Lenovo axes the 4:3 ThinkPad T61 -- are widescreens better?

Lenovo's the latest laptop vendor to go to a mostly-widescreen lineup today, as it retires the 4:3 14.1-inch ThinkPad T61. All that's left in the standard ratio are the 12.1-inch X-series laptops, and even those are something of a novelty in today's 13.3-inch dominated market. It's not a formal move and there's no announcement, but it's clearly a growing trend -- Apple, Sony, and HP don't offer any 4:3 laptops either -- and it's got us wondering what people prefer. Just amongst Engadget editors there's no clear agreement: some of us prize vertical real estate, while others say tiling windows horizontally provides maximum multitasking power, and one ed rocks both 16:9 and 4:3 displays side-by-side -- but that's probably crazy. What's your aspect ratio of choice? Hit us up in comments!

[BigDaddyM @ Apr 21st 2008 10:36PM]

Main screen is 16x10 but in a dual monitor setup where teh second is 4x3.

I keep my main screen centered and the second is slightly wrapped around.
M

[Deaner @ Apr 21st 2008 11:22PM]

Why not 8:5? People still reduce fractions and ratios, right?

[a ham sandwich @ Apr 21st 2008 11:29PM]

@deaner.

i think they do that just to point out out that its a teensy bit taller that standard 16:9. but lol its funny you should point that out i never thought of that.

[Michael @ Apr 21st 2008 11:35PM]

@ Deaner:
Because 16:9 was a common widescreen format before 16:10 came around. Most computer LCDs are 16:10 and all widescreen TVs are 16:9.

Doesn't make any sense to reduce the fraction when lots of people wouldn't be able to figure out how to compare 16:9 and 8:5

[vdogg89 @ Apr 21st 2008 11:39PM]

i didn't know people still used 4:3 screens anymore. I would never go back

[Invisiblemoose @ Apr 22nd 2008 12:21AM]

Same exact setup here.

[Jake @ Apr 22nd 2008 11:50AM]

I'm cool with widescreen as long as the screen is big enough. 15" widescreen just doesn't make sense. 17" is fine. On a 15" I much prefer 4:3 to be able to read the darn text!

[p.flynn2 @ Apr 21st 2008 10:37PM]

i have a 16:10 laptop and at work i use two 4:3 monitors side by side. i much prefer the widescreen laptop screen. even with a dual monitor setup with 4:3 screens, everything feels cramped and cluttered. while dual 4:3 is useful, 16:10 are more practical and cheaper.

[Skorpius @ Apr 21st 2008 10:38PM]

My first widescreen was the Lenovo T61p I am typing this on, bought in October. Whenever I get on the desktop with the standard monitor, it is such a major difference. Widescreen makes a total difference for me now.

[Tits @ Apr 21st 2008 10:41PM]

prefer 4:3 for job, stacking layers... photoshop, after effects, 3D stuff. best rez is 1600/1200. 16:10 better for movies...

however I dont care anymore since I got my DELL 30inches... plenty of space now! ;P best buy ever!

[MrSnurdley @ Apr 21st 2008 10:41PM]

I have two 4:3 monitors on my desk, and my laptop has the now requisite (it seems) 16:9 aspect ratio. I actually prefer the "old school" standard ratio for computers; the widescreen aspect makes viewing webpages, especially those with large pictures, somewhat of a pain. However it does look better when viewing a movie without 3 inch letterbox.

[Brad Kempeny @ Apr 21st 2008 10:42PM]

sorry, meant to say two 5:4 aspect ratio monitors for my desktop

[Scott @ Apr 22nd 2008 12:36PM]

4:3 is better for most computer tasks (especially vertically orientated web pages), and widescreen is better for movies.

Since I very rarely watch movies on my computer, I pick 4:3 every time.

[N30 G30 @ Apr 21st 2008 10:41PM]

"13.3-inch dominated market"

hmm... I always thought there weren't enough 13 inch laptops. Sony Vaio SZ, Apple MacBook, Dell XPS 1330 were the only laptops I considered getting. I felt 13.3 inches was perfect for me.

My vote goes for widescreen, just like movies. I figured, logically, eyes were meant to move left and right more often than up and down.

[Adam @ Apr 21st 2008 10:58PM]

widescreen

eyes aren't made to moe vertically as much as horizontally. good point.

[birdman @ Apr 22nd 2008 2:00AM]

he means 13 inch laptops dominate the ultra light segment, not the whole laptop market...

[blevay @ Apr 21st 2008 10:41PM]

I have a MBP, and i like the widescreen, but i often miss the vertical space when browsing webages. I've got two widescreen monitors on my desktop PC, and i've been thinking about putting one vertical for web browsing and keeping the other horizontal.

The other place i miss the vertical space is for audio editing. Sometimes you want to see more tracks at once than a widescreen display can show, though it is nice to have the horizontal space.

