5 ms·

> Biggest lie ever. People want 16:10, but for years the industry shove 16:9 to your customer because it was the cheaper panel. Any background on this? I always

by daptaq 5y ago

> Biggest lie ever. People want 16:10, but for years the industry shove 16:9 to your customer because it was the cheaper panel. Any background on this? I always assumed 16:9 became popular because of videos.

mschaef 5y ago
It's easier to run LCD production lines if all the panels are produced on the line at the same aspect ratio. Given the prevalence of 16:9 video panels, this made it easier to produce 16:9 panels for laptops. (So, you're essentially correct.)
- vladvasiliu 5y ago
  Does that apply across sizes? I'd expect laptop screens, having a different pixel density, to be manufactured on different lines so that having the same aspect ratio as some other size wouldn't count that much.
  - ksec 5y ago
    If the Pixel density differs ( a lot ) then yes it doesn't matter. But you still need economy of scale. This doesn't matter as much now because current LCD panel industry is essentially left over by Smartphone market. So you get a lot more flexibility than trying to print millions of the same 16:9 panels.
    - mschaef 5y ago
      Do you have any sense what share of the LCD panel industry goes to phones?
      - ksec 5y ago
        No up to date number ( Because I no longer care as much ). Before pandemic and chip shortage the trajectory was OLED will be cheaper than LCD by 2022/ 2023. That is excluding other benefits like thinner display so you could fit larger battery and higher res ( spec ) numbers for better marketing. It is only a matter of time before LCD get completely squeezed out on Smartphone.
3pt14159 5y ago
I have a MacBook Pro with 3456 × 2234 (around 16:10.5) resolution and it is perfect. I don't know why people would want laptops at 16:9 at all. I can play videos just fine on this thing and the other 95% of the time it's a better resolution for doing things like coding and spreadsheets.
- olex 5y ago
  New MBPs are exactly 16:10 for full-screen, non-"notch-aware" apps - the screen is basically 16:10 below the notch, plus the two side areas. Rather neat solution imho.
  - 3pt14159 5y ago
    Right, but I don't even notice the notch is so small. In most cases it feels like a 16:10.5 and I'm loving it.
- yodelshady 5y ago
  On a related note, how much I wish 1440 / 1600 vertical had become dominant for PCs, rather than just "bigger number better". It's so much more of a performance : sharpness sweet spot than 1080p - sorry, I can see pixel effects on a typical laptop - or 4k - which even desktops typically don't drive well.
- goosedragons 5y ago
  When it's choice between something like a 16:10 1440x900 and a 1600x900 16:9 screen I'll pick the latter every time, more resolution is more resolution. A 4K screen would give you more "space" than your MBP offers.
- NikolaNovak 5y ago
  >> I don't know why people would want laptops at 16:9 at all. I don't believe almost any of the HN audience does. The vertical crampiness of almost all the laptops is what makes a second monitor practically mandatory for me.
- slantyyz 5y ago
avidphantasm 5y ago
If you are authoring 16:9 content, something like 16:10 allows for some UI controls to be displayed along with 16:9 video at native resolution during previews. When programming, more space is better. So for creators, 16:10 is unambiguously better.
- Jedd 5y ago
  > When programming, more space is better. So for creators, 16:10 is unambiguously better. I don't think that's how space works.
  - bogwog 5y ago
    A 16:9 screen is wider than it is tall, so if you’re programming that means fewer lines of code visible at a time.
    - Jedd 5y ago
      > A 16:9 screen is wider than it is tall, so if you’re programming that means fewer lines of code visible at a time. A 16:10 screen is also wider than it is tall. I'm not sure if I'm being trolled. Number of usefully displayable lines is not defined by the x:y ratio. Further, any half-way decent 16:9 monitor can, in a matter of moments, become a 9:16 monitor. EDIT: I am aware we're talking about a laptop display, so orientation isn't flippable - but OTOH if you're trying to develop code on a 13" monitor at 1200 pixels high - your problem is not a ratio one.
      - LoveMortuus 5y ago
        16:10 is less wider, and thus gives you more vertical real estate. If it helps you understand better 16:16 would be a perfect square.
        sbarre 5y ago
        That's not how 16:10 monitors work. Every one that I've seen has the same pixel width as a 16:9 screen but more vertical pixels. 2560x1600 vs 2560x1440 for example, or 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080. These are standard panel sizes. No one is making a 1728x1080 panel to get to 16:10.

