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

Why aren't iMacs 16:10?

I have monitors in all aspects (4:3,16:10,16:9). 16:10 is the best by far. 16:9 is only good for movies, the loss of vertical pixels suck. I wish Apple would go back, I'm about to replace my 24" iMac with a 27" (if Apple finally updates them) and I know I will wish it was 27" in a 16:10 aspect like the 24" I have now.
 
BSoares said:
I have monitors in all aspects (4:3,16:10,16:9). 16:10 is the best by far. 16:9 is only good for movies, the loss of vertical pixels suck. I wish Apple would go back, I'm about to replace my 24" iMac with a 27" (if Apple finally updates them) and I know I will wish it was 27" in a 16:10 aspect like the 24" I have now.
Click to expand...

If there would be one 16:10 apple Cinema display instead of the 16:9 one it highly likely would be 1920x1200 and 24".
 
Puevlo said:
10 is bigger than 9 so naturally 16:10 has to be bigger than 16:9.
Click to expand...

dumbass-bush.jpg
 
Well for those who find it difficult to understand put it this way, they divide the horizontal and vertical distance into a number that can be given as a ratio, I personally don't know the measurements or anything but once that is collected it would be presented as 16:9 etc.
Or 16 inchs across and 9 inches (to make it easy to understand, I don't know of any monitor with that dimension either=P)

As OP posted above:

16:9: Good for media content. (Eliminates most black borders for movies)
16:10: Good for screen realestate.
4:3: Obsolete.

The obove is just my opinion so don't bash me for it;)
 
splitpea said:
How does slashing away 100+ pixels of vertical space while leaving the horizontal space unchanged make it easier to fit side-by-side windows?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. But then, you don't actually do that. For the same horizontal pixel resolution and same diagonal size, the physical screen is actually somewhat narrower and less suited to two full-size windows size-by-side. On my 16:10 24" iMac I can run Safari and Twitter side by side, but I wouldn't consider Safari and Word/Excel/anything else. I would on a 16:9 27" iMac.

For Apple, the change in aspect ratio was accompanied by a change in diagonal size and pixel density.
 
forty2j said:
It doesn't. But then, you don't actually do that. For the same horizontal pixel resolution and same diagonal size, the physical screen is actually somewhat narrower and less suited to two full-size windows size-by-side. On my 16:10 24" iMac I can run Safari and Twitter side by side, but I wouldn't consider Safari and Word/Excel/anything else. I would on a 16:9 27" iMac.

For Apple, the change in aspect ratio was accompanied by a change in diagonal size and pixel density.
Click to expand...

That's because the 24" is only 1920 wide and the 27" is 2560 so you're not actually comparing like for like and completely missing the point of an aspect ratio. Unfortunately napelm still hasn't read the link on the subject that he continues to post in this thread.

The point here is that a 24" monitor can be bought with a 16:9 or a 16:10 aspect ratio. That means you either get a 1920x1080 or a 1920x1200 resolution. So now which one allows you to put more windows next to each other?

To argue that 16:9 allows you to put more stuff next to each other because 2560 > 1920 is completely nonsensical. A monitor with 2560 pixels across and a 16:10 aspect ratio is 2560x1600. So now compare your 2560x1440 16:9 against 16:10 2560x1600 (old 30" ACD) and tell me which one is better for productivity?
 
theSeb said:
The point here is that a 24" monitor can be bought with a 16:9 or a 16:10 aspect ratio. That means you either get a 1920x1080 or a 1920x1200 resolution. So now which one allows you to put more windows next to each other?
Click to expand...

Throw resolution out the window for a minute. We're just talking about 2 rectangles with a 24" diagonal. One is 20.3" x 12.7". The other is 20.9" x 11.8".

If you have 2 windows side-by-side, would you rather have them at 10.2" x 12.7", or 10.5" x 11.8"? I find the latter more natural. Doesn't matter whether or not the windows occupy 960 pixels of horizontal space; the shape is just all wrong for two windows side by side at 16:10 in my opinion. Yes, I could resize both windows on the 16:10 screen to be the same shape as those on the 16:9 screen, using the same pixels but being physically smaller and leaving dead space on the screen, but I don't find that to be a great option either.
 
Napelm said:
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.
Click to expand...

Napelm said:
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.
Click to expand...

Napelm said:
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.
Click to expand...



I really, really hope we've all been fooled by a master troll.