GAH! Tradeoffs! When's somebody going to just release a big ass square display? That'd make me happy....

[Shogmaster @ Apr 21st 2008 10:41PM]

If they offered something better than 1280x800 in 12" or 13.3" 16:10, this wouldn't be an issue for me, but right now, 12" 4:3 units are the only ones offering something higher than 1280x800 (1400x1050).

[sinai @ Apr 21st 2008 10:42PM]

its not the ratio, its the number of pixels.

[RD. @ Apr 21st 2008 11:24PM]

sinai's right. forget the ratio, i'm just looking for anything high-res. that's what makes the multi-tasking happen.

[vdogg89 @ Apr 21st 2008 11:42PM]

no joke, im rockin 1680x1050 on my 15" lappy

[Ed @ Apr 22nd 2008 12:06AM]

no joke, im rockin 1600x1200 on my 15" lappy. My broke-ass, 5 year old dell beats your laptop by 150,000 pixels.

[Dragoneye @ Apr 22nd 2008 1:06AM]

I completely agree, I really don't care whether it is widescreen or not, its how many pixels I can get. I have a 19" 1600x1200 4:3 attached to my 15.4" 1680x1050 screen on my laptop.

[cromas @ Apr 22nd 2008 1:33AM]

Totally. This is why I've been advocating for 12000x200 displays for years now.

[greatslack @ Apr 22nd 2008 10:18AM]

Right, but given the same number of pixels, I'd rather have them in 16:9 than 4:3.

[Chris @ Apr 21st 2008 10:43PM]

I curently have a 19in 4:3 monitor and I'm seriously considering buying a nice 22in Samsung but then I won't be able to play Crysis on the native resolution.

Any thoughts or recomendations for a good 22in monitor?

[computer.dude.28 @ Apr 21st 2008 11:22PM]

19" is a good size. I have 2 19" 4:3 side-by-side. They're @ 1280x1024 and actually if you span a widescreen movie across both it isn't that bad you get used to the gap. Good for HD movies too.

[iofthestorm @ Apr 22nd 2008 1:32AM]

If you have an ATI card (chances are you don't, but whatever) Catalyst 8.3 added a feature that scales the image on the GPU side instead of on the LCD, so you can effectively play at native resolution no matter what resolution you choose in a game. Worse than actually playing at native, but much better than LCD scaling. It's great for stuff like Crysis where there's no way I could run it at my full native resolution (1680x1050).

Also, on topic, I used to be a big 4:3 fan but I've since realized how much more natural widescreen is since your field of vision is actually much wider than tall. Also, widescreen monitors often have more pixels (1920x1200 vs 1600x1200 for example) although sometimes they skimp on pixels in laptops, which sucks. But for me it's really all about the pixels, and the price, and this monitor was too good to give up ($200 for 20"Viewsonic widescreen).

[Raptor007 @ Apr 22nd 2008 3:38PM]

@Chris
I highly recommend the Samsung 204B. It's only 20", but you get a very sweet 1600x1200 native resolution and a nice low response time too (less motion blur).

@iofthestorm
The Nvidia drivers have the same feature. And since we're talking about Crysis, I think everyone who has the hardware to play has either Nvidia or ATI.

[bot @ Apr 21st 2008 10:45PM]

I'm cool with either format for desktops but I'd only do widescreen for my laptops. It seems to fit the concept of the laptop much better. A rectangular shape feels more comfortable to carry around in bags, and it fits better with the rectangular shaped keyboard.

[John @ Apr 21st 2008 10:55PM]

All of my laptops are widescreen, but I do remember being very happy the day I ebay'd my last laptop with a 4:3 screen. Like you, I find the widescreen laptops easier to carry and most importantly - seems to allow for a wider, more full-size keyboard layout.

[Pete @ Apr 21st 2008 10:46PM]

16:10 but try finding one that actually has decent resolution on a laptop these days. Seriously, I work with visual studio and the current generation of laptop monitors are just not cutting it... My 1440x1050 laptop blows away most of the current monitors. It is like they are going back in time with crappy lower res screens that are "better" because they are widescreen. Yeah.... Widescreen is good if you don't loose the resolution.

Gimme a Toshiba M700 with a *high* resolution screen and I will be happy.... unfortunately even Toshiba has gone lackuster on their displays... you have no choice anymore.

[Yuhong Bao @ Apr 21st 2008 10:58PM]

I hate my widescreen laptop a little for the same reason Pete hates it (low resolution), but for a different reason. I run virtualization software on it and 800 minus 768 equals only 32 pixels, which is a bad thing because, I mean, is 32 additional vertical pixels enough for running virtualization software in a window? That is a bad thing because 1024x768 is a common screen resolution and this makes it hard to run virtualization software in a window when the VM is at that resolution.

[Mark @ Apr 22nd 2008 12:46AM]

don't forget the garbage glossy screens they're popping in all the laptops now.

