Why aren't iMacs 16:10?

[splitpea]

You need to learn multitasking. It is intresting that some people in 2012 still fill the whole screen with a browser window. It doesnt get more unefficient than that.

What does that have to do with the question at hand?

Also for efficiency it is always better to buy 16 9 because you get more pixels for the money.

Thats why most companies buy 16 9 these days. 16 9 is more efficient.

Maybe more pixels per $ (because of economies of scale due to TV panel resolutions rather than anything inherently more efficient about the manufacturing process) but not necessarily more efficient in terms of working or communicating.

 

[Vege-Taco]

Yep, basic trig - when dealing with rectangular shapes with identical diagonal dimensions, the closer you come to a 1:1 ratio, the more area the rectangle covers. A perfect square has the largest area for any given diagonal dimension.

I much prefer my 16:10 monitor over the newer 16:9... stuff just fits better on the older ratio.

 

[Napelm]

What does that have to do with the question at hand?



Maybe more pixels per $ (because of economies of scale due to TV panel resolutions rather than anything inherently more efficient about the manufacturing process) but not necessarily more efficient in terms of working or communicating.

It gets more efficient because if the companies buy 16 9 they will get more pixels. And if their employees get more pixels they will work more efficient. Research has shown that.

Most companies buy rather cheap monitors and the reasonable monitors to buy are 1680x1050 or 1920x1080. They are cheap and similarly priced.

----------

Vegetaco/ That is really irrelevant becuase the the diagonal length isnt fixed.

 

[forty2j]

What does that have to do with the question at hand?

Side-by-side windows seem to work better at 16:9.

 

[iBookG4user]

It gets more efficient because if the companies buy 16 9 they will get more pixels. And if their employees get more pixels they will work more efficient. Research has shown that.

Most companies buy rather cheap monitors and the reasonable monitors to buy are 1680x1050 or 1920x1080. They are cheap and similarly priced.

----------

Vegetaco/ That is really irrelevant becuase the the diagonal length isnt fixed.

Okay Napelm, I have two monitors sitting in front of me right now. One is 1920x1080 and the other is 1920x1200. According to your original argument, which one has more space?

 

[Napelm]

Okay Napelm, I have two monitors sitting in front of me right now. One is 1920x1080 and the other is 1920x1200. According to your original argument, which one has more space?

I assume you mean work space. The one with most pixels of course.

 

[bogatyr]

It gets more efficient because if the companies buy 16 9 they will get more pixels. And if their employees get more pixels they will work more efficient. Research has shown that.

Most companies buy rather cheap monitors and the reasonable monitors to buy are 1680x1050 or 1920x1080. They are cheap and similarly priced.

16:9 is cheaper because TVs are designed with 16:9 in mind due to movies. Mass quantities of panels makes the price go down. So of course 16:9 is cheaper. But just because my movie is made 16:9 doesn't mean my computer should be.

Vegetaco/ That is really irrelevant becuase the the diagonal length isnt fixed.

Actually it is relevant. To compare apples to apples, you need a fixed size. So take any 15" diagonal monitor and a 16:10 ratio will give more real estate than 16:9. Please go back to math class.

 

[Vege-Taco]

Vegetaco/ That is really irrelevant becuase the the diagonal length isnt fixed.

Someone who buys a 21" monitor today will not get the same real estate as an older 21" monitor. That is a fixed diagonal length. When comparing the standard sizing parameter manufacturers use to sell monitors, the consumer gets more for their inches when buying a 16:10 ratio monitor, more still when buying an even older 4:3 ratio monitor at 21".

How is that irrelevant? Manufacturers are still selling the same 21", 24", 30" monitors they did a few years ago, but the screen areas are smaller than their older, closer-ratio counterparts.


----

Here's what Wikipedia says on the subject:

Industry moves away from 16:10 in 2008 to 16:9

Around 2008-2010, there was a rapid shift by computer display manufacturers to the 16:9 aspect ratio, and by 2011, 16:10 had almost disappeared from new mass market products.

The primary reason for this move is considered to be production efficiency.[3][6] Since display panels for TVs use the 16:9 aspect ratio, it's more efficient for display manufacturers to produce computer display panels in the same aspect ratio as well.[7] A 2008 report by DisplaySearch also cited a number of other reasons, including the ability for PC and monitor manufacturers to provide higher resolutions and diversify their products, "stimulating the growth of the notebook PC and LCD monitor market".[2]

The shift from 16:10 to 16:9 has been met with a mixed response. While the lower cost of 16:9 computer displays, along with the convenience of having the same aspect ratio in different devices, has been seen as a positive,[3] some consider 16:10 more suitable for productivity-oriented tasks, such as editing documents or spreadsheets and using design or engineering applications.[8][9]

 

[Fandongo]

If Apple is truly ahead of the game, the next iMac/Thunderbolt Displays will be 2.35:1.

