Google, Apple, and Microsoft all make laptops with non 16:9 screens...

Google, Apple, and Microsoft all make laptops with non 16:9 screens. Clearly they're being made so why is LITERALLY NO ONE ELSE using them?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_size
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Because nobody likes black bars.

>tfw no proper 2017 Google Chromebook

The alternative is doing literally nothing with that space though.

Because the 70 year old in charge of Toshiba knows kids want da movies

Then you're getting less than 14" of picture on a 14" screen. That's a waste. If you had gotten a 14" 16:9 screen, you'd have a 14" picture.

A lot of Windows tablets come in 8:5 and 4:3 aspectio ratios you retard.

The point isn't to compare a 14" 16:9 and a 14" 3:2 display it's to use a ~15" 3:2 display instead to give extra vertical room while maintaining the same width.

>Laptops

Why not use a ~15" 6:9 display then, and have a bigger picture?

Because that would increase the size of the laptop frame.

So would making the screen taller. It's not like my laptop has huge top/bottom bezels with lots of empty space in them.

Literally defending 16:9 an inferior aspect ratio

Unless you have some weirdly shaped laptop I guarantee you have a solid inch of nothingness above/below your screen.

There needs to be room for the frame, hinge, backlight, inverter board and webcam.

And all the above laptops seem to manage that just fine without having useless chins.

Price. 16:9 is subsidized by cheap TV shit screens.

>Because nobody likes black bars.

Only losers waste time watching movies on computers.

>Only losers waste time watching movies on computers.
Sure, because I totally want to waste time watching ads on TV, fucking with wires, fucking with DVRs, or watching movies on even tinier phone screens.

Are you kidding me? The bezels on all those laptops are huge.

With a wider aspect you get [i]less[/i] screen space for a given size.

All those ultra-wide monitors are like 29 or 32 inch, but they are nowhere near as large as a 30" screen with a more conventional aspect

What the fuck does "29 or 32 inch" mean? Rectangles are measured by their height and width moron.

They have big enough bezels. They make the bottom part higher too, to make up for the changed aspect ratio. They then either have empty space above the keyboard, or uselessly large touchpads that you'll constantly bump as you type.

It's 29 or 32 inchs diagonally from corner to corner.

That is a meaningless measurement. Rectangles are defined by their height and width.

But still produce a smaller image when playing video.

Why is watching video relevant on a laptop?
Just connect it to a TV or a projector.

Because then you need to mess with a USB C hub, a USB C to HDMI adapter and an HDMI cable so you can have the laptop plugged in and connected to the TV. Even more adapters if you need to connect the audio separately to a receiver.

The size of a screen is determined by its diagonal length.

No it's not, it's determined by its height and width.

Video can be in whatever aspect ratio you want.

You shouldn't be watching movies on a laptop in the first place, and we shouldn't be catering to the bottom-feeders who do. 16:9 is not wide enough for them and will often still have black bars.

That's factually incorrect. Consumer panels are measured by aspect ratio and diagonal length. It's stupid but it's reality.

1:1 is the aspect ratio with most area for a given diagonal
Does that mean we should use 1:1? Nah

Which translates to a specific height and width. A diagonal measurement by itself is meaningless.

Christ dude, just look it up.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_size

Or you could use a laptop with real ports.

Why would I want all these deprecated legacy ports on my machine?

Because it allows you to connect to things without a suitcase off of dongles.

This thread is the stupidest people on Sup Forums

But removing the ports frees the designers to make more compact, faster laptops with more modern features. Some of these ports that are holding us back are 100 years old.

There is a 1:1 monitor made by Eizo. I'd certainly be interesting in using it.

>3.5mm audio jack holding literally anything back other than Apple's headphone sales

Come on, grandpa. Just use bluetooth already so we can drop this breakage-prone and watertight-seal-compromising hole.

Next you're going to tell me that internal storage is the reason laptops are so thick.

No. Just 2.5" HDDs and discrete SSDs. On-board NAND is the way of the future.

16:9 is still cheaper, and most companies care about nothing else.

>Literally defending 16:9 an inferior aspect ratio
No such thing as an "inferior" aspect ratio, it's all preference. You can always add more pixels vertically, horizontally, or both.

16:9 is better for watching videos and playing FPSs, just saying.

Depends on the video and game. Not all videos are shot in 16:9 and not all games use Hor+ scaling.

Arguing over which ratio is best is bullshit.

Anyone with the black bar meme is stupid because if you watch videos full screen not in there native resolutions you should be shot

16:10 is objectively the best resolution

>The width of the display is 1.6 times its height. This ratio is close to the golden ratio which is approximately 1.618.