×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Linus Torvalds Advocates For 2560x1600 Standard Laptop Displays

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the at-least-catch-up-to-mid-'90s-CRT-screens dept.

Displays 661

beeudoublez points out a Google+ post by Linus Torvalds arguing that today's standard laptop display resolution is unreasonably low. He said, "...with even a $399 tablet doing 2560x1600 pixel displays, can we please just make that the new standard laptop resolution? Even at 11"? Please. Stop with the 'retina' crap, just call it 'reasonable resolution.' The fact that laptops stagnated ten years ago (and even regressed, in many cases) at around half that in both directions is just sad. I still don't want big luggable laptops, but that 1366x768 is so last century."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

2560x1600 should be good for anyone! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835059)

See title

Re:2560x1600 should be good for anyone! (5, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835271)

Actually, 2560x1920 would be better. But apparently more people use their laptops to watch videos than to do work.

Re:2560x1600 should be good for anyone! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835501)

I've never understood this constant hipsterish complaint about widescreen monitors. There's lots of real work where a widescreen monitor is helpful. Going through a three-way code merge, for example.

Re:2560x1600 should be good for anyone! (5, Insightful)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835541)

It's not hipsterish, it's just annoying when you can only read a tiny amount of vertical lines for one file and there's tons of wasted space to the right unless you have two files side by side. Even then most setups I've seen have had multiple displays so the need to shove everything into one screen isn't necessary.

Re:2560x1600 should be good for anyone! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835585)

I have a series of 1920x1200 monitors at work and they're all oriented in portrait mode (1200w x 1920h) for code and reference browsing. kDiff is setup to span multiple monitors when doing 2- and 3-way diffs.

My biggest problem is with the standard monitor stands - most of them only rotate 90 degrees in one direction so I need to modify at least one stand in each group to rotate the other way (usually by removing, reorienting and reattaching the VESA mounting plate) so that the speaker bars on the outside monitors are on the outside edges.

Re:2560x1600 should be good for anyone! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835641)

... Do you have a 4:3 monitor at work?

If so, I suggest replacing your CRT.

2560x1440 is better, because after 1999, the world switched the standard from 4:3 to 16:9, for movies, TV's and computer monitors...

Agree 100% (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835069)

My 7 year old laptop had a 1920x1200 resolution and when I bought a new one a few months ago I had to look all over just to find one that had a 1920x1080 resolution.

Re:Agree 100% (5, Interesting)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835135)

My 7 year old laptop had a 1920x1200 resolution and when I bought a new one a few months ago I had to look all over just to find one that had a 1920x1080 resolution.

We share the same gripe. This was posted from my 8½ year old laptop, which also has WUXGA (1920x1200) resolution. I'm holding out on replacing it until I can get something with more pixels. Shortscreen FHD (1920x1080) is a step downwards, while I want to go upwards in pixels. Luckily, Xubuntu 12.04 runs fine on this old hardware.

Re:Agree 100% (0, Flamebait)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835341)

Go buy a retina MacBook Pro then.

Re:Agree 100% (-1, Flamebait)

elfprince13 (1521333) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835383)

I'm sure I'll get downmodded, but have an Apple [apple.com] .

Re:Agree 100% (4, Informative)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835391)

Hell, the 'step down' is happening among monitors as well. I have 1920x1200 on my monitors and everything I see in a reasonable consumer space has gone 'down' to just HD pixels of 1920x1080.

And my 24/28" monitors weren't anything special, under $500 a few years ago.

Re:Agree 100% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835425)

1400x1050 on an old P4 HP laptop that didn't even have an IGP powerful enough to do 640x480 3d accelerated (It sort of did, depending on the game, but not to FPS levels!). My following three laptops only did 1024x768 or 1280x800.

Honestly I was looking at ARM based netbooks at 800x480 for my next laptop, given that the majority of current sub-1k laptops I've seen are stuck at 1366x768, which having an HDTV of that resolution is barely any better than 1024x768, and a PITA to use most modern websites on. (My desktops are currently on 1600x900, which is much better but still not as good as 1080p would be. Which you'll note is only slightly better than my P4's display.)

