HMTK

Laptops with 4:3 screen

Recommended Posts

Is there any manufacturer left who sells laptops with a 4:3 screen? Widescreen is nice for films and Excel but I hate it for pretty much everything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need a laptop.

If you are so inclined, you can connect your 60 KG CRT to it.

Nobody writes here any more. It is me, you and continuum.

I had only one person in my ignore list. Incidentally, it was the only person who writes anything on the forum. So I removed you from ignore, and I will litter your topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly haven't seen any 4:3 laptops in quite a while now. You may have luck with the business line laptops, as the product cycles tend to be longer there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there any manufacturer left who sells laptops with a 4:3 screen? Widescreen is nice for films and Excel but I hate it for pretty much everything else.

Doubtful for new laptops. You might consider a recent vintage Thinkpad, e.g., a T61 with a 4:3 screen. Lots to buy on the Thinkpad forum....

Bruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that with the prevalence of widescreen TVs, it was cheaper to achieve economies of scale making one type of aspect ratio to serve both TV and PC markets. Combine that with users that just may not care if it's widescreen (or may even prefer it, for when watching movies and the like on a laptop), I can see the 4:3 market shrinking even further.

I wish that wasn't he case; I prefer 4:3 for my work apps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Widescreens became popular due to cost and user acceptance of widescreen being "better." I've been told several times by those in the business that cutting widescreen panels out of the glass is more efficient use of the glass than the 4:3 and therefor cheaper.

Widescreens became popular due to cost and user acceptance of widescreen being "better." I've been told several times by those in the business that cutting widescreen panels out of the glass is more efficient use of the glass than the 4:3 and therefor cheaper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mickey: "My understanding is that with the prevalence of widescreen TVs, it was cheaper to achieve economies of scale making one type of aspect ratio to serve both TV and PC markets."

Yet, widescreen monitors used to cost more. And widescreen monitors used to be 16:10 instead of 16:9, have different pixel sizes, different resolutions, and as a combination of last two: different sizes, etc. Those have prevented economies of scale between panels for monitors and TVs. In addition to panels themselves, interfaces are completely different.

I think the transition to widescreen on computing is to be blamed on consumer being ready to pay extra (initially) for widescreen. Then after some time, they paid the same for widescreen (regardless of the fact that 19" 4:3 has more size than 19" 16:10). Today, people have to pay extra for legacy aspect ratios and even then can't get state of art tech. Today it is definitely economies of scale but it's origin must have been that of consumer "needs"... most of which might have been a bubble created by the marketing, telling customers they need widescreen (and should be ready to pay extra for a smaller display).

Computer monitors switching to widescreen is a sad thing, IMO. I like widescreen for watching movies and some other stuff like video-editing, gaming... but with text (web pages, PDFs) it's a pain to my eyesight. It's just so unnatural. Idea of widescreen is to be closer to the shape of our vision. Our eyes have originally been intended to view the landscape. However with modern age, we got used to read A4 (or any size of paper having the Golden Cut), which is about the same as widescreen monitor turned vertical. Obviously a big widescreen is quite difficult to mount this way on a desk, which is why I prefer 5:4 monitor with pivot (so that I can tilt it to 4:5).

I hope 4:3 (or 5:4, unique to 1280x1024 resolution) would make a comeback. I absolutely love 1280x1024 since it can display 720p (1280x720 video) with zero scaling, unlike "HD-Ready" widescreens which are 1366x768. I wish I could hang the people behind half-HD from their balls ...I take that back. The slimebags behind half-HD have no balls at all.

Why can't we have 4:3 (5:4) anymore? Economies of scale? Lol! Then why the hell do we have a dozen different diameters with a selection of resolutions? 19 and 20 inch having the same resolution would need completely different panels because size of pixel is different. Two 20 inch displays having different resolutions have to have completely different panels. And high res 20 inch is still probably not just a bigger cut of the same panel used to make low res 19 inch, because the jumps in resolution are bigger. 22 inch might use same type of panel as low res 19 or 20, though. Still, dozen different panel types. Why on Earth cannot they afford a single mass-produced 4:3 panel? Make with the same pixel size as you make 16:10 or 16:9 monitors. You might not end up in even inches and have fractions differing from round numbers, but that certainly doesn't harm anyone.

BrianSR: "Widescreens became popular due to cost and user acceptance of widescreen being "better." I've been told several times by those in the business that cutting widescreen panels out of the glass is more efficient use of the glass than the 4:3 and therefor cheaper."

Yeah. A widescreen X inch has less surface area than regular aspect ratio X inch has. Especially on the "middle ages" of widescreen, this was probably the main motivator: customers were willing to pay the same price for a smaller monitor (despite both being advertised as same size). On early ages, a smaller group was ready to page a price premium for this smaller monitor.

