Hacker News Reader

Comment by orangecat | Hacker News Reader

See also the almost complete takeover of 16:9 aspect ratios from 16:10 or 4:3, often with horrible 1366x768 resolution.

Yes. Why will nobody listen to these complaints? Reiterating the point I made above, this is a big issue for me. Lawyers don't need horizontal resolution. They need vertical resolution. Hell, almost every lawyer in my office (a few hundred attorneys) has dual 4:3 screens ROTATED 90 DEGREES (3:4). 16:9 is going in exactly the wrong direction.

Why not take 16:9 and do portrait orientation?

Ever viewed one from more than 15 degrees off-axis? It starts looking strange really quickly.

(I realise these guys would get the same problem with the 3:4 arrangement, but let this at least be a warning to anybody eyeing up a potential vertical 16:9 setup.)

Get IPS panels. They have much better viewing angles and look fine when rotated 90 degrees.

The desktop setup was just an example, and you're right that we could rotate any screen, as long as the horizontal resolution (vertical resolution at 0 degrees) is at least 1024.

In the laptop world (per the article), it's difficult to do portrait orientation and still type. :)

Here's the blog post from Lenovo/Thinkpad as to why they switched to 16:9 screens: http://www.lenovoblogs.com/insidethebox/2009/04/display-rati...

They say that PC makers have no say in the issue, screen manufacturers are all wide-screen these days.

Yet Apple had no problem sourcing 4:3 displays for their iPad? I guess when there's a will there's a way.

Apple has the money and volume to get whatever size they want.

Aren't iPads 16:10? Honestly curious, I can't tell if 4:3 was a typo or if there's something I'm missuing.

iPads are 4:3 (1024x768). Apple's laptops are still 16:10, but iMacs have unfortunately moved to 16:9.

Funnily enough, Daring Fireball just had a bit on the 4:3 aspect ratio today: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/05/24/tall-and-narrow

This. Glossy I can deal with, but it's very annoying that it's difficult to find an affordable portable with good vertical resolution. Time I spend viewing web pages, coding, editing docs, using a terminal, etc and would benefit from increased vertical resolution: a lot. Time I spend watching movies or TV shows on my laptop: almost never.

I don't care what the aspect ratio is, I can't move back from 1200 vertical lines. Dell offers some nice laptops in the 1920x1200, but they are expensive.

I also find 16:9 to be way more common than 16:10, such that all the high resolution 27" monitors I found were all 16:9!!! I prefer 16:10 fir the extra vertical space. More lines of code

It's all about what makes The Incredibles look the best on the showroom floor.

People don't buy the steak they buy the sizzle.

This. It kills me that the new top-of-the-line Thinkpad ultraportables have the same vertical resolution as my x40 from 5+ years ago. Not much incentive to upgrade...

This is because Lenovo has some obsession with buying the worst LCD panels available. Something about them not liking Korea or Japan suppliers, since the Chinese government is their largest shareholder.

I ordered a T61 back in the day, expecting a 1920x1200 LCD as specified. After decades of delay, I got my laptop, and they substituted a shitty 1440x900 screen instead. Not as ordered.

Thinkpads are still my favorite model of laptop for a variety of reasons, but their shitty fulfillment system and their shitty displays make a new Thinkpad purchase very unlikely. (In retrospect, they were just as bad when IBM owned them. Remember how the DVI ports couldn't do more than 1280x1024 because that is the maximum resolution that DVI is spec'd to handle. SIGH.)

I poked around and found a W500 thinkpad on the lenovo outlet site earlier this year. Too used to 16:10, 1920x1200 and do not to lug around a 17" laptop.

Kills me that business tools are being spec'ed for entertainment consumption.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com