

So, what are my contingency plans?

For home use, my A31p/T43 fleet will keep on running XP (and various Linux distros) for the next five years, or as long as it's supported.

My wife's T60p is probably going nowhere either. If Win 7 is going to bear any resemblance to the beta we currently have on it, it will fly. And it still has the best LCD around.

For my travels, I just picked up a very rare bird (not a ThinkPad) that should be OK as long as XP is around, since its hardware (similar to X41 but without the retarded 1.8" HDD) won't do well with a newer OS.

My next project is likely going to be a 15" IPS T60 in which I'm intent on throwing a Intel-based board from a T61. Since my GPU requirements are fairly low, I guess that this is as future-proof as any ThinkPad with that type of LCD gets, at least for my needs.

And, of course, Lenovo may surprise all of us with an AFFS version of W700...now that I'd take even in 16:9 format...

[GomJabbar]

That has a huge assumption built in, which is that all business use implies a basically similar purpose.

You missed the point of my tongue-in-check post (I was providing a little "Coffee Talk"). But nevermind. True, it was a generalization. And by nature, generalizations will not apply to everyone. Nevertheless, I said what I said, and I am sticking to it

Here, I add a qualifier for the minority: "16:9 is neither useful nor cost effective for most business use."

[Ryan_C]

I don't like widescreens much.

As someone who was raised on 4:3 / 5:4 screens, I do not welcome the change to wider and wider screens.

vertical screen estate > horizontal screen estate.

[pianowizard]

I also expect substantial notebook displays quality decline in next years (super-cheap TN using buzzwords like "LED", "SuperLED", "X-LED" and such marketing crap, contrast typically below 100:1, zero viewing angles, no black color, more distracting dithering etc.) even in top models.

This trend started several years ago, when the economy was still relatively good. I predict that the current state of the economy will speed up this trend, as manufacturers try even harder to cut costs.

As someone who does not hate 16:10 (as long as it's WUXGA), I do not like the move to 16:9 in general. However, as long as they come up with a resolution that has at least 1200 vertical pixels, I don't mind.

I totally agree. That's why I said I'm particularly disappointed that WUXGA is being phased out by "high-def" 1080. 1920x1080 may seem high for movies and TV, but it's not enough for many people in other applications. For external 16:9 LCD, there's currently one higher res than 1080p, namely 2048x1152. It's still fewer than 1200 vertical pixels, but I think I will like it because the total pixel count is actually 2.4% higher than WUXGA. Hopefully some laptops will have this resolution.

Give me 4:3 or rather: 5:4.
My external monitor (19" LCD) has 1280x1024, which I think is the best of both worlds!

It does seem that the 1280x1024 res has survived remarkably well in the external LCD market. I think people recognize that this aspect ratio is great for saving desk space.

I have seen the X200 laptops which have a wide screen to allow for a full-size keyboard. They look rather good. Because the screen is small it needs the width.

The X200 has a 16:10 screen. I agree that 16:10 is perfect for small laptops, for the reason you mentioned. But a 16:9 screen would be wider and shorter than the X200’s 16:10 screen, and has a smaller surface area.

That has a huge assumption built in, which is that all business use implies a basically similar purpose.

In fact it doesn't.

That’s why such a statement ("16:9 is neither useful nor cost effective for business use") would make a good debate topic.

[archer6]

Having pushed myself to use a widescreen machine (W500) almost exclusively (with a reason) for the past two months, all I'm going to say that I could possibly get used to any format-more or less-as long as it involved a decent screen quality.

So, what are my contingency plans?<snip>

I'm doing the very same thing exactly! It's the very reason I purchased my W500, even though I have a perfectly good T60p 4:3 UXGA 1600 x 1200 that I've enjoyed and continue to enjoy for work, more than any ThinkPad or any other brand of laptop I've had. (and that's a ridiculous number... )

My Contingency?
Use my T60p only as needed to prolong it's life and enjoy the other 60 series (X,R,T) 4:3 format ThinkPads I loaded up on once I got wind of the potential change. Yes, yes, I know... there are some advantages to widescreen and I'm not tossing that aside, but rather "backing into it very gradually".

Cheers...

[archer6]

I just came across this article, “Transition to 16:9 PC monitor panels inevitable”. At least 70% of the members of this forum seem to prefer 4:3 over 16:10, so I wonder what you have to say about the 16:9 aspect ratio, which is even wider/shorter than 16:10.

Excellent post, and a great article.

Thanks...

[GomJabbar]

According to DisplaySearch, there are several driving forces behind the fact that 16:9 panels become more popular eventually:

* 16:9 provides better economic cut (panelization) in existing TFT LCD fabs.
* 16:9 products provide higher resolution and wider aspect ratio.
* The widespread adoption of high definition in the consumer entertainment sector will help end users readily adopt the new products with the wider aspect ratio.
* The new 16:9 panels provide an opportunity for PC brands to further diversify their products.

