4 ms·

A world of users seem to disagree with you. Maybe it isn't quite as ridiculous as you hold it to be.

tomflack 15y ago
The users don't have a choice for the most part and it's a small enough difference that most don't know about it. That doesn't mean it doesn't negatively impact people. If you want a non-16:9 laptop you have to buy Apple.
- jamesbritt 15y ago
  When my WUXGA-screen Dell Lattitude failed I went looking for a replacement. But Dell decided to stop offering ~15" WUXGA screen laptops; it was all "wide screen" (aka "short screen") now, which meant the loss of a row of 200 pixels. I ended up getting a Thinkpad W500 from a Lenovo outlet. I should probably start looking for replacement parts now because when this one goes bad I'll again have to fight against whatever the media-consuming, non-developer market is being sold.
- huggyface 15y ago
  The users don't have a choice for the most part The migration of the monitor industry to 16:9 wasn't one sided. Given the option between 4:3 and 16:9, users overwhelmingly chose 16:9. Eventually the demand was so unbalanced that 4:3 became less common. Really the notion that manufacturers, except for brave Apple, unilaterally decided to force this on users is completely asinine. The GP claimed that it was "ridiculous". What horse shit.
  - Symmetry 15y ago
    I wonder how much of that is due to the fact that it cheaper to make a "15 inch" 16:9 screen than a "15 inch" 4:3 screen. The later is bigger, but your typical consumer shopping based on marketing materials won't be able to figure that out.
  - pkamb 15y ago
    But consumers did not choose 16:9 over 16:10, because consumers cannot tell the difference. We can thank TV panels for that switch: LENOVO: "Again, we can thank the LCD manufacturers for this change. By cutting everything in the same aspect ratio, they have less waste per large sheet of glass. Since these manufacturers make more selling TV displays than laptop displays, the PC vendors have almost zero say in this change. We simply have to adapt." http://blog.lenovo.com/perspectives/display-ratio-change-again http://blog.lenovo.com/perspectives/display-ratio-change-aga... > Really the notion that manufacturers, except for brave Apple, unilaterally decided to force this on users is completely asinine. In the case of the iPad, it's completely true. Apple decided that 4:3 screens were the best form factor for a hand-held tablet. So they made 4:3 happen, rather than settle for common and cheaper 16:9 or 16:10 screens. Guess what ratio Android tablets use.
    - huggyface 15y ago
      This has nothing to do with 16:9 or 16:10. This is 16:9 over 4:3. In the case of the iPad, it's completely true. Apple decided that 4:3 screens were the best form factor for a hand-held tablet. I have both an Android tablet (A500 with ICS) and an iPad 3rd generation. I -- without doubt -- prefer the form factor of the A500, not just because it presents a much better experience when viewing videos. It's simply a better form factor. Apple is not all knowing, and their reasons for choosing their form factor are, as always, more nuanced than what is "right". So they made 4:3 happen, rather than settle for common and cheaper 16:9 or 16:10 screens. Guess what ratio Android tablets use. When Apple made the iPad pretty much the only 10.1" screen was a 4:3 1024x768 netbook screen. The claim that "Android" (and every other tablet maker) chose the cheaper screen -- one that didn't even exist -- is a bit hard to stomach.
      - RandallBrown 15y ago
        I think a 4:3 screen is much better than 16:9 for a tablet, especially if you're holding it in portrait mode, which is usually how I try and hold a tablet. It's like a piece of paper. 4:3 is simply a better form factor (see what I did there). To each their own.
      - 15y ago
pkamb 15y ago
So glad the specs of pro development/business machines like the aforementioned Dells and ThinkPads are being influenced by the $299 laptops at BestBuy.
gurkendoktor 15y ago
For the opinion of the majority to be meaningful we would need similarly priced choices. I have a glossy, wide display because that's the only 13" OS X computer money can buy. Please don't include me in an argument by majority. :(

The users don't have a choice for the most part and it's a small enough difference that most don't know about it. That doesn't mean it doesn't negatively impact people. If you want a non-16:9 laptop you have to buy Apple.

jamesbritt 15y ago
When my WUXGA-screen Dell Lattitude failed I went looking for a replacement. But Dell decided to stop offering ~15" WUXGA screen laptops; it was all "wide screen" (aka "short screen") now, which meant the loss of a row of 200 pixels. I ended up getting a Thinkpad W500 from a Lenovo outlet. I should probably start looking for replacement parts now because when this one goes bad I'll again have to fight against whatever the media-consuming, non-developer market is being sold.
huggyface 15y ago
The users don't have a choice for the most part The migration of the monitor industry to 16:9 wasn't one sided. Given the option between 4:3 and 16:9, users overwhelmingly chose 16:9. Eventually the demand was so unbalanced that 4:3 became less common. Really the notion that manufacturers, except for brave Apple, unilaterally decided to force this on users is completely asinine. The GP claimed that it was "ridiculous". What horse shit.
- Symmetry 15y ago
  I wonder how much of that is due to the fact that it cheaper to make a "15 inch" 16:9 screen than a "15 inch" 4:3 screen. The later is bigger, but your typical consumer shopping based on marketing materials won't be able to figure that out.
- pkamb 15y ago
  But consumers did not choose 16:9 over 16:10, because consumers cannot tell the difference. We can thank TV panels for that switch: LENOVO: "Again, we can thank the LCD manufacturers for this change. By cutting everything in the same aspect ratio, they have less waste per large sheet of glass. Since these manufacturers make more selling TV displays than laptop displays, the PC vendors have almost zero say in this change. We simply have to adapt." http://blog.lenovo.com/perspectives/display-ratio-change-again http://blog.lenovo.com/perspectives/display-ratio-change-aga... > Really the notion that manufacturers, except for brave Apple, unilaterally decided to force this on users is completely asinine. In the case of the iPad, it's completely true. Apple decided that 4:3 screens were the best form factor for a hand-held tablet. So they made 4:3 happen, rather than settle for common and cheaper 16:9 or 16:10 screens. Guess what ratio Android tablets use.
  - huggyface 15y ago
    This has nothing to do with 16:9 or 16:10. This is 16:9 over 4:3. In the case of the iPad, it's completely true. Apple decided that 4:3 screens were the best form factor for a hand-held tablet. I have both an Android tablet (A500 with ICS) and an iPad 3rd generation. I -- without doubt -- prefer the form factor of the A500, not just because it presents a much better experience when viewing videos. It's simply a better form factor. Apple is not all knowing, and their reasons for choosing their form factor are, as always, more nuanced than what is "right". So they made 4:3 happen, rather than settle for common and cheaper 16:9 or 16:10 screens. Guess what ratio Android tablets use. When Apple made the iPad pretty much the only 10.1" screen was a 4:3 1024x768 netbook screen. The claim that "Android" (and every other tablet maker) chose the cheaper screen -- one that didn't even exist -- is a bit hard to stomach.
    - RandallBrown 15y ago
      I think a 4:3 screen is much better than 16:9 for a tablet, especially if you're holding it in portrait mode, which is usually how I try and hold a tablet. It's like a piece of paper. 4:3 is simply a better form factor (see what I did there). To each their own.
    - 15y ago

pkamb 15y ago

So glad the specs of pro development/business machines like the aforementioned Dells and ThinkPads are being influenced by the $299 laptops at BestBuy.

gurkendoktor 15y ago

For the opinion of the majority to be meaningful we would need similarly priced choices. I have a glossy, wide display because that's the only 13" OS X computer money can buy. Please don't include me in an argument by majority. :(