Did I mention I _really_ hope that?

Wow.
 
theSeb said:
That's not how it works when it comes to talking about the aspect ratio of a monitor so I can't throw it out. :p
Click to expand...

I only ask you to consider the other variables.

A 960x1080 window occupies less real world space on a 24" 16:10 monitor than a 24" 16:9 one, if you're fixing the horizontal resolution at 1920 for both. This means you're sitting closer to it or squinting more to see it.
 
forty2j said:
I only ask you to consider the other variables.

A 960x1080 window occupies less real world space on a 24" 16:10 monitor than a 24" 16:9 one, if you're fixing the horizontal resolution at 1920 for both. This means you're sitting closer to it or squinting more to see it.
Click to expand...

Your previous example was an interesting point, despite my facetious reply. However, I must admit that you've lost me now, because I don't understand why I would be sitting closer or squinting?
 
theSeb said:
Your previous example was an interesting point, despite my facetious reply. However, I must admit that you've lost me now, because I don't understand why I would be sitting closer or squinting?
Click to expand...

If the same pixels occupy less physical space, then they have a higher pixel density, resulting in smaller text sizes, UI controls, and so forth.
 
forty2j said:
If the same pixels occupy less physical space, then they have a higher pixel density, resulting in smaller text sizes, UI controls, and so forth.
Click to expand...
I see, now. I've never found the difference between 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 to be enough of a difference in the UI and text to have to change my viewing distance or need to squint. I sit about the same length from all of my computers (If I extend my arm I can just barely touch the screen with my fingertips - it works for me using 19", 24" and 27" monitors)
 
splitpea said:
Man, I hate these arguments.

Look, if you have two monitors that both have 15" diagonals, and one is a 16x9 ratio and the other a 16x10, the 16x10 will be narrower than the 16x9 but still have a slightly higher area. If you do the trigonometry, you'll find:

Code: 
          16x9        16x10
width     13.07       12.72
height    7.35        7.95
area      96.14       101.12

More to the point, if you look at common resolutions you'll see 1600x900 [16:9] and 1680x1050 [16:10]; 1920x1080 [16:9] and 1900x1200 [16:10]. Among similar *available* resolutions, even when the 16:9 has higher horizontal resolution, the common 16:10 has more total pixels.

Additionally, except when watching movies full-screen [and letterboxing a 1080p video on a 1900x1200 screen doesn't really make your movie any smaller], people tend to need additional vertical space more than they need additional horizontal space.

You don't need loooooonger lines of text, because that's illegible, but it'd be nice to have to scroll less.

Even if you move your dock to the side or hide it, all those toolbars on your browser and word processor and email editor are taking up vertical rather than horizontal space and leaving you fewer and fewer lines of actual content you can see at once.

And most cameras out there take photos in a 4:3 or 3:2 aspect ratio, so you need even more vertical space and less horizontal space than a 16:10 screen gives you if you want to make the most of your screen when viewing or editing them.
Click to expand...

Great answer.

I prefer 16:10 for these reasons. Some people prefer 16:9 because it's a perfect fit for HDTV shows or for other reasons. Apple probably changed because the industry was changing to 16:9 LCDs.

Greg
 
16:9 and 16:10 just means the relation between length and width. It is pretty amazing how big problems some people have with logics in this thread.

----------

16:9 is better because 16:9 products offer higher resolution than 16:10 products.
 
this is the master troll thread

16:9 is a better aspect ratio than 16:10 becaseu it matches more accuratly the aspect ratio of your eyes sight, wich is retangular and not square

Having said that, montiors, TV, etc are built 16:9 and notebooks are built 16:10. Why? Here is why....

Because 16:9 is the official aspect ratio of Movies and HDTV. They are shot that way. and TV and monitors are built to accuratly reproduce this type of media. Take the first spider-man for example, its 16:9!!! (side note: movies are now shot in a even wider aspect ratio wich is 21:9 aprox)

Having said that, noteboks are built 16:10 because its assumed that you will be doing a lot of internet reading and most webpages havea A LOT of content to scroll down, just like this thread you are reading, and therefore, 16:10 is a better ratio in order to show more "readable material" at one same time.
 
Napelm said:
16:9 and 16:10 just means the relation between length and width. It is pretty amazing how big problems some people have with logics in this thread.

----------

16:9 is better because 16:9 products offer higher resolution than 16:10 products.
Click to expand...

Does not compute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back