Re. Point 1: This is the primary reason IMO. Lower cost at any cost.
Re. Point 2: Wider aspect ratio is a given, but does that make it a reason? Higher resolution how - more pixels in the display??
Re. Point 3: Probably true, but not necessarily a good thing.
Re. Point 4: Hogwash! Diversity will only be true during the short term transition period. Yes, the oportunity might be there, but will any laptop manufacturers actually use it? The history of the transition from 4:3 to 16:10 indicates otherwise. Computer manufacturers behave like lemmings these days.

[dsigma6]

This is deserving of the R-word.

[yak]

As someone said, if I'll get at least 1200 (or at least 1050) of height in pixels, then I can accept a wide screen, even 16:9.

However, that's only the case for external monitors. In fact, if I was to choose between a standard monitor and a wide one both with approximately the same height (real and in pixels), I would choose a wide screen.

I you have the same choice in a laptop, there's an additional factor to take into account - the size of the notebook (and its weight). In this case, 4:3 is a pretty good balance. The wider it gets, the further away from the balance it is.

Therefore I'm sticking to my T60 for as long as I can.

[elray]

I'm a 4:3 diehard, but I can live with 16:9.

But why not, just make everything a "ThinkSlate", give us an attachable Thinkpad keyboard, and let us choose portrait mode?

If the trend is towards greasy touchscreens (free lifetime supply of Windex when you buy AT&T 3G service with your SlimePad at Radio Shack!) and voice i/o or Wii-like Michael-Jackson glove inputs, it would seem that at least some manufacturers might be convinced to detach the keyboard.

[Troels]

[..] contrast typically below 100:1, zero viewing angles, no black color[..]

I have always thought you were over-dramatizing things a bit. However, after seeing this review http://www.notebookcheck.com/Test-Lenov ... 631.0.html (Available only in german at the moment)
I think you're probably the most realistic person of us all.

As to how the subjectivity in the grading of Notebookcheck's test compared to the objectivity of measurements, i'm amazed at the high scoring. At one point in time they also measured how well calibrated the displays were and the chromacity, but for some reason or another this is not measured any more. But why complain when their reviews are free...

[Puppy]

I think you're probably the most realistic person of us all.

Frustrating, eh ? Display with 108:1 contrast ratio in top T series. The X300 display is very close to that. There is actually even "better" model on that site a Toshiba R with 80:1. I don't think such products needs any other measuring because it falls to the horrible crap category for sure.

As a result I no longer consider to buy any of new ThinkPads.

[archer6]

My present moment thoughts?

It would take a heck of a lot more than a format change of the display, to get me to walk away from the best laptop I've ever had the pleasure of using. And I've bought , tested, and played with as many new laptops of other brands on the side, as I have deployed ThinkPads as the machine I count on. The numbers of new machines, staggering. The results? Time after time they are always a disappointment.

Nothing, but nothing beats a ThinkPad.

ThinkPads... Simply Brilliant!

Cheers...

[dsvochak]

My thought: There would be at least the same amount of grumbling if laptops had started out 16:10 and were shifting to 4:3.

[killer]

Good point, we all like a grumble. Personally, I prefer grumble and grunt, in which case either 16:9 or 4:3 is just fine.

[TTY]

Frustrating, eh ? Display with 108:1 contrast ratio in top T series.

That's measured at full backlight brightness. I would wait with forming judgement until i've seen contrast measurements made at 100-120 nits backlight brightness. I wouldn't be surprised if such measurements would render a far better result. Also, not knowing how a T400 display panel looks in reality, i would probably not draw conclusions until i've actually seen a T400 myself.

[Puppy]

Also, not knowing how a T400 display panel looks in reality, i would probably not draw conclusions until i've actually seen a T400 myself.

True. I've seen X300 in reality and it was total disaster.

[ssd_thinkpad]

When complaining about the T400 display contrast, there are worse ones in the thinkpad line. From tabook.pdf the worst T400 panels have 300:1 contrast. From all actuall used thinkpads (april 2009) the x200, x300 and x301 panels have the worst contrast of only 250:1. In any other thinkpad actually sold from lenovo a panel with better contrast ratio is installed. Really wonder how lenovo could put the worst contrast ratio display in their said "top of the line thinkpad". In the old ltwbook.pdf where withdrawn thinkpads are shown, some T4x and T6x XGA panels surpass the x30x contrast ratio with just 200:1 contrast. The high resolution 15.4 widescreens are all having 500:1 contrast ratio which gives us hope lenovo still provides good contrast ratio displays within their notebook line.

Most important for notebooks is durability as they are moved most of the time. For durability and the ease of installation new or defect components lenovo (they even provide extensive documentation how you can do this yourself!) is still by far the best notebook manufacturer. The x300 series has extreme good build quality, this is something I have not seen from any other manufacturer.

[AlphaKilo470]

Alot of people, myself included, grew up using 4:3. For me, I have to use it now because wide 16:9 causes my eyes to hurt. I'm pretty sure we would have heard people, in mass, complain if 16:9 was the older format and we were switching to something taller as opposed to wider.