Re:Agree 100% (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835615)

Hell, T61p motherboards fit in the 14" T60 cases which can take a 2048x1536 screen; such FrankenPads are becoming pretty common among those that refuse to give up our pixels when 'upgrading' since the transplant gives us a chance to properly clean and refurbish every single part in the machine in the process.

Note, these were available over 5 years ago.

2048x1536 in a 14" laptop.

5 YEARS AGO!

WTF!?

Re:Agree 100% (4, Interesting)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835201)

Hell, I had a 14" Daytek by Daewoo tube monitor that could handle 1600x1200 in 1996. It's disappointing that it hasn't gotten better.

Re:Agree 100% (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835279)

Agree 200%. Screens have been getting worse in most laptop lines for a while. God I hatted having to go from the 1400x1050 15" IPS matte screen to a 1400x900 TN with eye bleeding glare.

Re:Agree 100% (5, Funny)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835519)

breaking news: linus tells everybody to get a retina macbook.

Re:Agree 100% (4, Insightful)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835609)

My 7 year old laptop had a 1920x1200 resolution and when I bought a new one a few months ago I had to look all over just to find one that had a 1920x1080 resolution.

Which is precisely why I went to a macbook. Apple isn't perfect, but goddamn they make sexy hardware.

Problem (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835081)

First of all, the retina display and other 'high def' isn't actually a true display of that resolution, just a multiplication of the pixels in a 1:4 ratio of a smaller resolution. Laptops are lacking in graphical power and actually providing that as a true resolution is a bit of a hard proposition for anyone for an actual laptop that might have to do anything graphically demanding. That and it doesn't particularly look very good just making those smaller resolutions just 'blown up'.

Re:Problem (3, Funny)

WilyCoder (736280) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835143)

^^^ Score -1, completely fucking wrong.

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835169)

I suggest you go pick up a low end laptop at about lets say 500 dollars. Hook it up to a display that can run 2560x1600 and tell me how it works out for you playing a game on the native resolution vs the 2560x1600

Re:Problem (1)

oic0 (1864384) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835283)

If you think they would run many games at their current crap resolution now you are sorely mistaken. That aside, they might have to do what we did in the old days... reduce the game's resolution until its playable! When you start off with a decent resolution, downscaling doesn't look so bad.

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835319)

I suggest you pick up a real laptop and not the cheapest pile of crap you could find at Walmart and expect it to run Crysis.

I had an Nvidia 210 graphics card powering a 2560x1600 display with no problem but I wasn't stupid enough to expect games to run at that resolution..

Re:Problem (2)

Glock27 (446276) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835331)

I suggest you go pick up a low end laptop at about lets say 500 dollars. Hook it up to a display that can run 2560x1600 and tell me how it works out for you playing a game on the native resolution vs the 2560x1600

Gaming versus using the laptop for lots of other pixel-intensive things is apples to oranges. Good 2D performance is much easier to achieve.

Some examples of important, primarily 2D activities are web browsing, reading, and...software development. That last one just might interest Linux a bit. ;-)

Aside from all that, you could always run your game at 1/2 resolution (1280x800) and be just as well off as with a crappy display.

Re:Problem (1)

Glock27 (446276) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835353)

Er, "interest Linus a bit" (sigh)

Re:Problem (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835395)

I dare you to even find a desktop that can handle 2560x1600 for modern games that doesn't cost you upwards of $2000 and I quadruple dare you to find one even for $3000 that can even reach 60fps consistently because they don't exist.

However, putting higher resolution in just for display purposes, the laptops can handle it. Maybe not for gaming, but there are a lot of other uses for resolution.

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835205)

You have no idea what you're talking about

Re:Problem (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835225)

You are completely nuts, and uninformed. 2560x1600 is the true pixel resolution of the iPad. It uses a SoC with a quad-core graphics chip to drive it. Current laptops could easily drive that resolution, except those using 5+ year-old tech.

Even for applications that are just "blown up" with pixel doubling, additional smoothing can be applied, and it can still look better. Text is generally rendered directly through the system, and so you would get a true improvement in text in all applications. In fact, the additional resolution helps text readability far more than it helps anything else.