Pretty close to the dual monitor setup used by everyone who's not a puppy stomper... and no crease!

 

[iBookG4user]

I assume you mean work space. The one with most pixels of course.

You just chose the 16:10 monitor, congrats

 

[Napelm]

Actually it is relevant. To compare apples to apples, you need a fixed size.

No it is not valid to compare that way. You compare oranges with apples. Not apples with apples.

It is pretty funny that some people compare $500 16:10 monitors with $250 16:9 monitors, find that the $500 monitors offers more pixels and find that as a proof that 16:10 is better.

Compare monitors with similar price next time. Or compare $500 16:9 monitors with $250 16:10 monitors just tosee how ridicolous it is to compare monitors in different priceranges.

 

[splitpea]

Side-by-side windows seem to work better at 16:9.

How does slashing away 100+ pixels of vertical space while leaving the horizontal space unchanged make it easier to fit side-by-side windows?

 

[Napelm]

You just chose the 16:10 monitor, congrats

I have a 1920x1080 monitor and a 1680x1050 monitor next to me. Which one offers most space?

----------

How does slashing away 100+ pixels of vertical space while leaving the horizontal space unchanged make it easier to fit side-by-side windows?

16:9 is a wider aspect ratio than 16:10. Just read the definition of aspect ratio and come back.

 

[Vege-Taco]

I have a 1920x1080 monitor and a 1680x1050 monitor next to me. Which one offers most space?

----------



16:9 is a wider aspect ratio than 16:10. Just read the definition of aspect ratio and come back.

Without knowing the diagonal measurements of each it is impossible to say.

 

[Napelm]

Without knowing the diagonal measurements of each it is impossible to say.

Not at all. Read the definition of aspect ratio.

16:10 is a wider aspect ratio than 4:3
16:9 is a wider aspect ratio than 16:10

16:10 is a higher aspect ratio than 16:9
4:3 is a higher aspect ratio than 16:10

Aspect ratio X is automatically a wider aspect ratio than aspect ratio Y if Y is a higher aspect ratio than X.

 

[marzer]

If you do the geometry, you'll find:

         16x9        16x10
width     16          16
height     9          10
area     144          160

...there. That's better

 

[splitpea]

I have a 1920x1080 monitor and a 1680x1050 monitor next to me. Which one offers most space?

----------



16:9 is a wider aspect ratio than 16:10. Just read the definition of aspect ratio and come back.

Sure, but at similar bulk and pixel density (which is relevant in terms of perceived font sizes and ability to view at a given distance) you're talking 1920x1080 vs 1920x1200 or 1600x900 vs 1680x1050.

 

[Vege-Taco]

Not at all. Read the definition of aspect ratio.

16:10 is a wider aspect ratio than 4:3
16:9 is a wider aspect ratio than 16:10

16:10 is a higher aspect ratio than 16:9
4:3 is a higher aspect ratio than 16:10

Aspect ratio X is automatically a wider aspect ratio than aspect ratio Y if Y is a higher aspect ratio than X.

Read the definition of "space" and get back to me.

 

[Sam Spade]

So, if I'm primarily using the monitor in an office environment with side-by-side windows (Word, Excel, browser, Mail, etc.), which ratio is better -- 16:9 or 16:10?

 

[Napelm]

So, if I'm primarily using the monitor in an office environment with side-by-side windows (Word, Excel, browser, Mail, etc.), which ratio is better -- 16:9 or 16:10?

It is a personal preference.

From a non bias point of view neither 16:9 or 16:10 can be said to be better. It is a matter of personal opinion.

 

[Vege-Taco]

So, if I'm primarily using the monitor in an office environment with side-by-side windows (Word, Excel, browser, Mail, etc.), which ratio is better -- 16:9 or 16:10?

Studies support the 16:10 as being more productive in an office environment.

 

[Napelm]

Studies support the 16:10 as being more productive in an office environment.

Stop lying. I have asked probably 1000 persons on the web for studies and they never reply. It is just their opinion... and your opinion of course.

 

[Vege-Taco]

Stop lying. I have asked probably 1000 persons on the web for studies and they never reply. It is just their opinion... and your opinion of course.

Liar! Liar! Yuck Fou!

Unlike the "1000" people you've "asked," I've actually read the study results in publications.

 

[Napelm]

Liar! Liar! Yuck Fou!

Unlike the "1000" people you've "asked," I've actually read the study results in publications.

Those studies only exist in your brain.

I have read everything about aspect ratios the past 5 years and know that there are no such studies.

You dont fool me.

 

[theSeb]

...there. That's better

Is napelm guy having a laugh? I can't figure out if he is really serious. Surely he can't be?

----------

Those studies only exist in your brain.

I have read everything about aspect ratios the past 5 years and know that there are no such studies.

You dont fool me.

I assume that the book you've been reading for the last 5 years is, "My Big Book of Pixels"?