16:9 is a compromise, like the 53 byte packets in ATM. It's around mid way between the old style TV/movies, and the widest new style movies. so you can watch both with a minimal amount of screen wastage.
well 25% wastage for a 2.35:1 film
but anyways this is all moot, perhaps its the bets compromise for watching films but and heres the rub
FOR NEARLY EVERYTHING ELSE
apart from watching tv its sucks, films are what ~10% of what ppl use their PC's for. Hell some of the 16:9 supporters here have said they program/websurf on a portrait 16:9/10 monitor i.e. they admit theres not enuf pixels lanscape wise, this is all well and good if you could press a button on the screen would rotate when you're browsing the web & then again if you want to view a film but on mine rotating the monitor is a PITA, not something I want to do 10x a day (dual monitors, like I have, is a solution though less than optimal) as it stands for usual PC usage 16:12 is prolly the best ratio
@Mariner
1. I agree, I feel the same way if it wasnt for the fact Im working on IOS software ATM I'ld be using windows, also I believe windows is a better OS
80% things better win vs 20% mac, the mac is improving it used to be ~90-10. Getting rid of mac finder would go a long way to fixing the OS.
2. you know with the Aoson M11 the OS will never get upgraded well 90+% sure it wont officially, contrast this with IOS when things get upgraded for at least 3-4 years
3. Apple Digital AV Adapter (true extra cash)
4. I dont know about this, you'ld have to check benchmarks from memory I think the ipad smokes all the rest
5. true, though Im surprised the new ipad is so cheap eg here in nz its about the same/cheaper than similar competition & its got a much better screen/performance etc, pity they dont make a 7" one but steve in his wisdom declared 7" is too small (just like 3.5" is perfect)