Likewise, they've now transitioned from 16:10 to 16:9, shrinking the panel size even further. Now there could be some synergy to TV production, plus reduced surface area and (assuming horizontal resolution is unchanged) also reduced amounts of pixels... for what? INCREASED F'ING PRICE! And the customers are retarded enough to buy them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Widescreens for work computers should be banned due to ergonomics. Period.

Edited by HMTK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I checked with a friend in the notebook space, he says the only 4:3 to be released recently was a ruggedized unit. Unfortunately the earlier advice of an older Thinkpad is probably your best bet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has always been a mystery to me too why some ppl would rather buy 16:9 computer display instead of 16:10. They simply do not want the extra vertical pixels, huh? :P In desktop world the worst of all must be the 19 inch 16:9 ones, where resolution is so crappy it seems like going years backwards, and it is hard to sensibly use all of the horizontal resolution, when there is still not enough pixels to actually have two windows open next to each other.

Then the glossy coatings of most screens of new laptops... uh oh. I guess some like to have a mirror integrated into their computer display?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

discjet: "It has always been a mystery to me too why some ppl would rather buy 16:9 computer display instead of 16:10."

Marketing wants us to buy them. First they try to fool us by calling new 16:9 displays with reduced pixels as HD-Ready or Full-HD. Since when was 1920x1200 not Full-HD? AFAIK, the standard defines minimum resolution (1280x720 and 1920x1080), which is exceeded by WUXGA (1920x1200) by 120 pixels vertical and zero pixels horizontal. Letterbox it, and Full-HD can be played in it's native resolution, without scaling. Perfectly sharp picture.

If only we could say the same of commercial HD-Ready TVs and monitors. 1366x768 just sucks donkey penis. 1280x[whatever] monitors of are just damn superior. 1280x1024 for 5:4 aspect ratio bliss, 1280x800 for widescreen... letterboxed ultrasharp 720p playback, unlike with these new bullsh*t blurred pieces of stinker they want to sell to us. Technically they are indeed superior but they make no sense.

discjet: "In desktop world the worst of all must be the 19 inch 16:9 ones, where resolution is so crappy it seems like going years backwards"

Yeah, they're almost as bad as my 1280x1024 19" monitor. Then again,

A ) it actually IS quite an old monitor and

B ) I intentionally picked the one with biggest pixel size (even by purchasing year's standards) because it was my first TFT and knowing TFTs can be (sensibly) only used in their native resolution, I wanted to use a low resolution to prevent Windows font and icons from shrinking too much. I only had poor quality CRTs before that barely handled 1152x864 (and even then the picture was ofter blurred, distorted, flickering or making too much coil whine to be used in selected resolution/refresh rate) so 1280x1024 was a huge improvement.

I still got that old TFT. I'm going to treasure it. My precioussss~

discjet: "it is hard to sensibly use all of the horizontal resolution, when there is still not enough pixels to actually have two windows open next to each other."

With 1920x1200 (my current main computer's main monitor (two attached, other one being 42 inch TV)) I occasionally use two windows next to each other. Not just because it fits but because it's way easier to read short lines of text. Less likely to skip a line or re-read same line twice that way.

Unfortunately, even with high-res widescreen display such as 1920x1200, some websites are designed for 1280+ horizontal resolutions. 1280 has been around for ages so they probably think it's ok for them to expect it. Except: running two of such pages next to each other requires 2560 pixels! Now that's a problem even for the high-end monitors. The "two pages on one screen" is a ridiculous argument. After all, even when you actually use it to browse a PDF,

A ) the text (or pictures) is too small to read

B ) you're still reading just one page at a time so what use is it to have both on screen?

It would be much better to have a monitor tilted 90 degrees. Use widescreen that way and you can view an entire page on screen. If text is too small to read, then zooming would be a bit difficult as it would zoom part of the horizontal out of the screen ...which is exactly why I would prefer 90 degree tilted 5:4 screen instead of 90 degree tilted 16:10 or 16:9 screen! Heck, 5:4 is about as close to square as a rectangle can be, so it doesn't even necessarily need any tilting. Unfortunately for widescreens, this is not the case. Viewing documents is a pain in the arse, except when lots of zooming is needed.

discjet: "Then the glossy coatings of most screens of new laptops"

Yeah. Those goddamn suck beyond belief. What's the point in it anyway? You get all kinds of reflections, not only light source but even indirect light reflected from your own face. Then with glossy surface a singly spec of dust just shines on it. Damn annoying. And obviously the surface is too static to stay clean so even if you cleaned it constantly, the dust particles will land on it in no time. Plus, with it being a laptop, expect that occasionally you accidentally touch the screen while opening it, leaving a greasy fingerprint on it. Those are thousand times more horrible on glossy surface.