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835301)

Have you even TRIED a retina display macbook? Apparently not, since you're trying to argue it's not just blown up. It's exact 4x the size of the default 1440x900 for a reason. The ipad increased resolution display was MAGICALLY chosen to be 4x the resolution of the previous iteration for what reason? You guessed it, the exact same one.

Re:Problem (1)

TummyX (84871) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835273)

Retina displays are the full actual resolution. For example, the Macbook Retina I'm typing on has a physical resolution of 2880x1800 and the GPU is physically rendering all those pixels. What you've just said actually makes no sense whatsoever. Multiplication of pixels in a 1:4 ratio of a smaller resolution? Making smaller resolutions just "blown up". WTF does that actually mean?

You can run the retina display at native mode but everything will be half the size (physically) on the screen. The standard default mode for the retina display keeps all your elements the same "physical" size on your screen but renders them with four times the pixels (1:2 ratio) to increase the detail and crispness of text and images.

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835315)

bullshit.

Apps that don't want to use the full res can use half-res and get blown up while,looking just as good as a native 1280x800 app. Apps that want the full res can use it (i.e. opengl apps which render polys etc).

My ubuntu laptop handles an external 1920x1200 monitor in addition to its 1366x768 screen just fine, and that's just an intel video card. Since I use mainly text (coding) there is no problem 'blowing up' the low resolutions. Just set a bigger font size.

Re:Problem (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835363)

Uhh no, the retina display laptops very much do have 2560x1600 and 2880x1800 screens. They simply use UI scaling to make text readable, and buttons clickable. They are absolutely the resolution stated, they just use it for quality, not quantity of screen real estate.

Re:Problem (2)

etash (1907284) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835389)

sure, you'd probably not be able to play the latest FPS on a laptop with a mobile gpu at playable frame rates at 2560*1600 resolution, BUT is that a serious argument for not having high resolution displays on laptops ? What's the percentage of people who buy laptops for the purpose of playing BF3 on them ? And just because there is a significant number of 17 people who wouldn't be able to play BF3 on their laptop at that resolution, laptops should not have that resolution ?

Re:Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835605)

This sounds like the terrible argument I heard for Apple failing to comply with the UK ruling in Apple v. Samsung which forced them to post a notice on their page saying Samsung did not infringe. The problem was, they posted it in 14px not 14pt font. The argument I heard was that since the retina display scales up pixels (I pulled 1:4 out of my ass as a guess) that 14px would be much closer to 14pt than what I calculated, less than half the size.

Agree WilyCoder, completely fucking wrong.

Amen! (3, Funny)

mschaffer (97223) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835093)

Go Linus!

Re:Amen! (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835429)

Ok but...
More resolution -> more computing to render frames -> more battery drainage.

Or maybe people will learn to switch res to save battery.

Re:Amen! (1)

partyguerrilla (1597357) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835635)

The difference should be nominal, at least compared to the hard drives, mobile GPU and so on.

While you're at it... (4, Insightful)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835115)

How about 4K standard desktop resolution for 22" monitors? All this DPI fighting needs to leak over into desktops eventually.

Re:While you're at it... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835233)

How about 4K standard desktop resolution for 22" monitors? All this DPI fighting needs to leak over into desktops eventually.

Can your average onboard video card drive monitors at that resolution?

Re:While you're at it... (5, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835313)

If you can afford such a monitor, you also can afford a separate graphics card.

Re:While you're at it... (5, Informative)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835407)

It's a shame you've been modded down. The answer is no, unfortunately. More so, there's also no current display cable standard capable of transmitting the resolutions needed for desktop monitors to be doubled up.

A few of examples:
The Intel HD {2000 | 2500 | 3000 | 4000} you'll find on pretty much all intel CPUs of late, and hence in 90% of desktop computers sold just now has a maximum framebuffer and texture size of 4096x4096. The road map for haswell and broadwell does not indicate this increasing. So for 27" monitors, where you'd want at least 5120x2880, that's simply not good enough.

Similarly, HDMI maxes out currently at 2560x1600, DVI at the same, and even Display Port at 3840x2160, so again – not good enough.

