4 ms·

Slightly off topic, but does it annoy anybody else that when TVs "upgraded" to 1920x1080 as de facto standard, computer screens were downgraded from 1920x1200 a

by tbe 14y ago

Slightly off topic, but does it annoy anybody else that when TVs "upgraded" to 1920x1080 as de facto standard, computer screens were downgraded from 1920x1200 as a consequence? Why do computers need to be 16:9 all of a sudden??

Symmetry 14y ago
Because it allows laptop manufacturers to claim that they have a FOO inch screen while not having to pay for as much screen surface area.
- tjoff 14y ago
  This. And nothing else. Why oh why do we measure screen size diagonally and not area or something that actually makes sense.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- technomancy 14y ago
  I've heard the excuse that they have to buy LCDs from companies whose primary customers are TV manufacturers. The end result is the same of course, but the laptop manufacturers would have to cut their LCDs in shapes that would result in waste to produce machines with reasonable aspect ratios. (Of course what this means practically is that I'm just not going to buy a new computer, so whatever.)
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    Everybody says this, but it doesn't make any sense. They don't sell 1080p TVs at small screen sizes. A 15" or 17" 1080p panel is not getting sold to a TV manufacturer.
raverbashing 14y ago
I suppose the issue is slightly deeper than "users want to see their movies without letterboxing" Sure, you could simply slap any resolution in a PC monitor. But if you keep the aspect rate constant across devices, you can easily change displays. Why? Example: 2nd monitor, and especially the big screen TVs that are being used in place of projectors nowadays. Funny that the 13' MacBooks (Pro/Air) still have a 1.6 (16:10) ratio, and the 11' has a 16:9 ratio
fein 14y ago
I truthfully think that the fault for this lies entirely with the consumer. People got used to/ were told that widescreen 16:9 setups were like being in the movie theater, and therefore better. I don't much like this, however I don't speak for the largest demographic of people that actually buy monitors. I do know that I much prefer gaming and coding on a square display.
pook1e 14y ago
Laptops are still used as a media device for many, so mimicking the resolution of televisions makes sense in those cases. Personally, I prefer a 16:10 screen because I spend more time programming than watching videos on my laptop, but I'm sure there are plenty that beg to differ. You can still buy laptops with 16:10 aspect ratio, but I think the people that explicitly prefer it are the minority at this point. I'd say most people don't really care.
- tzs 14y ago
  > Laptops are still used as a media device for many, so mimicking the resolution of televisions make sense in those cases. Actually, laptops as media devices is an argument against having the same resolution as televisions. When one watches a television, one generally operates the television and media source via a remote control, which has dedicated buttons for most functions. When using a laptop for a media device, one generally does not have a remote control. The controls are usually done as on-screen controls that you manipulate with the pointer. Hence, for a laptop used as a media device, 16:10 makes more sense than 16:9, because it provides room for the controls outside the video.
  - pook1e 14y ago
    Aren't the on screen controls almost always hidden? The only time I could see them actually getting in the way would be while adjusting the volume, but I'm fairly certain most (if not almost all) laptops come with hardware volume buttons nowadays anyways.
mhurron 14y ago
> Why do computers need to be 16:9 all of a sudden?? Because most consumers are just users and they don't want to see black bars when they watch a movie.
- Arelius 14y ago
  I think that you mean that most users are just consumers.
zobzu 14y ago
It cost less for production. I eventually just accepted it.
culturestate 14y ago
Yep, I'm right there with you. Luckily Dell's still got 1920x1200 in their UltrSharp line.

by tbe 14y ago

Symmetry 14y ago

Because it allows laptop manufacturers to claim that they have a FOO inch screen while not having to pay for as much screen surface area.

tjoff 14y ago
This. And nothing else. Why oh why do we measure screen size diagonally and not area or something that actually makes sense.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
technomancy 14y ago
I've heard the excuse that they have to buy LCDs from companies whose primary customers are TV manufacturers. The end result is the same of course, but the laptop manufacturers would have to cut their LCDs in shapes that would result in waste to produce machines with reasonable aspect ratios. (Of course what this means practically is that I'm just not going to buy a new computer, so whatever.)
- tedunangst 14y ago
  Everybody says this, but it doesn't make any sense. They don't sell 1080p TVs at small screen sizes. A 15" or 17" 1080p panel is not getting sold to a TV manufacturer.

raverbashing 14y ago

I suppose the issue is slightly deeper than "users want to see their movies without letterboxing" Sure, you could simply slap any resolution in a PC monitor. But if you keep the aspect rate constant across devices, you can easily change displays. Why? Example: 2nd monitor, and especially the big screen TVs that are being used in place of projectors nowadays. Funny that the 13' MacBooks (Pro/Air) still have a 1.6 (16:10) ratio, and the 11' has a 16:9 ratio

fein 14y ago

I truthfully think that the fault for this lies entirely with the consumer. People got used to/ were told that widescreen 16:9 setups were like being in the movie theater, and therefore better. I don't much like this, however I don't speak for the largest demographic of people that actually buy monitors. I do know that I much prefer gaming and coding on a square display.

pook1e 14y ago

Laptops are still used as a media device for many, so mimicking the resolution of televisions makes sense in those cases. Personally, I prefer a 16:10 screen because I spend more time programming than watching videos on my laptop, but I'm sure there are plenty that beg to differ. You can still buy laptops with 16:10 aspect ratio, but I think the people that explicitly prefer it are the minority at this point. I'd say most people don't really care.

tzs 14y ago
> Laptops are still used as a media device for many, so mimicking the resolution of televisions make sense in those cases. Actually, laptops as media devices is an argument against having the same resolution as televisions. When one watches a television, one generally operates the television and media source via a remote control, which has dedicated buttons for most functions. When using a laptop for a media device, one generally does not have a remote control. The controls are usually done as on-screen controls that you manipulate with the pointer. Hence, for a laptop used as a media device, 16:10 makes more sense than 16:9, because it provides room for the controls outside the video.
- pook1e 14y ago
  Aren't the on screen controls almost always hidden? The only time I could see them actually getting in the way would be while adjusting the volume, but I'm fairly certain most (if not almost all) laptops come with hardware volume buttons nowadays anyways.

mhurron 14y ago

> Why do computers need to be 16:9 all of a sudden?? Because most consumers are just users and they don't want to see black bars when they watch a movie.

Arelius 14y ago
I think that you mean that most users are just consumers.

zobzu 14y ago

It cost less for production. I eventually just accepted it.

culturestate 14y ago

Yep, I'm right there with you. Luckily Dell's still got 1920x1200 in their UltrSharp line.