What use is a laptop that is completely unusable in daylight?

Edited by whiic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HMTK, I think you stumbled on the answer yourself: 4:3 is a work resolution. (I found a 1600x1200 IBM monitor at Overstock.com a few months back for dirt cheap.)

In case you haven't noticed, almost no one works on their laptops anymore, at least that's the way things are stateside. They watch movies and surf the web, they chat, they do video messaging and editing. Oh yeah, they do e-mail. (We wouldn't wonder why we are in Depression 2.0 if we took an honest look at most peoples' computer-time productivity.)

And when they buy a new laptop, they're thinking, "The new wide screen flick will look so good on this!"

Sigh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In case you haven't noticed, almost no one works on their laptops anymore, at least that's the way things are stateside.

I beg to differ. I work almost exclusively on my laptop which has a 16:10 screen. Why? Because I can throw up multiple windows at the same time as actually see whats in each without them being squished. And I actively use my laptop for 8-9 hours each day doing work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work 85% on a notebook, and of that time, 70% is with an external display. There are times when it fluctuates, but I prefer a tiny notebook for travel, so I *need* a larger display when in the office. But I know a bunch of people that use a notebook without external monitor all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I carry my laptop around from customer to customer so I don't have an external screen. Oh how I lived my R61 with 1400 x 1050 resolution which was about perfect for a 15" screen.

About the only time I use 2 windows side by side is when I have 2 Windows Explorer windows open to move, copy or compare stuff.

Hell, I can only hope someone comes to their senses and start selling laptops with decent screens again. happy fellowing salesmen...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15.4" 16:10 with 168x1050 is also fairly good, abit higher dpi, but atleast youre not sacrificing resolution :)

I dont have anything against 16:10, I DO have lots against 16:9. retarded aspect ratio for pc usage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont have anything against 16:10, I DO have lots against 16:9. retarded aspect ratio for pc usage.

Agreed - it's nothing but an economical move. 16:9 is the standard now because LCD manufacturers can cut more screens out of a single piece of glass using it vs. 16:10. While the 4:3 > 16:10 transition was generally fine (we did not lose any resolution in most cases, only gained it), the current 16:10 > 16:9 transition is idiotic. Unfortunately most consumers and even a lot of IT people I know are ignorant about aspect ratios and screen resolution, so 16:9 will quickly and quietly become a standard. Thanks to marketing, 16:9 is a "feature" that makes multimedia more enjoyable. Okay.

16:10 standard :: 16:9 standard

1280x800 :: 1366x768: 32 pixels lost

1680x1050 :: 1600x900: 150 pixels lost

1920x1200 :: 1920x1080: 120 pixels lost

2560x1600 :: 2560x1440: 160 pixels lost

My current notebook is 16:9 1366x768 . . . not a very fun resolution to use but I really like this machine.

Enough of my 16:9 rant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every single computer monitor in my house is either 16:10 or 4:3 except for two. One is my little small netbook as1410, and the other is my new desktop monitor. But my monitor doesn't count since it has a resolution close to 2048x1156 in a 23" screen. TAKE THAT 1080P!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still impressed with the 2 *old* 20" 1600*1200 Dell monitors a friend of mine has sitting on his desk. I much prefer working with them as opposed to my 1680*1050 displays. In fact I think I'll orientate my screens vertically -- dunno why I didn't think of that sooner...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16:10 standard :: 16:9 standard

1280x800 :: 1366x768: 32 pixels lost

1680x1050 :: 1600x900: 150 pixels lost

1920x1200 :: 1920x1080: 120 pixels lost

2560x1600 :: 2560x1440: 160 pixels lost

Fixed table:

1280x800: 1024000 pixels
1366x768: 1049088 pixels (25088 pixels MORE)

1680x1050: 1764000 pixels
1600x900: 1440000 pixels (324000 pixels lost)

1920x1200: 2304000 pixels
1920x1080: 2073600 pixels (230400 pixels lost)

2560x1600: 4096000 pixels
2560x1440: 3686400 pixels (409600 pixels lost)

Your listed lost pixels were lost vertical resolution, not lost pixel "area". You also said: "While the 4:3 > 16:10 transition was generally fine (we did not lose any resolution in most cases, only gained it)"...

but using your method of counting "lost pixels" (lost vertical resolution) you actually did lose MUCH more in 4:3 (incl. 5:4) to 16:10 than in 16:10 to 16:9. Why?

Because 1280x1024 - 1280x800 is a huge drop. 1280x800 to 1366x768 on the other hand, is not. Of course it's a matter of opinion whether 4:3 to 16:10 transition caused 1600x1200 to stretch to 1920x1200 or to shrink to 1680x1050... Likewise 1280x1024 might have shrunk to 1280x800 or stretched to 1680x1050 (or more likely the intermediate 1440x900 that is stretched AND shrunk at the same time (1296000 pixels total, only slightly more than 1280x1024)).

