Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Rise of the Super-High-Res Notebook Display

timothy posted about 10 months ago | from the closer-closer dept.

Displays 333

MojoKid writes "Mobile device displays continue to evolve and along with the advancements in technology, resolution continues to scale higher, from Apple's Retina Display line to high resolution IPS and OLED display in various Android and Windows phone products. Notebooks are now also starting to follow the trend, driving very high resolution panels approaching 4K UltraHD even in 13-inch ultrabook form factors. Lenovo's Yoga 2 Pro, for example, is a three pound, .61-inch thick 13.3-inch ultrabook that sports a full QHD+ IPS display with a 3200X1800 native resolution. Samsung's ATIV 9 Plus also boast the same 3200X1800 13-inch panel, while other recent releases from ASUS and Toshiba are packing 2560X1440 displays as well. There's no question, machines like Lenovo's Yoga 2 Pro are really nice and offer a ton of screen real estate for the money but just how useful is a 3 or 4K display in a 13 to 15-inch design? Things can get pretty tight at these high resolutions and you'll end up turning screen magnification up in many cases so fonts are clear and things are legible. Granted, you can fit a lot more on your desktop but it raises the question, isn't 1080p enough?"

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

16:10 (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765381)

screw 1080p

Re:16:10 (5, Interesting)

CadentOrange (2429626) | about 10 months ago | (#45765533)

Ended up with a Macbook precisely because of the aspect ratio. Now if there was a decent 4:3 laptop, I'd buy that in a heartbeat. The Chromebook pixel is nice, but too pricey for what it is.

Re:16:10 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765865)

Yes, bring 4:3 back. 16:x sucks for work.

Isn't 1080p enough? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765385)

No! It's not. Nor was 720p or 480p or whatever.

wouldn't it be better if the industry agreed on a (5, Interesting)

etash (1907284) | about 10 months ago | (#45765397)

universal DPI (like for example 300PPI - god i fucking hate inches, metric ftw) and build every display with that standard density?

Yeah I know depending on the viewing distance, a 200PPI display could be the same as a 300PPI device viewed from a shorter distance.

Re:wouldn't it be better if the industry agreed on (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765425)

It would be simpler/future proof/more complex if displays had a standard why to communicate their real world size, dpi, etc. sad it didn't happen 20 years ago.

Re:wouldn't it be better if the industry agreed on (4, Informative)

Bert64 (520050) | about 10 months ago | (#45765507)

They do...
The DDC & EDID standards which are used to read monitor capabilities also supports reading the physical size. The problem is that windows ignores this information, and therefore some monitors don't bother to supply this information, or supply it incorrectly.

http://scanline.ca/dpi/ [scanline.ca]
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-October/157671.html [fedoraproject.org]

Re:wouldn't it be better if the industry agreed on (4, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 10 months ago | (#45765531)

Sounds a lot like the ACPI situation. Windows ignores half the configuration values, so a lot of mainboards (especially laptops, as they tend to have more heavily customised power management) either have them full of zeros or specifying incorrect/suboptimal values. As the manufacturers are only concerned with running Windows they don't bother to even test properly on any other OS.

I've been trying to figure out ACPI on my flip-top laptablet for a week. It's nice hardware, really, aside from the ACPI quirks under linux. Things like the 'screen rotate' button returning one ACPI event when the lid is up, but either another event or none at all when the lid is folded into tablet. Which is very annoying, as I want to use that button for right-click functionality. The volume control operates in a similar manner: It can produce different ACPI events depending, as best I can tell, on some sort of astrological alignment.

Re:wouldn't it be better if the industry agreed on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765929)

this is one of the reasons FOSS has been good for all. Can you imagine how awful technology would be if manufacturers did not have to respond to technically savvy consumers? On the topic of display, my desktop is 4480x1600, if I had 9600x3200 I would not complain, but it would have to be MUCH lower power. The LCD/LED hybrids of today are a vast improvement on the past, but an OLED in 9600x3200 would be awesome...!

