screen aspect ratio:
166:100 (horizontal length:vertical length) >> laptop, desktop, tv
166:74 (vertical length:horizontal length) >> mobile
166:126 (horizontal length:vertical length) >> tablet (landscape)
166:152 (vertical length:horizontal length) >> watch
166:152 (horizontal length:vertical length) >> foldable mobile (when open)

Quote from: _MT_ on October 25, 2021, 15:00:14

Quote from: diagonals on October 22, 2021, 01:19:16diagonals are of no use, if there is no std screen aspect ratio for all brands of screens; either laptops, pc monitors, tv screens, pads, mobile phones, ...

Diagonal is just as useful as width if you have a given aspect ratio. But a diagonal captures both width and height. In an obscure fashion. That's the advantage it has over just width. Width tells you nothing whatsoever about height. Diagonal anchors both width and height. It doesn't tell you what exactly they are but they are bound; you know where the numbers must fall. If a diagonal is 40 cm, then height can't be 90 cm. Just can't. Both width and height have to be within 40 cm.

But they are. Or were. To an extent. Nowadays, we have more options than ever. But historically, aspect ratios were pretty fixed and slow changing. TV broadcast used to be 4:3. Now it's 16:9. Cinema has their favourite aspect ratios. Still photography has theirs. Even computer monitors have a set of common ratios that were largely influenced by video. Only phones are sort of whatever fits. When you're buying monitors or TVs, you tend to compare like for like. If you want a super-wide monitor, you won't be looking at 16:9. Aspect ratio tells you the shape. And a diagonal tells you the size.

screen aspect ratio:
166:100 (horizontal length:vertical length) >> laptop, desktop, tv
166:74 (vertical length:horizontal length) >> mobile
166:126 (horizontal length:vertical length) >> tablet (landscape)
166:152 (vertical length:horizontal length) >> watch
166:152 (horizontal length:vertical length) >> foldable mobile (when open)

screen aspect ratio:
167:100 >> laptop, desktop, tv, ...
167:73 >> mobile, ...
167:127 >> pad, ...
167:154 >> watch, ...
154:167 >> foldable mobile, ...

here is the correlation between numbers and screen aspect ratios. try them and compare them with current values as reference. then talking about diagonals would make sense

Quote from: _MT_ on October 25, 2021, 15:00:14

Quote from: diagonals on October 22, 2021, 01:19:16
diagonals are of no use, if there is no std screen aspect ratio for all brands of screens; either laptops, pc monitors, tv screens, pads, mobile phones, ...

Diagonal is just as useful as width if you have a given aspect ratio. But a diagonal captures both width and height. In an obscure fashion. That's the advantage it has over just width. Width tells you nothing whatsoever about height. Diagonal anchors both width and height. It doesn't tell you what exactly they are but they are bound; you know where the numbers must fall. If a diagonal is 40 cm, then height can't be 90 cm. Just can't. Both width and height have to be within 40 cm.

But they are. Or were. To an extent. Nowadays, we have more options than ever. But historically, aspect ratios were pretty fixed and slow changing. TV broadcast used to be 4:3. Now it's 16:9. Cinema has their favourite aspect ratios. Still photography has theirs. Even computer monitors have a set of common ratios that were largely influenced by video. Only phones are sort of whatever fits. When you're buying monitors or TVs, you tend to compare like for like. If you want a super-wide monitor, you won't be looking at 16:9. Aspect ratio tells you the shape. And a diagonal tells you the size.

screen aspect ratios:
164:100 >> laptop, desktop pc & tv screen, ...
164:76 >> mobile screen, ...
164:124 >> pad screen, ...
164:148 >> watch screen, ...

here is the correlation between numbers and screen aspect ratios. try them and compare them with current values as reference. then talking about diagonals would make sense.

Quote from: _MT_ on October 25, 2021, 15:00:14

Quote from: diagonals on October 22, 2021, 01:19:16
diagonals are of no use, if there is no std screen aspect ratio for all brands of screens; either laptops, pc monitors, tv screens, pads, mobile phones, ...

Diagonal is just as useful as width if you have a given aspect ratio. But a diagonal captures both width and height. In an obscure fashion. That's the advantage it has over just width. Width tells you nothing whatsoever about height. Diagonal anchors both width and height. It doesn't tell you what exactly they are but they are bound; you know where the numbers must fall. If a diagonal is 40 cm, then height can't be 90 cm. Just can't. Both width and height have to be within 40 cm.

