16:10 vs 4:3 displays on notebooks

Sorry for starting another thread but I wanted to point out a trend I've been seeing on this board and other boards discussing 16:10 notebooks.

Gamers and true mobile notebook users tend to speak out against 17" 16:10 notebooks. The gamers don't like them because they think their games won't support 16:10. Mobile users don't like them b/c they think they are too wide and probably too heavy (or because they can't find a carrying case for it). These fears are valid but they do not warrant speaking out against these machines. Currently we have a choice among several options from desktops to pdas. If you don't like one of the options, don't trash talk it, just don't buy it.

For gamers, 16:10 will most likely be supported on future games. Some already support it. I'm not really a gamer but I would much rather play on a wide screen that matches my natural field of vision than on a 4:3 display. I'm guessing that in a short time, gamers will complain if a game is 4:3.

For mobile users (this isn't really the target audience since Sager's are already huge), maybe, just maybe the 17" wide notebooks aren't made for you? Buy something else! Mobile users should really push for lcd glasses anyway. That would solve the space and probably the weight issue as well - I know I know, lcd glasses with a decent resolution are currently heavy.

I have a SERIOUS need for a 17" notebook with a high resolution and I believe most content creators, multimedia developers, and software developers share the same need. I am semi-mobile. I want a single unit machine to cut down on space, weight, and wires. I need the 17" wide display for the WUXGA resolution (doesn't currently exist). 15.4 inches with WUXGA is too small (look at a dell 8500 or D800) for me.

Anyway, keep in mind that not all of us are gamers or completely mobile users.

PS I must say I am very grateful for both of those types of users though. Gamers have pushed manufacturers to make outstanding graphics chips while mobile users have pushed manufacturers to make lighter more power efficient machines.

Mrkat I honestly don't know if I was talking about you. My post was a reaction to some posts on this board and many other similar boards that weren't simply opinions. I am not saying people shouldn't express their opinions. By all means people can post whatever they want.

As for the 'half-height display', a 17" display @1920x1200 still has the same pixel height as a 16.1"@1600x1200. You would see the same information but have an additional area of 320x1200. If you are talking about the WXGA displays like the 17" Apple or Clevo @1440x900, then I agree with you. I would rather have a 15" 1400x1050 (SXGA+) display than the apple display.

Direwolf, this doesn't make sense. The 17" 4:3 display would actually have a larger area than the 17" 16:10 display. If you are 'against widescreen' why would you get a widescreen 8888?

Also please explain why you are 'against widescreen'.

I said I wasn't a gamer but I didn't claim ignorance

What you have said is true but I believe games will be written to support various resolutions from doubling to various letterboxing as well as full resolution but I know these may not satisfy all gamers.

Well, fine but it's really a 16:10 display, not 16:9. You should probably give a reason why it's a mistake instead of stating it, otherwise it won't lead to constructive discussion.

Yeah, I think they will stop at a certain size and then concentrate on materials and resolution. At that point (even now really) there will be a need for a real vector based windowing system. OSX is an example of this.

? I'll assume it's serious question... sorry if it was just a joke:

Vector based windowing systems would allow you to zoom in/out without losing relative dimensions. Right now Windows allows you to do vectoring on fonts (dpi) but that won't be enough for the future. Every object in the windowing system (except for bit maps) should be represented as a vector graphic meaning they are defined relative to each other and can be scaled at will. Maybe you are familiar with Macromedia Fireworks which uses PNG to define graphics. That is a vector based system. A likely candidate for operating system use is SVG (scalable vector graphics) which is stored in XML.

Anyway, if you ran XP on a 17" display @10000x75000, it would be unusable. You wouldn't be able to see the mouse without a magnifying glass. You could jack up the dpi so that the text is legible but you still wouldn't be able to see the icons, window edges, etc. With a vector based system, you wouldn't just change dpi for fonts but the ENTIRE display. So you could crank up the dpi and everything would become larger.

So there wouldn't be an issue with choosing 15" SXGA+ vs. 16" UXGA or whatever. You would simply want the highest screen resolution possible regardless of size. Then you could scale your desktop to whatever DPI that suites you. Granted, there will be a pixel smoothing issue but at such high resolutions it won't really matter.

It's definitely the future. Apple knows it. MS knows it too but they won't make changes until it's absolutely necessary - b/c it requires a huge rewrite for the windowing system.

No, it's not faulty logic. That's exactly what I'm saying. Faulty logic is coming from Samsung, Sony, and Apple who advertise some of their wide displays as being so spacious and capable of display more info (like spreadsheets) than usual when in fact the horizontal pixel height is reduced from a common 1024 to 900!

e.g.
1280x1024 vs. 1440x900

Now that's faulty logic. But I'm comparing
UXGA 1600x1200
to
WUXGA 1920x1200

I NEED the extra pixel area even if the physical screen area is slightly smaller (my eyes can handle the density). I would leave the dpi at the normal 96.

You keep saying half height and 16:9. It's neither half height nor 16:9. Go look at a 17" Apple notebook next to a Sony 16.1" (imagine that the Apple has 1920x1200 instead of 1440x900). The Apple is 16:10 (not 16:9) and the height is not even close to 'half'.

oh man... yes you can but at a reduced resolution just like you can view 4:3 on 16:9. Anyway, IT'S 16:10 not 16:9 that we are talking about.

As a side note, not many movies are actually shot in 16:9 There are a variety of ratios that are closer to 16:9 than 4:3 but they are not 16:9. When the DVD is made, they make a choice to letterbox or pan and scan to fit a particular ration. Also, most wide screen TVs are 16:10 and not 16:9. I am happy that computer manufacturers have chosen 16:10 as a standard.