4 ms·

3 years later the situation is even worse. Not only has 4:3 disappeared entirely, 16:10 is going away too in favor of 16:9 (apparently, I hear, this is because

by paol 16y ago

3 years later the situation is even worse. Not only has 4:3 disappeared entirely, 16:10 is going away too in favor of 16:9 (apparently, I hear, this is because the 16:9 form factor allows better yields in the lcd manufacturing process). This wouldn't be much of a problem in 17" screens or above but below - which is where most portable devices fall - the 16:9 form factor feels like peeking at the world through a slit. When I got a new 15" laptop last year I picked an older model that had just been discontinued, because it's successor moved from 16:10 to 16:9. Of course what I really wanted was a 14" 4:3 but you can't have that for any amount of money.

rjprins 16y ago
Exactly, a year ago I was looking for a small portable laptop and definitely wanted a Thinkpad. I could choose the X300, X200s or an old, second-hand X61s with 4:3 screen ratio. Then I saw this image: http://www.notebookreview.com/assets/34872.jpg http://www.notebookreview.com/assets/34872.jpg It's so obvious what is best for small laptops. X61s is smaller and has more screen real-estate compared to the 4 times more expensive X300. I think even if Lenovo wanted to go back to 4:3, they can't because of the screen manufacturers. Another side-effect of the small laptops having widescreen is the lack of wrist support.
- paol 16y ago
  "if Lenovo wanted to go back to 4:3, they can't because of the screen manufacturers" They certainly can, they (or anyone) just would be at a disadvantage in terms of price because of volume (and manufacturing cost, if what I wrote above is to be believed). Considering that laptops are the kind of market where most people only look at price(1), that's not good business. (1) Except for apple of course. The only think they are better at than design is branding, and they've branded themselves above the price fray.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
shimon 16y ago
I did the same thing - bought an older 16:10 model to avoid having to go 16:9. I have a Thinkpad W500 with a 1920x1200 15" screen. If 4:3 screens were still available, I'd have bought one of those. On the bright side, if you're shopping for a discontinued model and screen resolution is more important that other stuff, you can get a phenomenal deal.
- jamesbritt 16y ago
  Where? I'm looking to get W500 but reluctant to go ebay or some no-name discount site.
  - jamesbritt 16y ago
    Found a few different configurations on Provantage :)
jerf 16y ago
"3 years later the situation is even worse." It's even worse even worse. 2007 you probably could still get a higher-quality LCD than TN, though it was becoming a significant challenge. Now it's flat-out impossible, as near as I can tell. If you care about display quality just about your only choice is WLED or Dell's BGR-LCD, which tends to be only intermittently available from them anyhow. These are better than a standard TN display, in that there at least exist angles you can view a 15" or 17" screen without being able to see glaringly-obvious color fade on the top and bottom of the screen, but they're still not perfect. I just got a Studio 17 with that; 15 is your only other choice but for some reason it was much more expensive and I couldn't justify it. (I am a fairly large man, 6'4"-ish, so a 17" laptop is much more comfortable for me than most, I actually sort of like it but I very much believe I'm the exception. Seeing this machine on my wife's lap is a bit comical looking, especially now that I'm used to seeing the little netbook.) On the bright side, 17" laptops are nowhere near as clunky as they were in 2007. They're still 17", of course. Unfortunately, my first "real" laptop, I accidentally acquired an IPS-based laptop, and it has spoiled me. All I wanted was the higher res, got the higher quality without even knowing there were quality grades at the time. Resolutions I don't care about as much. My preferred layout is two emacs windows next to each other and I often chop those in half vertically anyhow. At 1920x1080 I can get three next to each other. Terminal off to the side (covering what usually ends up being the tertiary window anyhow), web browser and associated stuff on another virtual desktop one keystroke away. I don't mind the widescreen at all, but if your preferred editor has stronger ideas about screen layout I could see how it would be annoying.
- jseliger 16y ago
  It's even worse even worse. 2007 you probably could still get a higher-quality LCD than TN, though it was becoming a significant challenge. Now it's flat-out impossible, as near as I can tell. I'm pleased to note that it's NOT flat-out impossible: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4049/hp-elitebook-8740w-ips-on-the-go http://www.anandtech.com/show/4049/hp-elitebook-8740w-ips-on... . It's just really expensive. I think the version of the IPS HP laptop Anandtech tested is something like $5K, and the defaults are something like $3.5K. But if you've gotta have it...
  - 16y ago