But they are. Or were. To an extent. Nowadays, we have more options than ever. But historically, aspect ratios were pretty fixed and slow changing. TV broadcast used to be 4:3. Now it's 16:9. Cinema has their favourite aspect ratios. Still photography has theirs. Even computer monitors have a set of common ratios that were largely influenced by video. Only phones are sort of whatever fits. When you're buying monitors or TVs, you tend to compare like for like. If you want a super-wide monitor, you won't be looking at 16:9. Aspect ratio tells you the shape. And a diagonal tells you the size.

screen aspect ratios:
163:100 >> laptop, pc monitor & tv
163:77 >> mobile phone
163:123 >> pad

here is the correlation between numbers and screen aspect ratios. try them and compare them with current values as reference. then talking about diagonals would make sense.

Quote from: _MT_ on October 25, 2021, 15:00:14

Quote from: diagonals on October 22, 2021, 01:19:16
diagonals are of no use, if there is no std screen aspect ratio for all brands of screens; either laptops, pc monitors, tv screens, pads, mobile phones, ...

Diagonal is just as useful as width if you have a given aspect ratio. But a diagonal captures both width and height. In an obscure fashion. That's the advantage it has over just width. Width tells you nothing whatsoever about height. Diagonal anchors both width and height. It doesn't tell you what exactly they are but they are bound; you know where the numbers must fall. If a diagonal is 40 cm, then height can't be 90 cm. Just can't. Both width and height have to be within 40 cm.

But they are. Or were. To an extent. Nowadays, we have more options than ever. But historically, aspect ratios were pretty fixed and slow changing. TV broadcast used to be 4:3. Now it's 16:9. Cinema has their favourite aspect ratios. Still photography has theirs. Even computer monitors have a set of common ratios that were largely influenced by video. Only phones are sort of whatever fits. When you're buying monitors or TVs, you tend to compare like for like. If you want a super-wide monitor, you won't be looking at 16:9. Aspect ratio tells you the shape. And a diagonal tells you the size.

Quote from: diagonals on October 22, 2021, 01:19:16
diagonals are of no use, if there is no std screen aspect ratio for all brands of screens; either laptops, pc monitors, tv screens, pads, mobile phones, ...

Diagonal is just as useful as width if you have a given aspect ratio. But a diagonal captures both width and height. In an obscure fashion. That's the advantage it has over just width. Width tells you nothing whatsoever about height. Diagonal anchors both width and height. It doesn't tell you what exactly they are but they are bound; you know where the numbers must fall. If a diagonal is 40 cm, then height can't be 90 cm. Just can't. Both width and height have to be within 40 cm.

But they are. Or were. To an extent. Nowadays, we have more options than ever. But historically, aspect ratios were pretty fixed and slow changing. TV broadcast used to be 4:3. Now it's 16:9. Cinema has their favourite aspect ratios. Still photography has theirs. Even computer monitors have a set of common ratios that were largely influenced by video. Only phones are sort of whatever fits. When you're buying monitors or TVs, you tend to compare like for like. If you want a super-wide monitor, you won't be looking at 16:9. Aspect ratio tells you the shape. And a diagonal tells you the size.

diagonals are of no use, if there is no std screen aspect ratio for all brands of screens; either laptops, pc monitors, tv screens, pads, mobile phones, ...

Quote from: _MT_ on October 21, 2021, 18:33:32

Quote from: misleading ad on October 21, 2021, 09:04:47
yes, they both 14 & 16 are a 3.0...:2 screen aspect ratio, but they confuse customers advertising that the 14 is a 14.2-inch (diagonal), so you think it is a 14.2:10 screen aspect ratio, and the 16 is a 16.2-inch (diagonal), so again you think it is a 16.2:10 screen aspect ratio

I have never met anyone who would confuse diagonal (like 16") with an aspect ratio (such as 16:9). You do know what is a diagonal in a rectangle, right? And where did the ":10" come from? Why not 16.2:7? Or 16.2:13? And why would the two models have different aspect ratios? When you specify an aspect ratio as a single number, it's something like 1.5 (3:2) or 1.6 (8:5) or 1.78 (16:9), not 14.2 - that would be incredibly wide. Manufacturers always advertise diagonals as a primary screen size parameter. They sometimes don't mention aspect ratio at all or even state wrong aspect ratio (I have seen several laptops claiming to have "16:10" [8:5] while the resolution was clearly 16:9). In this case, Apple doesn't, probably because it's not a nice number and an average consumer wouldn't relate to it. If my calculations are correct, one is 756:491 and the other 1728:1117.