To those that don't like 16:9, the reason it persists is because 4:3 content can have a "tool window" beside it. I was shown this by an SGI rep years ago when they started selling them to the industry. I feel it is probably a bonus that movies come with that format....

Re:wouldn't it be better if the industry agreed on (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765879)

Actually Windows does use that information (At least 7 and forward) - and it uses it to set the system DPI level. One of my old laptops sets the DPI to 125% on its own at installation; another sets itself at 150%.

Re:wouldn't it be better if the industry agreed on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765599)

No. No it wouldn't. It'd standardise the appearance of components sure, but at the expense of standardised resolutions. That makes it much harder for programs to deal with, especially full-screen ones (like games) and graphics card drivers are geared towards specific resolutions.

Re:wouldn't it be better if the industry agreed on (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 10 months ago | (#45765671)

Games are written using OpenGL (or Direct3D), which doesn't expose the notion of a screen pixel as a programmer abstraction at all, beyond creating the original context. OpenGL programmers only need to care about the aspect ration once the initial configuration is done. Everything else is done in terms of a floating point coordinate space.

The same is true of any vaguely modern GUI toolkit. Pixels are simply not exposed as a programmer abstraction. In 2D, it matters slightly more, because you often people often stick images on, but if the OS does relatively competent scaling then it doesn't matter too much. It only matters when you do something stupid, like putting text in an image, because then people notice that the text is more blurry than the rest of it.

Re: wouldn't it be better if the industry agreed o (1)

Entrope (68843) | about 10 months ago | (#45765941)

Have you ever watched a badly pan-and-scanned movie? Aspect ratio matters for a lot more than one-time OpenGL configuration!

Re:wouldn't it be better if the industry agreed on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765943)

Untill you actually start a real game. Many games have menus or HUDs that have fixed sizes and these will not scale with higher resolutions. And there are so many games implemented this way that writing a list would be impossible.

Pretty cool, but... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765399)

It's pretty cool. Shoulda done that long ago. Just like tablets are pretty neat, and were, in hindsight, a long time coming.

The thing is, though, that indiscriminate use means everybody else needs to upgrade, too. And that is really not done, for it means that just a small leading edge having fun with their latest, newest gadgets, are inadvertently pushing a lot of costs to upgrade on everyone else.

How this works? Look at any random website that's recently had an overhaul, or is just plain new-ish. Hipsteriffic developers such as abound in the website world have the latest stuff and assume everyone else has, too, or you're not "in". Yet their audience is invariably much greater. Millions greater. But look at the designs they come up with. Optimised to be visible under fat fingerprints on the screen, and sized to be readily legible on screens with DPI ratings well over what's still widely deployed everywhere.

It means that, say, a 1024x768 screen is a right pain to use regardless of size, even though at this writing that size is still ubiquitous, and in poorer places, will remain so for a while to come. A little consideration for the rest of the world, outside of your comfy job and your comfy corporate commuter bus, would be nice, dear digital hipsters.

Re: Pretty cool, but... (2)

SpaceCracker (939922) | about 10 months ago | (#45765535)

Agree. The flip side are all those old business software applications that seem to stick around forever. They run only on legacy platforms - hardware/OS/browser (IE)/screen res./etc.

Corporates sometimes cannot move to newer platforms just because they're stuck with some software they purchased a decade or more ago that is not compatible with new, widely used standards (not even cutting edge ones).

Re:Pretty cool, but... (1)

number17 (952777) | about 10 months ago | (#45765815)

"Responsive web design" should take care of that. Cater to the large and and the small.

Yet another slashvert? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765401)

> it raises the question, isn't 1080p enough?

Indeed not, advertorials start at $2500 plus handling charge.

I can see (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765405)

Happy Xmas to those who have good eyesight :), the high res displays are here and as a person who can still see the dots at 30inches plus on a 1080 screen 15in design, I can definitely say it is not enough!