by daptaq 5y ago

mschaef 5y ago

It's easier to run LCD production lines if all the panels are produced on the line at the same aspect ratio. Given the prevalence of 16:9 video panels, this made it easier to produce 16:9 panels for laptops. (So, you're essentially correct.)

vladvasiliu 5y ago
Does that apply across sizes? I'd expect laptop screens, having a different pixel density, to be manufactured on different lines so that having the same aspect ratio as some other size wouldn't count that much.
- ksec 5y ago
  If the Pixel density differs ( a lot ) then yes it doesn't matter. But you still need economy of scale. This doesn't matter as much now because current LCD panel industry is essentially left over by Smartphone market. So you get a lot more flexibility than trying to print millions of the same 16:9 panels.
  - mschaef 5y ago
    Do you have any sense what share of the LCD panel industry goes to phones?
    - ksec 5y ago
      No up to date number ( Because I no longer care as much ). Before pandemic and chip shortage the trajectory was OLED will be cheaper than LCD by 2022/ 2023. That is excluding other benefits like thinner display so you could fit larger battery and higher res ( spec ) numbers for better marketing. It is only a matter of time before LCD get completely squeezed out on Smartphone.

3pt14159 5y ago

I have a MacBook Pro with 3456 × 2234 (around 16:10.5) resolution and it is perfect. I don't know why people would want laptops at 16:9 at all. I can play videos just fine on this thing and the other 95% of the time it's a better resolution for doing things like coding and spreadsheets.

olex 5y ago
New MBPs are exactly 16:10 for full-screen, non-"notch-aware" apps - the screen is basically 16:10 below the notch, plus the two side areas. Rather neat solution imho.
- 3pt14159 5y ago
  Right, but I don't even notice the notch is so small. In most cases it feels like a 16:10.5 and I'm loving it.
yodelshady 5y ago
On a related note, how much I wish 1440 / 1600 vertical had become dominant for PCs, rather than just "bigger number better". It's so much more of a performance : sharpness sweet spot than 1080p - sorry, I can see pixel effects on a typical laptop - or 4k - which even desktops typically don't drive well.
goosedragons 5y ago
When it's choice between something like a 16:10 1440x900 and a 1600x900 16:9 screen I'll pick the latter every time, more resolution is more resolution. A 4K screen would give you more "space" than your MBP offers.
NikolaNovak 5y ago
>> I don't know why people would want laptops at 16:9 at all. I don't believe almost any of the HN audience does. The vertical crampiness of almost all the laptops is what makes a second monitor practically mandatory for me.
slantyyz 5y ago

avidphantasm 5y ago

If you are authoring 16:9 content, something like 16:10 allows for some UI controls to be displayed along with 16:9 video at native resolution during previews. When programming, more space is better. So for creators, 16:10 is unambiguously better.

Jedd 5y ago
> When programming, more space is better. So for creators, 16:10 is unambiguously better. I don't think that's how space works.
- bogwog 5y ago
  A 16:9 screen is wider than it is tall, so if you’re programming that means fewer lines of code visible at a time.
  - Jedd 5y ago
    > A 16:9 screen is wider than it is tall, so if you’re programming that means fewer lines of code visible at a time. A 16:10 screen is also wider than it is tall. I'm not sure if I'm being trolled. Number of usefully displayable lines is not defined by the x:y ratio. Further, any half-way decent 16:9 monitor can, in a matter of moments, become a 9:16 monitor. EDIT: I am aware we're talking about a laptop display, so orientation isn't flippable - but OTOH if you're trying to develop code on a 13" monitor at 1200 pixels high - your problem is not a ratio one.
    - LoveMortuus 5y ago
      16:10 is less wider, and thus gives you more vertical real estate. If it helps you understand better 16:16 would be a perfect square.
      - sbarre 5y ago
        That's not how 16:10 monitors work. Every one that I've seen has the same pixel width as a 16:9 screen but more vertical pixels. 2560x1600 vs 2560x1440 for example, or 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080. These are standard panel sizes. No one is making a 1728x1080 panel to get to 16:10.