Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Full of Win

macrumors 68030
Nov 22, 2007
2,615
1
Ask Apple
16:9 is just a way to rob us of pixels. If they increase PPI/lower dot pitch, then no problem. However, if they keep the same DPI and just chop off the bottom, then its a problem
 

gunraidan

macrumors regular
Jul 10, 2009
176
0
16:9 for watching movies and playing video games.

16:10 for computing and media creation.
 

dontwalkhand

macrumors 603
Jul 5, 2007
6,463
3,022
Phoenix, AZ
I prefer 16:10 just because it makes sense when you are editing a 16:9 movie, to have room for your toolbars and application menus/UI.

It doesn't make sense for the computers to lower down to the crappier TV aspect ratio.
 

Heilage

macrumors 68030
May 1, 2009
2,592
0
16:9 is just a way to rob us of pixels. If they increase PPI/lower dot pitch, then no problem. However, if they keep the same DPI and just chop off the bottom, then its a problem

That's the good thing with the new 27" iMac. That resolution is pretty slick. You get way more pixels than from other 27" screens out there who have 16:10 (standard is pretty much 1920x1200 on those).
 

Rodimus Prime

macrumors G4
Oct 9, 2006
10,136
4
I must be one of the old school guys who likes the old 4:3 format. My biggest problem with the wide screen formate (both 16:9 and 16:10) is neither have enough vertical pixels. Most of the stuff I work on his a lot more vertical information over horizontal. That and I am a fan of 2 4:3 monitors. One for working and one to hold relative information I need to keep looking at.

As between 16:9 and 16:10. I see 16:9 winning out because TV are in that format now and cost wise it will be cheaper to produce 16:9 because everything for TV is already set up for that fact so equipment to produce the monitors will be cheaper for the 16:9 format.
 

ss957916

macrumors 6502a
Jun 17, 2009
861
0
With the new HD and better-than-HD displays on the iMac it makes perfect sense to have them 16:9 - great for watching all your HD Bluray movies... oh, hang on.
 

cube

Suspended
May 10, 2004
17,011
4,973
It DOESN'T make sense. You waste all the vertical space available over your monitor.

1:1 FTW
 

paolo-

macrumors 6502a
Aug 24, 2008
831
1
Beats me why you would want a wider screen, other than movies what benefits from 16:9 (okay, your wallet perhaps), even then, in a short while, most computer screens will be of higher def than HD, so who cares about little black lines. Web browsing, typing/reading documents, coding... all vertical!
 

KRB24

macrumors member
Mar 26, 2012
73
0
Both have ups and downs

16:10 ups:

(1) More real estate.


16:10 downs

(1) Looks more boxy (aesthetics). I like how 16:9's look.
(2) The base is boxy as well, which prevents the keyboard from being larger/wider.


Verdict: I'll go with 16:10.
 

DingleButt

macrumors regular
Dec 14, 2011
124
0
Ive had both and with Windows 8 coming, Id rather have 16:9. But 16:10 was nice while I had it too. It was a bit weird going 16:10 to 16:9 at first though.

On Macs with OS X I think 16:10 is a better choice though.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.