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

>>60154267
Because nobody likes black bars.

>tfw no proper 2017 Google Chromebook

>>60154294
The alternative is doing literally nothing with that space though.

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

>>60154378
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.

>>60154431
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.

>>60154446
>Laptops

>>60154533
Why not use a ~15" 6:9 display then, and have a bigger picture?

>>60154576
Because that would increase the size of the laptop frame.

>>60154624
So would making the screen taller. It's not like my laptop has huge top/bottom bezels with lots of empty space in them.

>>60154650
Literally defending 16:9 an inferior aspect ratio

>>60154650
Unless you have some weirdly shaped laptop I guarantee you have a solid inch of nothingness above/below your screen.

>>60154691
There needs to be room for the frame, hinge, backlight, inverter board and webcam.

>>60154717
And all the above laptops seem to manage that just fine without having useless chins.

>>60154267
Price. 16:9 is subsidized by cheap TV shit screens.

>>60154294
>Because nobody likes black bars.

Only losers waste time watching movies on computers.

>>60154762
>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.

>>60154750
Are you kidding me? The bezels on all those laptops are huge.

>>60154431
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

>>60154824
What the fuck does "29 or 32 inch" mean? Rectangles are measured by their height and width moron.

>>60154750
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.

>>60154844
It's 29 or 32 inchs diagonally from corner to corner.

>>60154856
That is a meaningless measurement. Rectangles are defined by their height and width.

>>60154824
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.

>>60154910
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.

>>60154866
The size of a screen is determined by its diagonal length.

>>60154937
No it's not, it's determined by its height and width.

>>60154875
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.

>>60154945
That's factually incorrect. Consumer panels are measured by aspect ratio and diagonal length. It's stupid but it's reality.

>>60154824
1:1 is the aspect ratio with most area for a given diagonal
Does that mean we should use 1:1? Nah

>>60154976
Which translates to a specific height and width. A diagonal measurement by itself is meaningless.

>>60154945
Christ dude, just look it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_size

>>60154933
Or you could use a laptop with real ports.

>>60155009
Why would I want all these deprecated legacy ports on my machine?

>>60155029
Because it allows you to connect to things without a suitcase off of dongles.

>>60154267
This thread is the stupidest people on /g/

>>60155036
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.

>>60154996
There is a 1:1 monitor made by Eizo. I'd certainly be interesting in using it.

>>60155056
>3.5mm audio jack holding literally anything back other than Apple's headphone sales

>>60155101
Come on, grandpa. Just use bluetooth already so we can drop this breakage-prone and watertight-seal-compromising hole.

File: The (((cloud))).jpg (284KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 2048x1536px

>>60155158
Next you're going to tell me that internal storage is the reason laptops are so thick.

>>60155186
No. Just 2.5" HDDs and discrete SSDs. On-board NAND is the way of the future.

>>60154267
16:9 is still cheaper, and most companies care about nothing else.

File: resolutions.png (60KB, 2133x1200px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 2133x1200px

>>60154679
>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.

>>60156318
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.