by paol 16y ago

rjprins 16y ago

Exactly, a year ago I was looking for a small portable laptop and definitely wanted a Thinkpad. I could choose the X300, X200s or an old, second-hand X61s with 4:3 screen ratio. Then I saw this image: http://www.notebookreview.com/assets/34872.jpg http://www.notebookreview.com/assets/34872.jpg It's so obvious what is best for small laptops. X61s is smaller and has more screen real-estate compared to the 4 times more expensive X300. I think even if Lenovo wanted to go back to 4:3, they can't because of the screen manufacturers. Another side-effect of the small laptops having widescreen is the lack of wrist support.

paol 16y ago
"if Lenovo wanted to go back to 4:3, they can't because of the screen manufacturers" They certainly can, they (or anyone) just would be at a disadvantage in terms of price because of volume (and manufacturing cost, if what I wrote above is to be believed). Considering that laptops are the kind of market where most people only look at price(1), that's not good business. (1) Except for apple of course. The only think they are better at than design is branding, and they've branded themselves above the price fray.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

shimon 16y ago

I did the same thing - bought an older 16:10 model to avoid having to go 16:9. I have a Thinkpad W500 with a 1920x1200 15" screen. If 4:3 screens were still available, I'd have bought one of those. On the bright side, if you're shopping for a discontinued model and screen resolution is more important that other stuff, you can get a phenomenal deal.

jamesbritt 16y ago
Where? I'm looking to get W500 but reluctant to go ebay or some no-name discount site.
- jamesbritt 16y ago
  Found a few different configurations on Provantage :)

jerf 16y ago

"3 years later the situation is even worse." It's even worse even worse. 2007 you probably could still get a higher-quality LCD than TN, though it was becoming a significant challenge. Now it's flat-out impossible, as near as I can tell. If you care about display quality just about your only choice is WLED or Dell's BGR-LCD, which tends to be only intermittently available from them anyhow. These are better than a standard TN display, in that there at least exist angles you can view a 15" or 17" screen without being able to see glaringly-obvious color fade on the top and bottom of the screen, but they're still not perfect. I just got a Studio 17 with that; 15 is your only other choice but for some reason it was much more expensive and I couldn't justify it. (I am a fairly large man, 6'4"-ish, so a 17" laptop is much more comfortable for me than most, I actually sort of like it but I very much believe I'm the exception. Seeing this machine on my wife's lap is a bit comical looking, especially now that I'm used to seeing the little netbook.) On the bright side, 17" laptops are nowhere near as clunky as they were in 2007. They're still 17", of course. Unfortunately, my first "real" laptop, I accidentally acquired an IPS-based laptop, and it has spoiled me. All I wanted was the higher res, got the higher quality without even knowing there were quality grades at the time. Resolutions I don't care about as much. My preferred layout is two emacs windows next to each other and I often chop those in half vertically anyhow. At 1920x1080 I can get three next to each other. Terminal off to the side (covering what usually ends up being the tertiary window anyhow), web browser and associated stuff on another virtual desktop one keystroke away. I don't mind the widescreen at all, but if your preferred editor has stronger ideas about screen layout I could see how it would be annoying.

jseliger 16y ago
It's even worse even worse. 2007 you probably could still get a higher-quality LCD than TN, though it was becoming a significant challenge. Now it's flat-out impossible, as near as I can tell. I'm pleased to note that it's NOT flat-out impossible: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4049/hp-elitebook-8740w-ips-on-the-go http://www.anandtech.com/show/4049/hp-elitebook-8740w-ips-on... . It's just really expensive. I think the version of the IPS HP laptop Anandtech tested is something like $5K, and the defaults are something like $3.5K. But if you've gotta have it...
- 16y ago