Laptops with taller screens

HarryN

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
3,976
Location
Pleasanton (Bay Area), CA, USA
Hi, I am starting the hunt of a new laptop for mostly heavy business use, presentations (some are quite complicated files), travel, and of course, an occassional game. I am a pretty traditional windows user and have some windows specific software, so I probably wil end up upgrading it from win 8 to win 7 pro. My real challenge as I dig deeper is actually hardware related - the screen.

I do a lot of work on a business HP laptop 6515b which has a display aspect ratio roughly 3 wide x 2 tall. The main challenge I usually have is that as programs take up more and more of the top / bottom of the screen, I really would like an even taller screen.

As I look around, modern laptops have mostly gone the exact opposite way, more toward roughly 2 wide x 1 tall or worse. This is nearly useless to me.

So far, I have only found 2 laptops that are not tied to this very wide format:
- MacBook Pro 15 inch, which is pretty spendy. Yes, I could convert it to windows 7 pro but it just seems crazy to pay the apple tax and the windows tax.
- Google Chrome book - amazingly, they actually get it when it comes to display size and quality. The processor, ram, and always connected concept are a no-go for me, but at least it offers a glimmer of hope that some other firms make a taller rather than wider screen laptop.

I am looking for a 15 - 17 inch screen, healthy configuration and am willing to go a little over board if necessary, but an AMD A10 and 16 gig of ram is probably fine. Optical disc is not needed. Tough enough for travel use and decent battery life. (hours, not minutes)

So far I have looked at dell, hp, lenovo, msi, acer and the razor blade, but it could be that I just missed some since I didn't notice the screen problem until I had looked at quite a few for other factors.

Thanks

Harry
 

csshih

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,950
Location
San Jose, CA
Harry,

Sounds like you're looking for a 16:10 screen instead of a 16:9 one. unfortunately there aren't many on the market anymore :( If it were a year ago I would have recommended a Dell precision but even those are 16:9 now.

Craig
 

HarryN

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
3,976
Location
Pleasanton (Bay Area), CA, USA
Hi Craig, what I would really like is a screen that is close to a square, but that really does seem to be the impossible dream.

This one would work for features, and it has win 7 pro or win 8, but still not really the right screen shape. hp probook 4545s with an AMD A8. I would post a link, but I don't think I am supposed to. It has features I don't need, and is kind of thick, but with a ram upgrade - maybe.

I had to admit to my daughter that a macbook pro would be an acceptable win laptop - kind of strange. Way too pricey though.
 

gadget_lover

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Messages
7,148
Location
Near Silicon Valley (too near)
Are any of the new convertable tablets (such as the MS Surface) able to change orientation? The screen docks to the keyboard. There are a lot of monitors that swivel to portrait mode. The 16:9 suddenly becomes 9:16. Of course, that means you get to pay the MS tax and the joys of Windows 8. :)


Daniel
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,506
Location
Flushing, NY
Hi Craig, what I would really like is a screen that is close to a square, but that really does seem to be the impossible dream.
I mourn the loss of 4:3 screens myself. 16:9 or 16:10 is fine for watching movies, but I never saw the value of using it for PCs. To make it even worse, we've standardized on 1080 vertical lines instead of 1200 as had been the case for a while with widescreen monitors. Maybe the fad will pass and they'll start making 4:3 monitors again, only in higher resolutions. My dream monitor would be something using OLEDs, and with a resolution of maybe 4096 x 3072 in a 21" or 22" size. I have no use for anything bigger given the space on my desk and my eyesight which prohibits me from sitting more than about 15 inches away. As things stand, the pixels on my 20" 1600x1200 are quite noticeable. Something with pixels half the size or less would be ideal.

I had to admit to my daughter that a macbook pro would be an acceptable win laptop - kind of strange. Way too pricey though.

Apple is the only one nowadays with screens with a reasonable pixel pitch.
 
Last edited:

EZO

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
1,431
Location
Vermont, USA
I mourn the loss of 4:3 screens myself. 16:9 or 16:10 is fine for watching movies, but I never saw the value of using it for PCs. To make it even worse, we've standardized on 1080 vertical lines instead of 1200 as had been the case for a while with widescreen monitors. Maybe the fad will pass and they'll start making 4:3 monitors again, only in higher resolutions. My dream monitor would be something using OLEDs, and with a resolution of maybe 4096 x 3072 in a 21" or 22" size. I have no use for anything bigger given the space on my desk and my eyesight which prohibits me from sitting more than about 15 inches away.[/FONT][/COLOR]

It is sometimes hard to let go of a passing technology we may be fond of or that we've grow accustomed to but that's the way of technology. Be that as it may, the 16:9 screen format and other similar ratio are hardly a fad and the 4:3 ratio is merely a hold over from the era of the cathode ray tube. One should consider that just because you have no use for something, others may find it invaluable even if you "never see the value of using it". For example, many of us use software such as Photoshop or other components of Adobe's Creative Suite that all use numerous floating tool palettes. The wide rectangular format provides enough screen real estate to accommodate all the tools as well as an unobstructed view of the photograph or other graphic art one may be working with. When using page layout software such as Quark or InDesign, the wide screen format allows for a full 2-Up page layout unobstructed (face to face) AND the tool palettes at your disposal. There are numerous other examples of how people are using these screens in productive ways well beyond just for watching movies.