Re:While you're at it... (2)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835611)

I drive a T221 at 3840x2400 resolution over dual-link DVI - but it has to be at a reduced refresh rate of 24Hz. (Actually I have two monitors with this setup, each in portrait rotation, so the total desktop is 4800x3840.)

Re:While you're at it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835451)

Dear God, I would hope that any graphics card of today could easily do just over 4x the pixels that they could 15 years ago.

Re:While you're at it... (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835527)

Can your average onboard video card drive monitors at that resolution?

Yes, without any difficulty. It's 2012. Unless you want to play 3D games - in that case, just drop down to a lower resolution to play your game fullscreen, and go back to normal res when you exit.

Obsessive 'gamers' who want to play the latest titles at maximum resolution and maximum refresh are very much in the minority, and they have always tended to buy separate video cards anyway.

Re:While you're at it... (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835573)

I should clarify - the GPU is certainly capable of rendering a 4000-by-4000 frame buffer, it's still only a hundred megs or so of memory. Sending those pixels to the monitor may require something beefier than a standard DVI link. Even dual-link DVI is not enough for high resolutions at a decent refresh rate. The new Displayport 2.0 standard has four times the bandwidth of DVI, which is getting there. So what's needed is for onboard graphics to move to Displayport 2.0 outputs; but the GPUs are already fast enough, if you're talking about text-based uses, static images like photo editing, or relatively low-resolution video like playing DVDs or Youtube.

Re:While you're at it... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835295)

How about 4K standard desktop resolution for 22" monitors? All this DPI fighting needs to leak over into desktops eventually.

It's called the IBM T221, with a 3840 x 2400 resolution, 22" size and it's been around since 2001, although the $5,000+ price when new put some people off ($600 to $900 on a certain auction site). Sharp currently makes a 3840 x 2160 panel (no electronics) for around the same price in sample quantities. Remember, if each pixel has 3 transistors (one per color) you're looking at 27.6 MILLION PARTS per panel, right now that means a lot of defects and a large price to cover the costs.

Re:While you're at it... (1)

darkain (749283) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835647)

27 million transistors? So, basically, on-par with 1999 technology then. (if that is your only measurement metrics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count [wikipedia.org]

Re:While you're at it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835305)

Ever since HDTV came around they stopped making computer monitors and started selling TVs to the desktop market.

Re:While you're at it... (1)

SteffenM (166724) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835435)

Lovely idea, though since the first 4K monitors will be 84", we'll have to get some serious miniaturization to get the ppi you'd need to fit all that in roughly 1/16 the screen size

Re:While you're at it... (1)

asc99c (938635) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835457)

That's what gets me down. It's nearly 6 years now since I bought my 2560x1600 30" monitor and nothing has moved, except the price for what I already have has gone up about 40%.

I'm pretty sure Apple has comprehensively shown people are willing to pay a premium for a decent screen, I just don't understand why this one area has stood still for a whole decade. I'd happily pay £1000 for a 4K monitor (well happily except for begrudging the fact such a thing hasn't been available for years already!)

Complainer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835119)

Apple has provided "crappy" retina displays, in both tablet and laptop formats, for months already, and reproduce a wider color gamut than anyone else's displays (least of all OLED).
By the way, if Apple's retina displays rate a 10, those 2560x1600 @10" displays certainly go to 11. ;-)))))

Re:Complainer (3, Insightful)

thesupraman (179040) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835157)

Apple doesnt have retina displays.

Samsung, LG, and Sharp do.

Apple packages/resells retina displays, developed by others.

These are already available in cheap Chinese tablets, in the new android tablet, Linus has a good point.

Re:Complainer (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835491)

Jesus, split those hairs a little more. Did Samsung, LG, and Sharp bother producing these displays before Apple dumped cash into their laps? No.

Re:Complainer (2)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835499)

Uh... where can I buy a 'cheap Chinese tablet' with a 15-inch 2800x1800 display?

Re:Complainer (2)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835529)

These are already available in cheap Chinese tablet

Do tell!

I hear all these amazing things about having the latest, high end hardware in the Cheap Chinese Tablets yet I can never find any that are more than GPL-violation propagating garbage.

