Originally posted by: lazybum131
Originally posted by: Conroy9
I don't think this is true.
A 14" widescreen should be about 12x7.2, giving you 86.4 square inches
A 14" non-widescreen should be about 11.2x8.4, giving you 94 square inches
My 15" non-widescreen is 12x9, giving you 108 square inches.
You can increase the pixel real estate of either by getting higher resolution screens, but at the same number of pixels, the widescreen text should be smaller and harder to read...
He was talking about desktop real estate which depends on screen resolution. A 14" WXGA widescreen has a higher DPI then either the 14" or 15" XGA so the widescreen will have more real estate.
But fbrdphreak left out 14" SXGA+ and 15" SXGA+ & UXGA screens which both have higher DPI and more screen estate than a 14" WXGA. The reduced screen estate of the 14" widescreen compared to the 14" SXGA+ normal is the reason why I wouldn't consider buying any of the current 14" widescreen laptops unless it was only going to be a DVD playing machine.
These are all pretty strange arguments. If you're going to debate how much you can fit on a widescreen vs. non-widescreen, you need to at least attempt to keep your statements relevant.
The bottom line is that it's always a tradeoff. Screen size is always proporional to laptop size. Some of you people seem to think you can get something for nothing. If the laptop's bigger, it's going to have a bigger screen.
14" with 1.00:1 aspect = 9.90" x 9.90" = 98.0 in^2
14" with 1.33:1 aspect = 11.20" x 8.40" = 94.1 in^2 (1024x768 XGA, 91 DPI)
14" with 1.60:1 aspect = 11.87" x 7.42" = 88.1 in^2 (1280x800 WXGA, 108 DPI)
14" with 1.67:1 aspect = 12.00" x 7.20" = 86.5 in^2 (1280x768 WXGA, 107 DPI)
To me it seems pretty obvious in the above situation that I'd rather have the 1280x768 laptop which takes up 7.6 in^2 less space, has a 0.8" wider keyboard and has 20% more pixels. Widescreen displays are inherently higher-resolution than their counterparts, so if you're going to argue about desktop real estate, the only way you can say a standard aspect screen is better is to refer to the non-existance of WSXGA displays and the inability to find WSXGA+ displays under 15.4" (although SXGA+ displays are fairly rare in 14-15" laptops anyway).
Every 14" widescreen I've seen has a WXGA (1280x768 or 1280x800) display, so if you're comparing that to a 14" XGA (1024x768) laptop, the widescreen has smaller pixels and can fit more. It's pretty simple. If you're comparing it to a 14" SXGA+ (1400x1050), obviously the SXGA+ screen can fit more because it's higher DPI, but you're certainly quite limited in your selection of 14" SXGA+ laptops.
It's totally ridiculous to say, "You forgot UXGA screens," when you're taing about 14" widescreens. 15" UXGA screens are extremely rare these days, and when have there ever been 14" UXGA screens? Tell me, is someone actually using a 143 DPI screen without going blind? If you're going to argue that non-widesreens have more pixels on the screen you're just plain wrong. Dell has offered 15.4" and 17" WUXGA screens for some time, and if you're crazy enough to get a 15.4" WUXGA screen, that's higher DPI than anything I've ever heard of.
Really, the only thing keeping widescreen laptops from taking over every segment is the lack of WSXGA. There needs to be a 1536x960 or 1600x1000 or 1600x960 standard out there -- something for high-resolution 14" widescreens.