tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5344982184119705320.post2274761575022870150..comments2019-02-18T12:14:47.399-08:00Comments on Greg Reddick: Laptop Monitors Suck (compared to what used to be available)Greg Reddickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04469566612778276012noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5344982184119705320.post-35998120145433911712016-10-24T00:03:41.408-07:002016-10-24T00:03:41.408-07:00Nice postNice postPeter Floydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14532264814565369687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5344982184119705320.post-90982232333526783042012-01-09T13:42:38.189-08:002012-01-09T13:42:38.189-08:00To the first commenter, I'm not sure exactly w...To the first commenter, I'm not sure exactly what you're measuring vertically (inches? pixels?) but even on the previous-generation laptops (like my Dell D600 laptop or ThinkPad T60p with a 1400x1050 SXGA+ 4:3 resolution) had more vertical space and definitely more total pixels. Even 1280x1024 has more total pixels and is easier to use from a productivity or websurfing standpoint.<br /><br />Why did manufacturers downgrade to 1366x768 from SXGA+? Because widescreen TV's were becoming more affordable and popular with HD programming on cable, and it was cheaper to make and not too hard to fool the average consumer with a "cinema-like" widescreen laptop. I've watched all of one movie on a laptop, and it's definitely not better than watching it on a bigger TV or a movie theater. <br /><br />Why anyone would want a widescreen laptop over a standard screen is beyond me unless you're looking to watch movies on it. I don't watch movies at work, and I don't need to watch them on a laptop at home. Websites are typically longer vertically than horizontally, so it doesn't make any more sense to surf the web on a widescreen. The only benefit I see with a widescreen laptop is spreadsheets, but then you gain maybe one or two columns and lose at least three rows. Why do people keep buying these crappy resolution laptops? Because they're bedazzled by the "movie experience" on a laptop... which is pointless unless you're using it on a plane, which may or may not be allowed. Even hotel rooms tend to have movies, even if they're not as cheap. Regardless, SXGA+ had more vertical space, and even if you think widescreen eliminates those black bars at the top and bottom, maybe you've noticed a lot of movies still have them even on widescreen.<br /><br />Even today most new laptops are 1366x768, which is pathetic from a productivity standpoint. I think you're an idiot if you're buying a productivity machine because of it's nice movie theater-like screen... unless your job is to watch movies.dhollingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09845210455366787198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5344982184119705320.post-46492779779439583962011-07-14T04:41:04.276-07:002011-07-14T04:41:04.276-07:00"Then I looked at the measurements. They were..."Then I looked at the measurements. They were both the same. It was an opticle illusion ! If you then realize that the new screen is the 4:3 screen stretched horizontally you understand that your are getting MORE space not less. Your eyes just need to get used to the new aspect ratio. I would never go back to a 4:3 screen."<br /><br />Haha, no it doesn't work that way. You do in fact lose pixels vertically when switching from 16:10 or 4:3 to a 16:9 format. If you get a higher resolution as compared to the previous display you had then it might be possible you didn't lose any screen space vertically.<br /><br />It's insane really that people are buying into the whole "16:9 is better" bs. And it's sad for us other folks that the retailers are not offering 16:10 or 4:3 alternatives.<br /><br />I work with graphics and it's similar to coding in the way that I also need a lot of vertical screen space to work efficiently. ยจ<br /><br />99% of all computer programs are designed to work well with more vertical space. Just look at any web page basically. We browse them top to bottom. If we had browsed them side to side then things might have been different.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5344982184119705320.post-11964841430630409582011-06-16T20:14:47.812-07:002011-06-16T20:14:47.812-07:00"The new laptops use a 16:9 screen ratio rath..."The new laptops use a 16:9 screen ratio rather than a 4:3 ratio of a few years ago. This is a marketing gimmick by the LCD manufacturers"<br /><br />No,it's not. Back then I used to think the same thing. I was adament that I would NEVER buy a laptop with a 16:9 screen because you don't get much verticle space. Then a friend bought one and I measured it's verticle space compared to my old Toshibas 4:3 verticle space. When looking at them it was clear that the new 16:9 screen clearly had less verticle space. Then I looked at the measurements. They were both the same. It was an opticle illusion ! If you then realize that the new screen is the 4:3 screen stretched horizontally you understand that your are getting MORE space not less. Your eyes just need to get used to the new aspect ratio. I would never go back to a 4:3 screen.<br /><br />The 1920x1080 resolution comes from the High Definition specification. If you want to watch a movie encoded in the 1920x1080 format the best picture will be realized on a 1920x1080 screen because of the sampling rate used for the film. With a 1920x1080 screen you will get a one to one pixel mapping and no scaling or interpolating will need to be done. That's why the best "entertainment" laptops have 1920x1080 screens. It's also why the 16:9 aspect ratio has taken over.<br /><br />Let's never go back !Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com