Re:Complainer (4, Informative)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835405)

Apple don't make display's, So no they have NOT produced displays better than anyone elses, they have simply rebadged displays made by the big manufacturers. There are only 3 or 4 large display manufacturers in the world that supply everyone.

Re:Complainer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835601)

Apple's contract is fixed-time exclusive though - something they can ask, as they are such a high-volume customer. So Apple alone has access to those displays for retail purposes. Until the contract runs it's course, anyway.

Re:Complainer (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835437)

Uhhh, What makes you think that "retina" has anything to do with colour gamut? Apple uses IPS (in pane switching), LCD displays, which actually manage more colours, and better colour accuracy than a typical OLED display. What they don't manage is blacks as black as an OLED display, but they do manage whites much whiter (and a bunch of variants in between that OLED displays can't do).

"Retina" displays only have to do with resolution –that is that they're high enough resolution for your eye not to be able to see the pixels at the typical usage distance.

Re:Complainer (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835599)

Uhhh, Retina is an Apple trademark, and Apple Retina displays have the best color accuracy out there in tablet and laptop formats. That's what retina has to do with color gamut.

Torvalds wouldn't be complaining if it weren't for Apple setting a higher standard. Apparently this really irks him.

Amazingly technology often progresses at an exponential rate, so none of us (King Torvalds included) should be surprised that even higher (and useless) resolution is to be "soon" available than was 7 months ago.

Bring back 4:3 aspect ratio+full-layout keyboards (5, Insightful)

JoeyRox (2711699) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835131)

Along with higher resolution.

Re:Bring back 4:3 aspect ratio+full-layout keyboar (1)

queazocotal (915608) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835181)

I have been holding off buying a new laptop.
Give me a thinkpad (well, lenovo) with 4:3, 12-13", and 2048*1536, and I'm buying one tomorrow.
Similarly a 23-24" 140dpi or so monitor

Re:Bring back 4:3 aspect ratio+full-layout keyboar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835211)

Agree 100%

Re:Bring back 4:3 aspect ratio+full-layout keyboar (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835229)

Along with higher resolution.

+1 on the full keyboards!

My kingdom for a damn 10-key...

Re:Bring back 4:3 aspect ratio+full-layout keyboar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835431)

I'm not following you. Full keyboards are standard on 17" laptops, and for that matter, most 15.6" laptops have keypads.

Re:Bring back 4:3 aspect ratio+full-layout keyboar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835593)

Thus TUXGA resolution gives thee 2560 x 1920 technicolor dots.

Damn it, Torvolds! (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835151)

I realize that this is a lost cause and all; but why would you endorse a 16:10(at least it's not bloody 16:9...) rather than a 4:3 for a laptop? For a tablet, sure, where you can change the orientation and turn your sprawling rectangle into a nice, readable, page-width reading surface; but a laptop, where the keyboard keeps you from doing that?

If virtually all laptop displays are going to be laid out as though they are used for nothing but watching movies it would be nice if they at least threw in some additional pixels; but do we have to give up the shape that is better for dealing with text in a reasonably sized package? Absurdly wide desktop screens are fine, because you can just make them larger, and treat them as multiple page-sized screens when needed; but laptops have space constraints to deal with...

Re:Damn it, Torvolds! (1, Insightful)

oic0 (1864384) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835311)

if I hadn't already replied in this thread I would mod this up.

Re:Damn it, Torvolds! (1, Interesting)

LateArthurDent (1403947) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835373)

I realize that this is a lost cause and all; but why would you endorse a 16:10(at least it's not bloody 16:9...) rather than a 4:3 for a laptop? For a tablet, sure, where you can change the orientation and turn your sprawling rectangle into a nice, readable, page-width reading surface; but a laptop, where the keyboard keeps you from doing that?

Because standardized aspect ratios are generally a good thing (I would actually rather do the 16:9, but 16:10 is close enough). In addition, because I don't have dual monitors on my laptop, I like to be able to put two windows side-by-side, each taking up half the screen. Also, wider screens means wider laptop, which means wider keyboard.

I understand your complaint, and for the desktop, I like the ability to turn my monitor to portrait orientation. That said, there are a good many reasons for having widescreen laptops.