Personally, I use two 23 inch wide screen monitors side by side and I love it. It would be hard for me to go back to just one. Lots of example here but one example is that I run Windows 7 under Parallels on Mac OSX and I can have Windows on one screen and OSX on the other and work fluidly back and forth between both OS's. The two monitor scheme could be a whole thread in itself, so I'll leave it at that but it's almost like having a 4 foot wide workspace with the ability to drag anything back and forth between both monitors.
 
Last edited:

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,506
Location
Flushing, NY
The wide rectangular format provides enough screen real estate to accommodate all the tools as well as an unobstructed view of the photograph or other graphic art one may be working with. When using page layout software such as Quark or InDesign, the wide screen format allows for a full 2-Up page layout unobstructed (face to face) AND the tool palettes at your disposal. There are numerous other examples of how people are using these screens in productive ways well beyond just for watching movies.
In theory a widescreen monitor can display two pages side by side. In practice, until we get 4K monitors text will look like crap when you do that. There just aren't enough pixels. Actually, pixel density, or rather lack of it, is a far bigger issue with today's monitors than the format. I could live with widescreen if I had to, but I see little point in upgrading from my present monitor when the pixel density will be the same. For a long time, pixel density was steadily increasing. In the mid-2000s we pretty much stopped. Only recently with retina displays have we begun to increase pixel density again.

Personally, I use two 23 inch wide screen monitors side by side and I love it. It would be hard for me to go back to just one. Lots of example here but one example is that I run Windows 7 under Parallels on Mac OSX and I can have Windows on one screen and OSX on the other and work fluidly back and forth between both OS's. The two monitor scheme could be a whole thread in itself, so I'll leave it at that but it's almost like having a 4 foot wide workspace with the ability to drag anything back and forth between both monitors.
I've been using a two screen setup myself for the last few months (my original 19" 1280x1024 monitor combined with the 20" 1600x1200 monitor I inherited from the next door neighbors). The 20" is actually better than the 19" even though it's older (~2004). I like the extra screen real estate in that I can have two different apps maximized at once. This is handy if I'm looking at a pair of spreadsheets or text documents and comparing them, for example. Still, I really want higher resolution. I can read text on paper which is 1/3 of the smallest size I can read on my monitor. In theory, a monitor should have enough pixels so your eye can't pick them out. This is hardly the case now. Whether it's 4096x3072, or 4096x2160, or 3840x2160, just give me something where I can't discern the pixels when the monitor fills my field of view. And preferably in a size which fits on my desk, not one of those huge 30" monsters.
 

EZO

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
1,431
Location
Vermont, USA
jtr my friend, a guy who says, "my eyesight which prohibits me from sitting more than about 15 inches away" (from the monitor) isn't really in a position to make a blanket statement like, "until we get 4K monitors text will look like crap". With all due respect, so many of your remarks assume that everyone sees the world through your "eyes" and with your perceptions and this just isn't so. Most of us don't have to or want to sit so close to our screens and one gets the impression that you are not familiar with what it's like to earn your living in the graphic arts using the type of software I'm talking about day in and day out. Text (and graphics and photography) hardly "look like crap". The highly color corrected monitors I run on my Macs look impressively crisp and clear. Yes, I would love to have much higher resolutions and they are coming. Indeed, as Apple continues to fill out its line with Retina displays things are continuing to progress along those lines and we will see better and better coming along real soon. Some of us remember what it was like working in the graphic arts on 8 bit 13 inch CRT boxes and things have come a long, long way. Jtr, you should really have a visit with your optometrist and discuss your computer complaints with him, it may change your entire experience here. It sounds like you are suffering unnecessarily and may be straining your eyes even further. I wear glasses but my reading glasses would force me to do what you do and that would be unacceptable. Instead, I have a prescription for glasses that I only use when I work at my computer and I can do so at a comfortable distance that allows me to experience the full design potential and enjoyment of my monitors.
 

HarryN

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
3,976
Location
Pleasanton (Bay Area), CA, USA
Ezo, you have a very nice setup for "in-house / office" use for your particular application, and I can see how you really like it. For someone like me that works on more simplistic text / spreadsheets most of the time, and needs a more "pick up and go" arrangement, the wide screen laptop vs taller is a real limitation.

