4 ms·

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

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.
    - pkamb 15y ago
      Computer/laptop monitors didn't switch directly from 4:3 -> 16:9. They moved from 4:3 -> 16:10 -> 16:9. And the switch to 16:9 happened because of panel cutting and cost, not because of consumer demand. From the link in my previous post, Lenovo could not keep using 4:3 screens because they had "all but disappeared from the market." The vast majority of netbooks released in the 2007-2010 range were widescreen, so I don't know where you're getting this idea that 4:3 screens were easier for Apple to source for the iPad. Or the claim that non-Apple tablet makers aren't simply choosing the cheaper and more common screen format. None of the mass-produced Android tablets have the same form factor as the proven hit, 60+ million units sold iPad. Why?
      - huggyface 15y ago
        None of the mass-produced Android tablets have the same form factor as the proven hit, 60+ million units sold iPad. Why? Aside from some dirty cheap Archos 4:3 tablets (which were actually 4:3, and still dirt cheap, before Apple unveiled the mighty iPad), they don't because it isn't a benefit. Again you're drawing from the notion that Apple's choice is right and everyone else's is wrong, which is a pretty questionable starting point. Regarding the cost-cutting, it absolutely was cost-cutting to move from 16:10 to 16:9, and few complained because really is it different enough for many to care? It was not cost cutting to move from 4:3 to 16:10 beyond that users demanded a wide screen overwhelmingly, not least because playing video on our desktop became so common.

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.
  - pkamb 15y ago
    Computer/laptop monitors didn't switch directly from 4:3 -> 16:9. They moved from 4:3 -> 16:10 -> 16:9. And the switch to 16:9 happened because of panel cutting and cost, not because of consumer demand. From the link in my previous post, Lenovo could not keep using 4:3 screens because they had "all but disappeared from the market." The vast majority of netbooks released in the 2007-2010 range were widescreen, so I don't know where you're getting this idea that 4:3 screens were easier for Apple to source for the iPad. Or the claim that non-Apple tablet makers aren't simply choosing the cheaper and more common screen format. None of the mass-produced Android tablets have the same form factor as the proven hit, 60+ million units sold iPad. Why?
    - huggyface 15y ago
      None of the mass-produced Android tablets have the same form factor as the proven hit, 60+ million units sold iPad. Why? Aside from some dirty cheap Archos 4:3 tablets (which were actually 4:3, and still dirt cheap, before Apple unveiled the mighty iPad), they don't because it isn't a benefit. Again you're drawing from the notion that Apple's choice is right and everyone else's is wrong, which is a pretty questionable starting point. Regarding the cost-cutting, it absolutely was cost-cutting to move from 16:10 to 16:9, and few complained because really is it different enough for many to care? It was not cost cutting to move from 4:3 to 16:10 beyond that users demanded a wide screen overwhelmingly, not least because playing video on our desktop became so common.