Re:Damn it, Torvolds! (1)

neminem (561346) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835423)

Having used both quite a lot, I actually prefer 16:10 to 4:3 on laptops. In fact, the first time I got a 16:10 laptop, back when 4:3 was still fairly common, the first day I used it I decided I was never going back. Not that I have a choice anymore... I grabbed one of the last 16:10 laptops still on the market at the time (it's not anymore :(), now I have to hope it'll last forever, or at least until at least one laptop manufacturer realizes that it would make sense to give consumers choice again. (I'd love it if 4:3 screens were available, too, for people who love it the way I love 16:10; I just wouldn't buy them myself.)

Re:Damn it, Torvolds! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835443)

Hear, hear. I'm sick of ridiculous wide screens, I use a 19" 1280 x 1024 on my PC (don't have a laptop), and will never buy a widescreen display, if I can possibly avoid it.

Re:Damn it, Torvolds! (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835653)

I use a 19" 1280 x 1024 on my PC (don't have a laptop), and will never buy a widescreen display

Why because you have some irrational issue with them? How could 1920x1080 not be better for example? Its more vertical lines than you have today, and more horizontal. You could display a 1280x1024 image on it just by not using the entire thing!

I can see why you might prefer 1920x1440 or something if you could get it, but clinging to 1280x1024 just makes no sense.

Re:Damn it, Torvolds! (2)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835459)

Very simple – because I have a code editor that's not retarded, and doesn't require me to display only one column of text. Instead, I can have 2 or 3 documents open side by side, each showing 3-4 methods at once, on one 16:10, 2560x1600 panel.

Re:Damn it, Torvolds! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835479)

because this century,
All movies are 16:9.
All TV's are 16:9.

(I don't know why 16:10 is being advocated),
but 4:3, that really does not make any sense.

If anyone argues for maximum surface area per diagonal, why not 1:1?

Re:Damn it, Torvolds! (2)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835607)

16:10 is nice to have for computer monitors that might be used to watch video, because it allows space at the bottom or top of the screen for user interface controls that don't actually overlap the video.

Re:Damn it, Torvolds! (1)

fph il quozientatore (971015) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835613)

If anyone argues for maximum surface area per diagonal, why not 1:1?

Manufacturers don't want maximum area per diagonal, they want minimum. That way they can make a smaller screen and still sell it as a 15''.

Re:Damn it, Torvolds! (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835489)

Absurdly wide desktop screens are fine, because you can just make them larger, and treat them as multiple page-sized screens when needed; but laptops have space constraints to deal with...

So if you're concerned about space constraints you realize that while a 4:3 screen saves about 6% in width it is also nearly 13% taller, right? You are basically just adding space in another direction and not really saving anything.

Re:Damn it, Torvolds! (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835567)

But then why not argue in favor of 5:4? 4:3 is just an old TV aspect ratio that became popular for monitors for the same reasons as 16:9 is popular on LCDs now. 5:4 was actually quite nice for browsing the web, editing code, etc.

If you want to strike a compromise between 4:3 (12:9) and 16:9, why not argue for 14:9?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14:9 [wikipedia.org]

Re:Damn it, Torvolds! (5, Interesting)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835581)

I prefer 16:10 monitors to 4:3 (old-school) or 16:9 ("widescreen HD modern crap").

4:3 works fine for a single-window app, but it's hard to do two side-by-side windows. Even some fullscreen apps don't work well with it. I prefer my text editors to have a lot of horizontal space for text - I threw the 80 columns rule out a decade ago.

Meanwhile, 16:9 is a bit condensed for productivity stuff. For movies and games, 16:9 works fine. But so does 16:10. Movies you can just blackbar, and games look fine on 16:10.

So I find 16:10 to be a good compromise for aspect ratio. It's wide enough to do widescreen movies and side-by-side windows, but not so wide that a fullscreen editor feels stretched. I currently put up with 16:9, since 1920x1080 is about half the cost of 1920x1200, but my ideal setup would be 16:10.

Also, for the mathematically inclined, 16:10 is a close approximation of the golden ratio.

What about CRTs vs LCDs? (3, Insightful)

quietwalker (969769) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835165)

It was years before LCDs even had something available in a store approaching the higher-res CRT monitors, much less at a reasonable price.

