NotebookCHECK - Notebook Forum

Hm...
GOOD
16:9 is terrible tight for productivity, it's even too tight for gaming apart from dull shooters with no verticality like counterstrike or F1, just a dumb idea pushed by the film industry.

Great.  Now make it standard for desktop monitors AGAIN as well.    Going to 16x9 was a horrible mistake.

well, maybe its just the USA manufacturers realising its a METRIC world out there... 16:10 is close to A4 ratio.. Given up on Microsoft though,  25 years and the still cannot get the metric paper sizes right in their software..(check A4 slide dimensions in Powerpoint}

I've always found these debates about what is the one true superior ratio a bit weird. It depends on the specific application. And by application, I don't mean anything as broad as "multimedia editing" or "office work" - I mean, it depends which specific task you're trying to carry out, what program you're using, and how you want to configure the layout of that program. Chances are you carry out a variety of different tasks throughout your day, and each one would benefit from a different ratio. Some documents/content/media are tall, some are wide; some programs have top bars, some have sidebars.

Writing or reading a long article, or programming? you'll probably want 3:2 or taller.
Spreadsheets? Well it would clearly depend on the format of the documents as these can be oriented either way.
Graphics program with a sidebar? 16:9 or 16:10 is good.

But with any of the above, if you want programs side-by-side e.g. reference material next to working document, 21:9 would be better.

And there are not many lines of work where you'll be limited to a range of tasks that all have the same ideal ratio - chances are you'll be switching between tasks where you'll want a wider screen and tasks where you want a taller screen. Compromise is the name of the game.

But the difference between 16:9 and 10 is minuscule - depending on how you look at it, a 11% increase in height or a 10% decrease in width (in resolution terms, I expect it to always be the former - otherwise we get 3456x2160..)

As an architect, I use a lot of 3D and graphics programs, plus the occasional excel or word, and it's not unusual for me to want to split my screen. If I get the XPS, I'll be very happy about the extra 240px height, but if someone offered an extra 400px (or whatever) in width instead, I would be just as happy.

The solution? a screen that unrolls. extra height or width, whenever you need it. one day...

Quote from: cajbo on July 16, 2020, 11:33:40
I've always found these debates about what is the one true superior ratio a bit weird. It depends on the specific application...

I don't have a problem with 16:9 as long as the display is big enough. And has appropriate resolution. It gives me the vertical space I want for work and the extra horizontal space can come in handy - it can replace separate monitors without any bezels in the way (it's great when you can easily partition and organize the screen). 21:9 could be even better but it's a struggle to get a big enough screen to have the vertical space I want and the resolutions are not great either.

In a laptop, what I find ridiculous is the big bottom bezel you tend to get with 16:9. Because you still have keyboard and touchpad. The chassis would probably fit a 8:5 screen. From experience, I know that 8:5 15.4" is good enough for me. To get the same vertical space in a 16:9 format, I would have to go with a 17.3" laptop. Those are significantly bigger and the selection is even more limited. In smaller laptops, 3:2 would be preferable. I can live with narrower screen (I use the extra width for ancillaries while I always use the full height for my primary working space, I never split height). Vertical space is critical for me (I primarily work with text). Essentially, aspect ratio dictates how small I can go on a laptop (up to a point). A smaller screen can have the same resolution and display the same thing, but it's going to be smaller and therefore more difficult to see.

8:5 is actually pretty close to the golden ratio (it's roughly 1.618 and 8:5 is 1.6). And it's true that I find 8:5 pretty pleasing. 16:9 looks to me unnaturally narrow. In a cinema, I have no problem with a very wide screen. In a laptop, no, thank you.

I'm one of those people who consume a hell of a lot of media content (movies and 16:9 locked games such as visual novels), and while I would prefer a 16:10 screen for work stuff, I would really want it to be OLED (effectively having no black bars is nice). Yet unfortunately there is only one laptop OLED display around and it doesn't seem like Samsung is too interested to make it 3840:2400...

I've been waiting for this news for years!

I have been using the m17xR2 for 8 years now, and recently saw the $4k ProArt StudioBook Pro 17 with - finally - a 16:10 screen ratio.
I see now thanks to your article that I have more options with e.g. the XPS 17 series, and I'll definitely look at what other brands will be making before finally upgrading my setup!

Also, The difference between 16:10 and 16:9 is 120 additional lines of pixels on a FullHD screen. I do watch movies, but also Anime (sometimes 16:9 and sometimes 4:3), and I don't care about bezels, but when I use my laptop for something else (like, 90% of the time), I really LOVE these additional 120 lines.

This article is written as if 16:10 laptops and monitors weren't made by DELL and others 10 years ago before disappearing 5 years ago only to return this year because 16:9 is inadequate for anything except watching video.

I hope the same trend comes to cell phones as well, 16:9 was already narrow, now they're all 18:9 or 19:9... very high but too narrow.  As soon as you increase the size of characters you end up with only a couple of words per line...

I'm missing the 16:10 ratio from my Microsoft Lumia 950XL.