# wide screen vs "regular"

#### Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

•  Subject
• Author
• Posted on
Which screen has the greater surface area:
for example the 14.1 inch regular vs 14.1 wide screen?

The same question re the 15.4 inch screen.

Thanks
Mahl

## Re: wide screen vs "regular"

Mahlon Wagner wrote:

Regular.

See http://www.screenmath.com /

--
"Just because you're smart doesn't mean you're wise."

## Re: wide screen vs "regular"

To get maximum area of a rectangle with fixed diagonal, the rectangle
should be a square.  As the aspect ratio increases above 1:1, area
decreases.  Consider the limiting case: the width can increase until it
equals the diagonal, at which point the height is zero, the aspect ratio
is infinite, and area is zero.

Dave

## Re: wide screen vs "regular"

Dave Martindale wrote:

Suggestions of measuring the height and width are not quite as useful
since I was looking online at the different Thinkpads where measurement
isn't easily possible.
Mahl

## Re: wide screen vs "regular"

Mahlon Wagner wrote:

To get the surface area you have to multiply the width by the height.
So, just measure them and multiply.

## Re: wide screen vs "regular"

Wide screen is smaller.  That is, in fact, WHY widescreen has become so
popular ... the monitor & laptop makers are "pushing" it because for any
given "inch size", it costs a lot less to make due to the smaller
surface area (a 1:1 aspect ratio screen (square) would have the greatest
area per "inch size").

Mahlon Wagner wrote:

## Re: wide screen vs "regular"

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 10:41:35 -0500, Barry Watzman

You forgot to mention that besides the area becomes smaller (and
cheaper to manufacture) the selling price becomes higher (as the
marketeers make you belive you getter 'more').
It even gets rediculous that nowadays you hardly can get an 3:4
screen, even in the business area it. (remeber the days that you could
turn a normal screen 90 degrees so a letter fit better.)
The argument is that you can get 'now' two A4's next to each other
(you could do that also in the past) so it is easier to work. They
forget to mention that unless you take a much bigger screen the hight
is less so the 2 A4's next to each other becomes unreadable. Also they
is the world on its head.
So you see how you get pushed arounf by the marketeers.
BTW the same is true for the shining (mirrors) screens (as everybody
is only watching DVD's on his/her laptop???).

Bu

## Re: wide screen vs "regular"

Bu wrote:

The reason that widescreen at 1.6 aspect ratio is cheaper than a 1.33
"standard" aspect ratio is that more screens can be made from the large
screen master in a widescreen format.  Everything else that appears on
widescreens is an artifact of the the "popularity" of widescreens -
"popularity" meaning that there are far more widescreens than standard
screens because the widescreen is cheaper to produce.

Q

## Re: wide screen vs "regular"

Barry Watzman wrote:

And this is why "widescreen" should instead be called "shortscreen."

I liked my 14.1 4:3 but feel cramped on my 14.1 shortscreen.

## Re: wide screen vs "regular"

Barry Watzman wrote:

When you say, > That is, in fact, WHY widescreen has become so

you obviously mean, with manufacturers. But why is that, according to
various salespeople I talked to, people seem to like and request that
computers to what movies?

To make things worth now, it has become almost impossible in the last
six months to buy a monitor that is not glossy (glary!).

I remember a thread where someone wrote that manufacturers do not
manufacture products people do not want.

So can someone explain to me why those changes are being pushed down our
throats? People who work on their computers - and I thought that lots of
them do - do not want glary screens and often do not have the place on
their desks to put the huge monitor they now need to display a full Word
page. The "extra" horizontal space ends up often being black useless
space, or is used to display an often distorted picture.

I do watch occasionally movies on my machine but never regret that I
have the 4:3 format.

So, at the end of the day, is there really a "popular demand" for those
products? My suspicion is, most computer buyers just use their machines
to surf and read emails, have not the slightest idea if they run Vista
or XP (what is the difference anyway for those users) and see in their
computers a second or third TV. Which leaves us with the kind of choices
we see today ... A sorry situation!

--
John Doue

## Re: wide screen vs "regular"

I have a 14 inch widescreen laptop.  There wasn't much choice at the
time I bought it (about a year ago), but if I *did* have a choice
between 16:9 and 4:3 14" laptops at the same price, I probably would
have chosen the 16:9.  Not because I watch movies on it very often, but
because I wanted a small light laptop primarily to take to conferences.
The relatively small screen seems a decent tradeoff for a physically
shorter laptop front to back (which also means slightly less weight).

Now, if I could have had a 12 inch diagonal 4:3 screen at the same
price, I would have considered that seriously instead.  But 12 inch
machines seem to carry an unreasonable price premium, and I also wonder
about my ability to use the undersized keyboard (I'm a touch typist).

So the 14 inch WS was my choice, and I haven't regretted the choice of
shape yet.

Dave

## Re: wide screen vs "regular"

While searching to buy a laptop, I was looking for a 14" 'non
wide-screen', but they were all big bucks. Seems a SMALLER screen size is
a premium now.  These bigger/wider screens (which USED to be a premium)
are useless on an airplane unless you want to lie on the floor with the
screen in front of you. In Nov 2006 I bought an HP WMC laptop with a
glossy wide-screen ONLY because it was a Black Friday deal and went from
\$900 to \$499 for that one day. Friends that have seen it say " VERY NICE!"
They like the color ( " BrightView" HP calls the glossy screen) and the
wide-screen 17" format. In both instances they are thinking of movie
watching. 99.5% of the time I am not watching a movie and would NOT prefer
neither the glare nor the wide screen size. I would prefer the old
screen-size ratio. Even on my TV I would prefer to see movies " the way
they used to be". I have no need to see 2" bars of black above and  the
image while viewing on an old TV.  I felt stupid the first time I brought
it on a plane and couldn't open it more than 45 degrees ( with guy's chair
in front of my reclined).

The few times I DID watch a movie, it was nice and I think that more and
more folks want to use a portable pc to view movies ( maybe for the kids
in the car ?). The PC makers are trying to make PC's mainstream and any
reason to maybe get someone to pick theirs over the other guy's is a good
reason for them to do so.
Personally I'd prefer old ratio screens -  with old ratio movies on DVD !
Like you I'm thinking that " people must like them since they make more
and more of them". Unless it's just that they decided - "We can't make
both: and who wouldn't want a bigger screen?"