Yet they phased all the CRTs out well before they had reached that point.

Who makes decisions like this, and the re: the laptop resolutions? How can we make them ~rue~ those choices?

Re:What about CRTs vs LCDs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835439)

It was years before LCDs even had something available in a store approaching the higher-res CRT monitors, much less at a reasonable price.

Yet they phased all the CRTs out well before they had reached that point.

Who makes decisions like this, and the re: the laptop resolutions? How can we make them ~rue~ those choices?

Free market, vote with wallet, blah blah blah blah blah.

Re:What about CRTs vs LCDs? (3, Insightful)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835455)

Who makes decisions like this, and the re: the laptop resolutions? How can we make them ~rue~ those choices?

1. The people who think they have the right totell you that you are using too much energy and pass laws to stop you.

2. We can't. They're too happy forcing you to be green to notice that you are unhappy being artificially technologically limited.

Re:What about CRTs vs LCDs? (5, Insightful)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835477)

Right, it was years before LCDs matched CRTs for their ability as laptop displays... wait.

Re:What about CRTs vs LCDs? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835545)

Who makes decisions like this

Customers and corporations, together. When most people buy widescreen HD-resolution displays, that's what's mostly going to be on the shelves. You've been able to get very high resolution LCDs for a long time, if you were willing to spend a stupendous amount of money. And CRTs didn't go away, you just had to order them. Retail stores exist to serve the masses.

Re:What about CRTs vs LCDs? (1)

zyzko (6739) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835583)

Size.

The first from Google (21", 19,8" viewable, 2048x1536):

http://bizsupport1.austin.hp.com/bc/docs/support/SupportManual/lpv07137/lpv07137.pdf [hp.com]

Weight: 30.5kg.
"30 minutes to reach optimum performance level".

Size: Gigantic.

Power consumption: 130W, not *that* bad when compared to living-room displays (but hey, sizes on them are not on 21" range) - a modern computer display (27", 2650x1440) from last year consumes 51,3 and the review calls it power hungry):

http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/samsung-syncmaster-s27a850d/4505-3174_7-35018743-2.html [cnet.com]

So yes, being able to move the display as an skinny nerd is a plus, not requiring a gigantic place is nice, and the power consumption...well, if you keep the monitor active 8 hours a day, take a calculator and see for yourself on your electricity prices how much a waste that CRT is.

And yes, the good ones are still used professionally because they still deliver, but the cheap big CRTs were shait also on geometry - on low end you get garbage anyway in some aspects.

-k

what about desktop monitors? (1)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835175)

Most desktop monitors have stopped short of the 2560x1600 standard as most computer monitors now use the same glass as HDTV. If laptops with 14-17" screens become standard at 2560x1600, then I'd expect my desktop 23" monitor to go to at least 5000x3000 or so.

3840x2400 MINIMUM for desktop! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835219)

After all, CRTs capable of doing 2304x1440 has been around since 2000[1], and LCD monitors doing 3840×2400 has been around for over a decade.[2] It is a total utter rip off for manufacturers to decrease screen resolution for over a decade.

[1] http://www.docs.sony.com/release/GDMFW900.PDF
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors

Re:3840x2400 MINIMUM for desktop! (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835587)

Not even dual-link DVI can handle 3840x2400 at anything greater than 33Hz. at 60Hz, that's over 12Gbit/s. The T220 needs 3 links to deliver 48Hz refresh rate.

Fonts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835235)

Who can read anything at that resolution for fuck sake?

Re:Fonts (2)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835333)

There's this thing called DPI scaling. Been around for ages.

Re:Fonts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835563)

Tried it on windows anytime recently? It's a mess.

Re:Fonts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835397)

Turn your fontsize up a notch?

Oh well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835293)

I agree completely. I'm writing this on my 10" netbook, where 1366x768 is quite decent. That my work laptop that is about twice as big has the same resolution is downright silly. I still miss my early nineties Thinkpad that had 1400 ( or so) x 1050.