For example, when I am using my email providers "on-line" / web mail version, it is split top / bottom. It wasn't that easy to find a supplier that meets my email needs (examples, multi site server reliability, 50 meg attachments, some security related aspects). I am sort of stuck with what they offer for screen presentation.

I actually don't see alternative screen formats as "old fashion", I see them as meeting the needs of a particular part of the market. At some point, the laptop market is going to notice that their sales are down among business users and do something about it, like listen to customers with cash in their pocket walk away from what is being offered. I think the challenge right now is how the market segment buckets are being defined, rather than what is possible.

In purely capitalistic terms, I would happily pay $ 1 400 for an equivalent $ 900 laptop that met my needs / goals. Would I pay $ 2 500 ? Probably not. I have discovered that there is a whole internet site full of people wanting taller format laptops, so it isn't just me.
 
Last edited:

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,506
Location
Flushing, NY
Jtr, you should really have a visit with your optometrist and discuss your computer complaints with him, it may change your entire experience here. It sounds like you are suffering unnecessarily and may be straining your eyes even further. I wear glasses but my reading glasses would force me to do what you do and that would be unacceptable. Instead, I have a prescription for glasses that I only use when I work at my computer and I can do so at a comfortable distance that allows me to experience the full design potential and enjoyment of my monitors.
I'm nearsighted. I can read numbers off 0805 SMD components with no problem but things start getting out of focus at around 15 inches. I don't wear glasses when using my monitor and don't need any. Given the room I have for my monitor, anything which physically fits in the space I'll need to sit about 15 or 16 inches away for it to fill my field of vision, so no problems there without glasses. The problem as I said is lack of screen resolution. Yes, we've come a long way from the days of CGA and VGA (I was around then, too), but like everything else as things get better, you adjust and eventually realize it could be even better. As for my statement about text looking like crap, try it for yourself. Take the smallest text you can read on paper. Now adjust the magnification on your document so the text on your screen is the same size and let me know if you can read it. That's the problem. When you put 2 pages with normal sized print side by side on a display with only 1080 or 1200 lines, it's often not readable, or barely readable. It's certainly not comfortable to read. I print out lots of data sheets and application notes for the simple reason they're not comfortable to read on a computer screen, not when you've been doing that for hours anyway. As for graphics and photography, totally different animal. Pictures don't seem to suffer as much from limited resolution as text because your brain seems to fill in the gaps between pixels. I just need more pixels, not different glasses. Frankly, wearing glasses is super annoying to me and there's no way I would sit so far away from a monitor that I would need to wear them. I wear my glasses for one thing only-watching TV if I'm more than about 3 feet from the screen. Anything else I either get close enough to see what I'm doing, or I just make do with my limited eyesight (i.e. walking or biking I get along just fine without my glasses). My uncorrected vision is 20/200 or thereabouts so it's not like I'm blind. I can't read street signs until I'm almost on top of them, but I can see what I need to see.
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,506
Location
Flushing, NY
I actually don't see alternative screen formats as "old fashion", I see them as meeting the needs of a particular part of the market. At some point, the laptop market is going to notice that their sales are down among business users and do something about it, like listen to customers with cash in their pocket walk away from what is being offered. I think the challenge right now is how the market segment buckets are being defined, rather than what is possible.
That makes two of us. Widescreen became popular for PC monitors for the simple reason the defect rate for widescreen panels is lower for technical reasons I don't recall. It also helped that a lot of people do little more on their PCs than check emails and watch you-tube videos. For that widescreen suffices just fine. For things like spreadsheets which tend to be more vertical than horizontal it really doesn't. Why do high-resolution medical displays still use 4:3 format? Obviously because it's superior for some uses. For all the talk about how the free market always offers choices, it doesn't seem to work that way in practice nowadays. Years ago it seemed there were ready suppliers for items which had smaller markets. Now with big box everything, nobody seems interested in making something unless they can sell millions. I guess I blame the end user also to some extent. For years now we've been rolling out monitors which are more or less not much better than what we had 8 or 10 years ago, and convincing people to buy them with slick marketing terms. Maybe if more people looked at the specs they would just have stuck with their old monitors until something genuinely much better came along.

EDIT: The display of this tablet would make a great laptop screen (or desktop monitor). I know it's still widescreen, but it seems what we're both looking for is vertical pixels, and this display offers them in abundance. You could always set the machine to display at something like 2880x2160 with black bars on the sides.
 
Last edited:

HarryN

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
3,976
Location
Pleasanton (Bay Area), CA, USA
I now understand why tablets are becoming so popular. I picked up a blackberry 64 gig tablet and can use it in either tall or wide mode as needed for my use. Its not perfect, but for $ 200, its very reasonably priced..

It won't replace my laptop, but it is remarkably viable for many ues. No wonder computer sales are down, at some point, you have to listen to your customers screen needs instead of the people that make movies.

I am still in the market for a laptop, but I delayed this another year by buying a new battery and a new, fast HD.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top