4 ms·

I agree! The 4:3 screens are much more useful for programming and reading the web, the "chopped off" are good only to watch wide videos. Are notebook users real

by acqw 16y ago

I agree! The 4:3 screens are much more useful for programming and reading the web, the "chopped off" are good only to watch wide videos. Are notebook users really mostly buying the notebook only to watch videos? "There's simply no choice" -- I'd say of course, since consumers didn't care when they started to buy the worse ones, the manufacturers rightly concluded that they can kill the more expensive variants completely. I've read more critiques of iPads that stated: "it doesn't have a wide screen." Were they written by competitors? Or are consumers really already trained to actually desire the worse?

technomancy 16y ago
I've heard it has to do with the fact that the majority of demand for LCDs comes from televisions, so laptop manufacturers can't buy decent shapes anymore since they don't account for enough demand.
Periodic 16y ago
I prefer wide over tall, assuming the same area. I like to view two documents side by side, and it's nice to have two 80-column terminals open on the screen without overlap or tiny fonts. I'll also always pick two monitors over one large monitor for the ability to separate workspaces.
chairface 16y ago
I hate "wide screens" with a passion - I call them short screens instead. My pet theory is that the LCD manufacturers like short screens better because they can sell fewer pixels while still advertising the same diagonal length.
- Qz 16y ago
  That's not a pet theory, it's simply true.
  - chairface 16y ago
    Heh, well, I can't think of a good way to prove that one, so I thought I'd be careful not to overstate my case. :)
- adolph 16y ago
  This seems counterintuitive from a math perspective.
  - Qz 16y ago
    Having a bad math day? A square gives the best number of pixels per diagonal inch. The farther you get from a square (aka the wider the screen), the less pixels you get, even if the diagonal length stays the same. You can advertise a 22 inch monitor but if it's only 1 inch tall then it's worthless.
    - petercooper 16y ago
      A 40 inch monitor that's 1 inch tall would also be useless. Besides, 4:3 screens aren't square either. Why not demand 1:1 screens? Wide screens are more aesthetically pleasing (for most, not all).
      - rythie 16y ago
        most non-wide screen 17 and 19inch monitors were 1280x1024 which was 5:4 which is even more square. I'd happily buy two 1:1 monitors (no one makes an affordable monitor with more than 2048 pixels wide).
        petercooper 16y ago
        It seems impractical to me. I'd rather just have one screen that's wide but not too tall. It's a lot easier to look across wider things than up and down tall things.
        rythie 16y ago
        1920 widescreens are not really wide enough for a webpage and a code window. A 2560 widescreen is the obvious answer but they cost 3 to 4 times as much.
        16y ago
- ryanelkins 16y ago
  Widescreens are great as long as you get one that can run at a high enough resolution that you can run things side by side (that point comes much sooner on a widescreen).
ams6110 16y ago
Are notebook users really mostly buying the notebook only to watch videos Yes, that and do a little email and Facebook. Most people who buy laptops (or any PC) are not programmers.

by acqw 16y ago

technomancy 16y ago

I've heard it has to do with the fact that the majority of demand for LCDs comes from televisions, so laptop manufacturers can't buy decent shapes anymore since they don't account for enough demand.

Periodic 16y ago

I prefer wide over tall, assuming the same area. I like to view two documents side by side, and it's nice to have two 80-column terminals open on the screen without overlap or tiny fonts. I'll also always pick two monitors over one large monitor for the ability to separate workspaces.

chairface 16y ago

I hate "wide screens" with a passion - I call them short screens instead. My pet theory is that the LCD manufacturers like short screens better because they can sell fewer pixels while still advertising the same diagonal length.

Qz 16y ago
That's not a pet theory, it's simply true.
- chairface 16y ago
  Heh, well, I can't think of a good way to prove that one, so I thought I'd be careful not to overstate my case. :)
adolph 16y ago
This seems counterintuitive from a math perspective.
- Qz 16y ago
  Having a bad math day? A square gives the best number of pixels per diagonal inch. The farther you get from a square (aka the wider the screen), the less pixels you get, even if the diagonal length stays the same. You can advertise a 22 inch monitor but if it's only 1 inch tall then it's worthless.
  - petercooper 16y ago
    A 40 inch monitor that's 1 inch tall would also be useless. Besides, 4:3 screens aren't square either. Why not demand 1:1 screens? Wide screens are more aesthetically pleasing (for most, not all).
    - rythie 16y ago
      most non-wide screen 17 and 19inch monitors were 1280x1024 which was 5:4 which is even more square. I'd happily buy two 1:1 monitors (no one makes an affordable monitor with more than 2048 pixels wide).
      - petercooper 16y ago
        It seems impractical to me. I'd rather just have one screen that's wide but not too tall. It's a lot easier to look across wider things than up and down tall things.
        rythie 16y ago
        1920 widescreens are not really wide enough for a webpage and a code window. A 2560 widescreen is the obvious answer but they cost 3 to 4 times as much.
        16y ago
ryanelkins 16y ago
Widescreens are great as long as you get one that can run at a high enough resolution that you can run things side by side (that point comes much sooner on a widescreen).

ams6110 16y ago

Are notebook users really mostly buying the notebook only to watch videos Yes, that and do a little email and Facebook. Most people who buy laptops (or any PC) are not programmers.