14" 1920x1200 here....laptop is from like 2008 (c2d Dell Latitude D830.)
I won't upgrade because the "upgrade" has 1920x1080, and being a Sysadmin, vertical pixels lost means less lines in my term and more scrolling. It's a shame that we moved from 16x10 to 16x9 to save a few bucks. Last I checked, Apple and levovo (w-series) still offer 1920x1200, but my laptop cos $280 used, and the lenovo or MBP would be close to 3 grand.
I've enjoyed 1920x1200 on my laptops since 2003, and I lament this demise, too. I can't match the resolution I had nine years ago.
I'm a hardware engineer, and the more pixels I can pack into my display, the more I can see in my waveform viewer. It makes a real difference to me.
I can't say I fully understand the trend to almost-exclusive 16x9, either. I hear enough people complain about it that I'd have thought there would be a market for a 15.4" 1920x1200, even if you had to pay a premium for it.
I can't say I fully understand the trend to almost-exclusive 16x9, either.
I've read that this is because of the influence of TVs: pretty much every LCD maker is setup to cut panels in this form factor, and there isn't enough demand to make computer makers change this.
A couple years ago I saw a Lenovo blog post about how they could consider making taller laptop screens if, say, they got $20K pre-orders, but even then it would've been very, very expensive for the clients, and I don't think the idea ever went anywhere.
Sorry for the mistake and thanks for the correction, like this I learned something. English is not my native language, I guess I took the "contra" from German "kontra".
I actually don't think it's a mistake. Contra and counter are synonymous, but one is more common (as far as I can tell with brief googling). I learned something too, no need to apologise.
Comments
14" 1920x1200 here....laptop is from like 2008 (c2d Dell Latitude D830.)
I won't upgrade because the "upgrade" has 1920x1080, and being a Sysadmin, vertical pixels lost means less lines in my term and more scrolling. It's a shame that we moved from 16x10 to 16x9 to save a few bucks. Last I checked, Apple and levovo (w-series) still offer 1920x1200, but my laptop cos $280 used, and the lenovo or MBP would be close to 3 grand.
Sad.
I've enjoyed 1920x1200 on my laptops since 2003, and I lament this demise, too. I can't match the resolution I had nine years ago.
I'm a hardware engineer, and the more pixels I can pack into my display, the more I can see in my waveform viewer. It makes a real difference to me.
I can't say I fully understand the trend to almost-exclusive 16x9, either. I hear enough people complain about it that I'd have thought there would be a market for a 15.4" 1920x1200, even if you had to pay a premium for it.
I can't say I fully understand the trend to almost-exclusive 16x9, either.
I've read that this is because of the influence of TVs: pretty much every LCD maker is setup to cut panels in this form factor, and there isn't enough demand to make computer makers change this.
A couple years ago I saw a Lenovo blog post about how they could consider making taller laptop screens if, say, they got $20K pre-orders, but even then it would've been very, very expensive for the clients, and I don't think the idea ever went anywhere.
Absolutely agree that the loss of vertical space is frustrating and contra-productive.
Totally off topic: why did you use contra- versus counter-?
I have never seen that before.
Sorry for the mistake and thanks for the correction, like this I learned something. English is not my native language, I guess I took the "contra" from German "kontra".
I actually don't think it's a mistake. Contra and counter are synonymous, but one is more common (as far as I can tell with brief googling). I learned something too, no need to apologise.