[mattydread @ Apr 22nd 2008 8:45AM]

@Mark

I hated the glossy screens until my work-issued laptop had one, and now I'll never buy an LCD with the anti-glare filter again. It's an HP-Compaq 6710b if anyone cares.

[Dach @ Apr 21st 2008 10:50PM]

Widescreen is the most aesthetically pleasing. This may sound like an opinion, but there's science to back it up:

The "Golden Ratio" has been around for ages. Artistically, it's always been highly prized. That ratio is 1.6180339887 which is very close to 16:10. As long as displays are rendered in pixels, this is probably about as close as you can get.
I also wish they'd quit making movies in wider and wider formats. Does it have to get as ridiculous as Seagal-Vision before they stop?

[Ryan Singer @ Apr 22nd 2008 12:44AM]

RIGHT ON!
I'm glad you know this! I was searching to see if anyone mentioned Phi but then you mentioned golden ratio the golden ratio. It works in a funny way. The more precise you go, the further from 2:1 till you get to some naturally pleasing proportion found in nature.

1:1.6
10:16.2
100:161.6

Someone also told me you can do simple math and get close to the golden ratio by adding the in this progression: (1:2)1+1=2, (2:3)1+2=3, (3:5)2+3=5, (5:8)3+5=8, (8:13)5+8=13, (13:21)8+13=21... etc...

[Ahmed Alzayani @ Apr 22nd 2008 3:44AM]

I really disgust 4:3 or 5:4, and adore 16:10 or 16:9 ….. Widescreen is much better visually


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Ratio

[Ahmed Alzayani @ Apr 22nd 2008 3:48AM]

I forgot to mention that I really hate low resolution monitors, I am using 17” 1920x1200 on my laptop and absolutely love it, sorry but 1280x800 not for me.

[Zencyde @ Apr 22nd 2008 10:14AM]

This is aimed at Ryan: Have you heard of the Fibonacci Sequence? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_sequence It's sort of where all of this stuff got started. :P Though, I do admit that this is quite an interesting point. My personal favorite resolution is 1920x1200 pixels. Its vertical count is slightly above 1920x1080 (1080p HD), its horizontal count is slightly above 1600x1200 (a VERY nice 4:3 resolution), and the spec was originally created because it allows two full documents to be placed side by side. Plus, one could throw in the ability to rotate most of these wonderful 16:10 monitors. Overall, I find that 1920x1200 offers the most advantages. It's also the highest common resolution that a single DVI port can handle. :D I seriously wonder what the deal is with this slew of 1680x1050 monitors. It's only a little extra for that oh-so-wonderful 1920x1200 resolution.

[fireball87 @ Apr 21st 2008 10:51PM]

I tend to prefer 4x3 just because alot of what I use computers for is dedicated to large bodies of short lines of text (code). Plus as desk space is more valuable to me then air space I tend to feel like I get more area out of my 4x3 screens. We should ditch both and start using vertical 4x5 screens like the alto had :P

Honestly I could really care less either way as long as the resolutions nice and high for the size.

[Aguiluz @ Apr 21st 2008 10:56PM]

I really like my new widescreen. It makes my reading and posting on Engadget, SpyroForum, Tweaktown, Benheck, Youtube, Dark Realm Dracos and others more comfortable. I found the standard useful for being cheap.

WIDESCREEN - FOR THE WIN!

[Scott @ Apr 22nd 2008 12:43PM]

How does widescreen make web browsing (or document reading for that matter) easier? Both of those are orientated vertically and would require more scrolling than an equivalent 4:3 monitor.

[Aguiluz @ Apr 22nd 2008 5:51PM]

Scott, I know this is a bit late, but I read left to right, not up to down. :)

[james @ Apr 21st 2008 10:57PM]

5:4 and 4:3 for web browsing, 1 window tasks. 16:9, 16:10 for moves, multi window tasks

[Pranav @ Apr 21st 2008 11:00PM]

I actually got a HP w2408 and it rotates so its like 1920x1200 (which is enormous) turns into 1200x1920 which is A HUGE AMOUNT of vertical space. Rotating it is a pain though.

[Carl Lumma @ Apr 21st 2008 11:01PM]

For a laptop I prefer 4:3. For a desktop, I prefer 16:10.

[computer.dude.28 @ Apr 21st 2008 11:25PM]

Quite the opposite for me, actually, but that's because I've always had 4:3 desktops and widescreen laptops..

[xtremesniper @ Apr 21st 2008 11:02PM]

While from time to time I wish I had that extra vertical space, in the end I always liked widescreen better. It also works a lot better with full screen videos, and reading webpages is a lot easier (especially sites like this one that auto-form to the width of the screen).

[Stem $ell @ Apr 21st 2008 11:03PM]

~

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Mo-ratio,
Than are dreamt of in your pixosophy..."

Ramlet, Hact I, Screen 5

~