As for the cursor, this is, I think, the best way given a notch. Perhaps not ideal (ideal would be no notch), but I think a cursor that would "dip" below the notch so it remains visible would end up being more annoying.

Quote from: misleading ad on October 21, 2021, 09:04:47
yes, they both 14 & 16 are a 3.0...:2 screen aspect ratio, but they confuse customers advertising that the 14 is a 14.2-inch (diagonal), so you think it is a 14.2:10 screen aspect ratio, and the 16 is a 16.2-inch (diagonal), so again you think it is a 16.2:10 screen aspect ratio

I have never met anyone who would confuse diagonal (like 16") with an aspect ratio (such as 16:9). You do know what is a diagonal in a rectangle, right? And where did the ":10" come from? Why not 16.2:7? Or 16.2:13? And why would the two models have different aspect ratios? When you specify an aspect ratio as a single number, it's something like 1.5 (3:2) or 1.6 (8:5) or 1.78 (16:9), not 14.2 - that would be incredibly wide. Manufacturers always advertise diagonals as a primary screen size parameter. They sometimes don't mention aspect ratio at all or even state wrong aspect ratio (I have seen several laptops claiming to have "16:10" [8:5] while the resolution was clearly 16:9). In this case, Apple doesn't, probably because it's not a nice number and an average consumer wouldn't relate to it. If my calculations are correct, one is 756:491 and the other 1728:1117.

As for the cursor, this is, I think, the best way given a notch. Perhaps not ideal (ideal would be no notch), but I think a cursor that would "dip" below the notch so it remains visible would end up being more annoying.

14 in. > 1964x3024
16 in. > 2234x3456

yes, they both 14 & 16 are a 3.0...:2 screen aspect ratio, but they confuse customers advertising that the 14 is a 14.2-inch (diagonal), so you think it is a 14.2:10 screen aspect ratio, and the 16 is a 16.2-inch (diagonal), so again you think it is a 16.2:10 screen aspect ratio

Quote from: john mon on October 21, 2021, 01:32:37
apple is giving you an extra strip of real estate at the top.

the overall screen ratio is taller than 16:10, almost 3:2

no big deal

What's next, courageously putting a notch on the iPad?

apple is giving you an extra strip of real estate at the top.

the overall screen ratio is taller than 16:10, almost 3:2

no big deal

Quote from: Art on October 20, 2021, 19:37:06

Quote from: toven on October 20, 2021, 13:18:00
After I look at Asus ROG M16, there is zero reason for macbook to have that notch.

This laptop has 720p webcam, so that wasn't a good comparison...

For your concern, my S21U punch hole front camera can record 4k60fps video.

Quote from: Art on October 20, 2021, 19:37:06

Quote from: toven on October 20, 2021, 13:18:00
After I look at Asus ROG M16, there is zero reason for macbook to have that notch.

This laptop has 720p webcam, so that wasn't a good comparison...

Yeah, because we all buy a laptop for its webcam. Dont try to justify this shitty design. It's bad. And Apple has kept the same 720p for a decade on that huge top bezel, so it's not like they really care about it either.

There are plenty of examples out there with great designs and slim bezels:

>XPS 13: Slim bezels and a decent webcam without a notch
>ASUS Zenbook S13: An "outer" notch that has the webcam and serves as a tab to open the laptop
>Latitude 9420: the bezel still gives the user benefits like the auto shutter to keep its privacy and a solid camera.

Even the Framework laptop has a great camera, a slim bezel and on top of all that, a lower price while being easy to repair.

But well, I don't expect an Apple sheep to understand that the grass is greener on the other side. Oh, and dont come up with "Muh M1 CPU" because that's literally the only thing Apple has going for them right now, and honestly, no one really cares that much. Competition will catch up sooner rather than later.

Quote from: toven on October 20, 2021, 13:18:00
After I look at Asus ROG M16, there is zero reason for macbook to have that notch.

This laptop has 720p webcam, so that wasn't a good comparison...

Why would a company renowned for aesthetic design create such an eyesore? I expect they will address it in few years like they did with the keyboard and magsafe.