Buy some newer glasses!!

Re:I can see (1)

etash (1907284) | about 10 months ago | (#45765577)

on a 1080p, 15 inches monitor you can see the fonts aliasing from a viewing distance of 76cm? superman, is that you?

on a 1080p, 15 inches monitor you can see aliasing in a line in a game, or an individual white pixel lit up on a black screen? captain obvious is that you?

Re:I can see (2)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 10 months ago | (#45765757)

on a 1080p, 15 inches monitor you can see the fonts aliasing from a viewing distance of 76cm? superman, is that you?

Just saying: I have both a MacBook and a Retina MacBook, and while I cannot see _what_ the difference is from normal distance, I know that the Retina display is better for my eyes over many hours. It is definitely easier to read. It's like 128 KBit and 256 KBit compressed music: The 256 KBit _does_ sound better, even though many or even most people cannot consciously hear what the difference is.

Re:I can see (-1)

fisted (2295862) | about 10 months ago | (#45765819)

I know that the Retina display is better for my eyes over many hours.

How do you know that, my brainwashed little friend?

Re: I can see (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765883)

Studied the lower res display and ended up double-blind.

Re: I can see (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765913)

No, actually that's only around nominal visual acuity (6/6 or 20/20), or perhaps a little better, but possibly not even in the upper quartile.

Noticing pixel artefacts on a 15-inch 1080p display from 30 inches corresponds to around 0.78 arc minutes, or around 1/4400 radians, i.e. an angular ratio of around 1:4400.

20/20 requires optically resolving, and consciously distinguishing, shapes made with 1 arc-min features.

Moreover, the average visual acuity of healthy eyes is somewhat better than 20/20, but testing is often stopped once 20/20 is demonstrated.

And other factors such as vernial acuity of fine linear features, allow much smaller features to be resolved and noticed.

No, 1080p is not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765409)

Ideally you want pixels so small that you can't discern two lines separated by one pixel from a normal viewing distance, and then you use unhinted antialiasing to get the density of thin lines right. Paint stuff as big as it needs to be - that doesn't have anything to do with display resolution.

Work? (5, Informative)

ebonum (830686) | about 10 months ago | (#45765415)

Perhaps the only reason you have a laptop is to watch YouTube. Some people do actual work on a laptop.

If you use Word, Excel, Eclipse, etc. you don't get enough lines top to bottom. Even at 1080p. For many applications such as web browsing you have tons of unused white space on the left and/or right with 1080p, but you are constantly scrolling up and down.

The more horizontal lines of resolution, the better. In an IDE with lots of tool bars and debug windows, etc. I have the up down space of a 1984 Mac for my code. It sucks.

Re:Work? (1)

etash (1907284) | about 10 months ago | (#45765431)

how would a higher resolution on the same frame help you with your problem? if your screen is still let's say 15 inches and you double the resolution, the excel cells would need to be drawn on twice the size (in pixels) for them to remain on a constant physical size (otherwise your excel cells would be too small to see), thus you'd still see the same number of cells on that double-resolution monitor.

Re:Work? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765465)

Maybe ebonum can see smaller cells just fine. If they were to use the Zoom option in Excel to reduce the physical size of the displayed cells, they'd be less easily readable due to the reduced dots-per-cell.

Whenever I get a display with a larger resolution, I don't think 'Yay, this monitor is physically bigger.', I think 'Finally, everything is just that tiny bit smaller so I can fit more on screen (without messing with fragile DPI settings)'

Re:Work? (1)

etash (1907284) | about 10 months ago | (#45765483)

yeah but that's only valid for a small increase on the resolution (for a constant sized monitor). If you tripled or quadrupled the resolution ( per axis ), I highly doubt he or anyone else would be able to read the cells contents without a ... microscope. So in the long term, the real estate depends on the physical size, not the resolution, oh and don't tell me that 'in the long term we are all dead'-thing :P

Re:Work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765605)

Sure, there will be an upper limit, but we're not anywhere near it at the moment. I don't think I'd be any more productive trying to pick out the characters on screen if my 15'' screen was over 4096 × 3072, but anything up to that would certainly be a world apart from 1024x768.