LCD vendors don't want cheap HD projection system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835343)

It is strange that the screen rez has been locked low for some reason. Maybe, considering how easy it is to create projection displays, maybe they don't want it getting really easy by using a laptop to do it.

what reasons are others coming up with?

Re:LCD vendors don't want cheap HD projection syst (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835463)

It is strange that the screen rez has been locked low for some reason. Maybe, considering how easy it is to create projection displays, maybe they don't want it getting really easy by using a laptop to do it.

what reasons are others coming up with?

This is a no brainer .. the vast majority of laptops are purchased by either businesses where the bean counters rule or by nontechnical folks who think that
the only thing a higher resolution is good for is making the text too tiny to read. Both groups tend to pick the cheapest product that appears to service their needs.

Amen! (1)

sethmeisterg (603174) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835403)

Totally Agree. Mod Linus Up! Oh, he's in the real world, I forgot. Bummer.

1366x768 last century? (4, Insightful)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835413)

Wasn't its 1024x768 and 1280x1024 that were popular in the late 90's?

1366x768 is the bastardised "720p HD Ready" TV panel. Its cheap and everyone produces them.

I don't think its a coincidence that Samsung stopped producing high res panels for Apple just before a new range of high res Android devices were announced.
Samsung and LG seem to be the only ones with the capability/capacity to do it in volume right now. Low res panels are cheap because everyone can do it.

Vote with your wallet (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835447)

Apple now offers you two laptops with that res and higher. Yet instead of praising what apple has done, he says "stop with the retina crap". How about advocating that Linux desktop developers make it so these resolutions are usable on laptop displays, as OS X and Windows 7 and 8 do? Have you seen what linux desktops look like on a MBPR? OS X has their method of scaling things properly, win7 in my opinion does a better job, Linux desktop environments simply don't do anything.

There is high-res light at the end of the tunnel! (4, Informative)

bertok (226922) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835507)

The problem with laptop and desktop LCDs, is that they adhere to the 1080p TV display spec, probably to shave cents of some controller somewhere, or to share a production line. Apparently it's vital that the hundreds of millions of computer displays made each year have everything in common with the non-existent 15" TV market, or whatever the fuck.

Luckily, there's a lot of progress on making 4K resolution [wikipedia.org] the new standard for video, which means that it should trickle "down" to computer displays. Despite the name, the new standard will have 3840 x 2160 resolution, but that is still notably higher than what Linus is asking for, providing 183 dpi even on a 24" display!

If you can't wait, there's going to be affordable 4K TVs appearing soon with HDMI input. Just replace the monitor on you desk with a TV mounted on the wall behind your desk. You'll probably need a new video card, but the good thing is that most OS-es now hardware accelerate desktop composition, so the result should be silky smooth. You might even be able to get 120Hz going, but don't hold your breath: display connectors haven't caught up with the required bandwidth. Your 3D card might be able to generate a 48-bit 8.3 megapixel image at 120Hz, but that's almost 50 Gbps, and there is no PC video standard that will carry that.

Next, the operating system vendors need to get their heads out of their asses and finish implementing proper multi-resolution support instead of the half-assed job they've been getting away with for decades because of the persistent assumption that higher-resolution = bigger-surface-area!

Put your money where your mouth is, and buy one. (3, Interesting)

guidryp (702488) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835549)

You know what drives changes like this. People showing they will pay a premium to have it.

By a 2880x1800 or 2560x1600 Retina Macbook, when they sell in numbers, competitors will follow.

You know why there is a 2560x1600 Tablet. Because Apple sold shipping containers full of Retina iPads (2048x1536) and Google took notice and decided to one up them.

Putting your money where your mouth is, trumps whining on a blog every time.

I don't need a standard... (1)

Maltheus (248271) | more than 2 years ago | (#41835627)

...I just need a 2560x1600 monitor that doesn't cost four times as a similar res tablet, with its own processor, battery, wifi, memory, GPS, touchscreen and wireless HDMI.

High Definition TV is the driver for this tech now (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41835659)

HD TV seems to be driving this. Resolution used to be higher as far back as 5 years ago then the industry took a step backwards and everything including desktop panels regressed to 1080 lines.

This might take another leap forward with Quad HD at 3840x2160 when teh dust settles, but it will take a while.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?