25 Comments

Summary:

I was pleased that Apple resisted going to the ultra-wide 16:9 (WXGA/HDTV) screen aspect ratio that’s becoming popular in PC laptops for the new unibody MacBook revisions, sticking with the 16:10 (WXGA+/WSXGA) proportions carried over from the aluminum PowerBooks and older MacBooks. By my lights, 16:10 […]

I was pleased that Apple resisted going to the ultra-wide 16:9 (WXGA/HDTV) screen aspect ratio that’s becoming popular in PC laptops for the new unibody MacBook revisions, sticking with the 16:10 (WXGA+/WSXGA) proportions carried over from the aluminum PowerBooks and older MacBooks.

By my lights, 16:10 is plenty wide enough, and I would actually prefer more vertical headroom than that. In many ways, the old XGA 4:3 aspect ratio used in older Mac laptop displays suited me just fine, and as one who uses my Macs primarily as work tools rather than entertainment centers I’m dismayed by the motion picture format-driven trend toward ultra-wide screens.

So apparently is CNET’s Rafe Needleman, who posted a blog this week entitled “The Myth Of Width: When Wide Screens Don’t Work”.

Rafe observes that the trend to wider ratio displays is contra-progress for those of us who use laptops in real world work environments, constituting an ergonomic step backwards.

I share Needleman’s concession that for entertainment content, widescreens do work, making sense for plasma and LCD television displays and CinemaScope movie screens, noting that our eyes are side-by-side and having stories unfold in a way that more closely emulates how we see in real life provides a more satisfactory viewing experience.

Excessive Scrolling

However, for doing production work on a laptop display, the mode of seeing designed “to spot a herd of jackals approaching us over the plain becomes irrelevant,” as Rafe pithily puts it. So true. Most people’s computer work is conceptually oriented toward portrait mode, with wide-screen displays offering scant benefits and substantial drawbacks, a prima facie one being excessive scrolling.

As with books, magazines, newspapers, and correspondence, most web sites have a dominant vertical orientation, which is what works for text-based material, since lines of text longer than about 60 characters, become painfully cumbersome to read.

Side By Side

Aside from their suitability for watching video, the single mitigating aspect, so to speak, of wide-screen monitors is that they do facilitate juxtaposing two pages or applications side-by-side for more convenient comparison, but the fact is that I can display two Text-Edit Plus (the application in which I do most of my composing, drafting, editing, and markup) side by side on the 1024 x 768 4:3 ratio XGA monitor of the Pismo PowerBook I’m drafting this post on right now with just a sliver of overlap, and I wouldn’t even have that if I switched my OS X Dock to bottom rather than right-side orientation. Spreadsheets are  one work environment where widescreens arguably offer some advantages, but I’m not a spreadsheet user, and for my purposes I’ve had a longtime yearn for a portrait orientation display. I hasten to concede that a portrait display just wouldn’t work with the standard laptop computer form factor. Keyboards are horizontal, laptop screens have to close over them. But for an external display, portrait would be a nice option.

Veteran Mac users may recall that Apple at one time marketed the Apple Macintosh Portrait Display, a grayscale 640 x 870 resolution 15″ CRT unit, which was big stuff back in 1989 (and expensive – a whopping $1,049). I coveted one of these in my Mac early days, but the price was just too steep. A flatscreen Apple Portrait Cinema Display would be pretty cool, but I expect the price in 2009 dollars would probably be in the same nominal territory.

How about you? Widescreen fan, or would portrait view be a welcome display option?

Related stories

  1. Well technically OSX supports display rotation. You just need an appropriate mount and you can use any cinema display in portrait mode… Obviously the Apple symbol won’t be on the bottom. I have a dual-monitor setup with one in portrait and one in landscape. There really are times where one is better than the other, especially with editing photos.

    Share
  2. Wide screen all the way. I have a lot of very wide excel spreadsheets.

    Share
  3. I’ve got a Gateway 20″ widescreen monitor that came with drivers for Windows that enables it to function in portrait view automatically when it’s rotated 90 degrees (no going into any setup screens required to switch, just turn the display). I wonder if anyone has drivers like that available for OS X.

    Share
  4. Todd you shouldn’t need drivers for OSX, when you go into the display preference there’s a pulldown rotate menu with options for standard, 90°, 180°, 270°… from my understanding this isn’t monitor specific

    Share
  5. Oh nevermind, I see what you’re saying… that would require and accelerometer or something in the monitor for it to be recognized.

    Share
  6. Widescreen is good for me as long as it’s big enough to display a single standard page from top to bottom. I find it amusing that some of the sexiest netbooks like Sony’s are going with a super-short, super-wide ratio when portrait mode is what you really want when the screen is that size. These oh-so-sexy devices will seem instantly stupid when Apple comes out with it’s portrait oriented netbook.

    Just for giggles, the reason Apple goes with 16:10 instead of 16:9? It’s the Golden Ratio.

    I just *love* the fact that the whole world is 16:9 but that Apple has decided that the “right” ratio is 16:10 and sticks with it.

    It’s smart, it’s correct, it’s something that other manufacturers would never have even thought of, and it’s the stuff legends are made of. :-)

    Share
  7. I have always been complaining about the increasing need for vertical space. Menus, title bars, toolbars (bookmark bars, status bars, etc), the dock, all consume more vertical space than horizontal. And monitor trends squeeze vertical space even further, leaving little space for content.

    It was nice back then when I could have 1600x1200px in my old 17″ CRT!

    Share
  8. I’m a big fan of using my displays in portrait mode. There is one problem though, the rotated mode is not accelerated so things like scrolling a pdf that covers a good chunk of the page become very painful. For long I’ve searched for a desktop video card that provides hardware acceleration but have been unable to find a suitable one even though my search was not limited to a card that would run on a mac. It’s strange because in the past five years or so I’ve used TabletPC’s instead of laptops and for all of the machines I’ve had, they had very good performance in portrait mode as well as landscape mode.

    Share
  9. Robert Thille Friday, January 30, 2009

    My rotating NEC MultiSync LCD 2080UX “Just works”, I rotate it, and the mac notices and rotates the display to match.

    Share
  10. [...] pleased that Apple is finally letting iTunes customers upgrade their musical libraries one song A Widescreen Skeptic’s Lament — Portrait View Anyone? – theappleblog.com 01/30/2009 I was pleased that Apple resisted going to the ultra-wide 16:9 [...]

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post