This 16:10 -> 16:9 is quite bad thing... it should have been done right from 4:3, or left permanently undone. Doing it now is bad. There's for example many games that only run in legacy resolutions. Even games like IL-2 run only in old aspect ratio (8 year old engine but game is still being updated, and there has been official expansion packs as well). Having a 1920x1200 monitor is good because it happens to work well with 1600x1200 using black sidebars. How would I play this with 1920x1080? 1280x1024 mode (5:4) or 1360x1024 (4:3) probably, with black border all around... because scaling is BAD.

Even worse, if I played a newer game that supported 16:10 resolutions. I'd play such a game in 1920x1200 mode (assuming GPU can handle it). What mode would I use for 1920x1080? 1680x1050 obviously with black borders all around the monitor, since both scaling is bad in stretching and shrinking, even if it was set to maintain aspect ratio (add black bars only to sides). 1920x1200 could be resize to 1728x1080 without aspect ratio distortion (and downsizing probably would cause less blurriness than upscaling).

Either way, 16:10 -> 16:9 transition is made of AIDS and fail. If 16:10 aspect ratio had never even existed, I might not have so many antipathies toward 16:9... now it just seems pointless, because the aspect ratio change is minimal (compared to old transition from 4:3 (5:4) to 16:10).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I listed the vertical pixels lost; vertical resolution is far more important than horizontal. Nearly all scrolling is vertical. Saying "you're losing 100 pixels of vertical space" is a lot more practical than saying "you're going to lose x thousand pixels"; the latter doesn't create a tangible image in my head.

4:3 -> 16:10 didn't cause any major headaches.

1024x768 - 1280x800

1400x1050 - 1680x1050

1600x1200 - 1920x1200

2048x1536 - 2560x1600

In certain situations the transition did have a detrimental effect but in the outright majority of cases it was beneficial. Mostly desktops got the shaft with the 5:4 1280x1024 screens (great res) moving to 16:10 1440x900. Some notebooks got the shaft as well; for example, an excellent 4:3 14" resolution was 1400x1050, however after the 16:10 transition, the highest available on a 14" was only 1440x900.

This thread here is worth a read if only for the entertainment value of seeing 16:9 supporters get shot down:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread...2083&page=2

However I am in full agreement that 16:9 is a bad thing. Unfortunately it's the new standard . . . and everyone is switching over. Very unfortunate.

Your listed lost pixels were lost vertical resolution, not lost pixel "area". You also said: "While the 4:3 > 16:10 transition was generally fine (we did not lose any resolution in most cases, only gained it)"...

but using your method of counting "lost pixels" (lost vertical resolution) you actually did lose MUCH more in 4:3 (incl. 5:4) to 16:10 than in 16:10 to 16:9. Why?

Because 1280x1024 - 1280x800 is a huge drop. 1280x800 to 1366x768 on the other hand, is not. Of course it's a matter of opinion whether 4:3 to 16:10 transition caused 1600x1200 to stretch to 1920x1200 or to shrink to 1680x1050... Likewise 1280x1024 might have shrunk to 1280x800 or stretched to 1680x1050 (or more likely the intermediate 1440x900 that is stretched AND shrunk at the same time (1296000 pixels total, only slightly more than 1280x1024)).

This 16:10 -> 16:9 is quite bad thing... it should have been done right from 4:3, or left permanently undone. Doing it now is bad. There's for example many games that only run in legacy resolutions. Even games like IL-2 run only in old aspect ratio (8 year old engine but game is still being updated, and there has been official expansion packs as well). Having a 1920x1200 monitor is good because it happens to work well with 1600x1200 using black sidebars. How would I play this with 1920x1080? 1280x1024 mode (5:4) or 1360x1024 (4:3) probably, with black border all around... because scaling is BAD.

Even worse, if I played a newer game that supported 16:10 resolutions. I'd play such a game in 1920x1200 mode (assuming GPU can handle it). What mode would I use for 1920x1080? 1680x1050 obviously with black borders all around the monitor, since both scaling is bad in stretching and shrinking, even if it was set to maintain aspect ratio (add black bars only to sides). 1920x1200 could be resize to 1728x1080 without aspect ratio distortion (and downsizing probably would cause less blurriness than upscaling).

Either way, 16:10 -> 16:9 transition is made of AIDS and fail. If 16:10 aspect ratio had never even existed, I might not have so many antipathies toward 16:9... now it just seems pointless, because the aspect ratio change is minimal (compared to old transition from 4:3 (5:4) to 16:10).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now