Re: Work? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765901)

I am one of those who work with ultra large spreadsheets in excel and would rather squint at the screen rather than use the software zoom function.

Zoom Out (1)

Zeorge (1954266) | about 10 months ago | (#45765493)

With a higher resolution you can read finer print and so you zoom out. This is great for Visio network diagrams where I have a facility with 500 some racks and I need to see as much as possible. The only other way for me to do the same was to use a plotter. If I could get my work to buy a ~48" 4k display that would be ideal. That'd be like looking at a plot. Yeah, the screen would be huge but it's no different for me than looking at a plot pinned to the wall. At home I have a 27" 2560x1440 and for my Ms it's invaluable for my network modeling, writing a paper about said modeling, and having other stuff going. I used to have dual 1080's but this is better. If I had the money I'd get this guy: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824260146 [newegg.com] Sounds absurd to have so much screen but you really use it if you need it. For most people though, YouTubers, FB Warriors, and the like 1080p is good enough.

Re:Work? (1)

Bogtha (906264) | about 10 months ago | (#45765625)

I have the up down space of a 1984 Mac for my code.

The reason for that is because the hardware hasn't improved noticeably since 1984. The hardware, in this case, being the human eye. If you are limited to the physical height of a laptop screen, it doesn't matter how much you can increase the resolution by, adding more lines of text/code makes those lines physically smaller. And the physically smaller they are, the more difficult they are to read and thus work work with.

You could have a 4K resolution on a laptop screen, and it's not going to solve the fundamental problem. The capabilities of the human eye and the physical size of the thing that you are carrying around with you are the limiting factors here, not the resolution. Sure, you can make slight improvements to the readability if you have a higher resolution, but you're not going to get more lines of text/code without it being counterproductive.

Re:Work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765743)

Just rotate your screen and stop whining.

Re:Work? (2)

fisted (2295862) | about 10 months ago | (#45765831)

protip: rotate it. 9:16 is great for coding

Re:Work? (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | about 10 months ago | (#45765841)

Urm, if, as it sounds, you use your computer a lot for work, then why not get another screen and put it vertically?
Or invest in a swivel arm. I have two big screens on such, hooked up to a docking station for my laptop.
It's an amazing boost in both comfort and productivity.

Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765447)

Try to think of the like paper, A5, A4, A3, and so on. Real-estate is determined by the size of the display, not the resolution (anymore).

Well done! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765453)

Perhaps it does raise the question, but it doesn't raise it particularly far because the answer is 'No, everybody has different requirements.'

About bloody time (5, Interesting)

FrostedWheat (172733) | about 10 months ago | (#45765459)

The 1920x1080 / 1366x768 resolution curse has been the worst thing to happen to laptops in a long time. That and glossy screens.

Re:About bloody time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765537)

Hear, hear. I can't stand glossy screens, and I prefer 1280 x 1024 resolution. Hence I don't use a laptop - EVER, and I can pick up 19" 1280 x 1024 monitors dirt cheap secondhand.

Re:About bloody time (4, Interesting)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 10 months ago | (#45765581)

Buy a business laptop.
Most big vendors have gone back to matte screens for their business-class laptops.
The aspect ratio is still wrong, though. Unless your job is to edit widescreen movies, a widescreen display has no place on a business laptop.

A 15" 1920x1080 screen is indeed worse than a 15" 1280x1024 screen.

My aging laptop has a 1680x1050 15" non-glossy screen. This screen is the only reason I haven't bought a new laptop yet.

Re:About bloody time (1)

Gabest (852807) | about 10 months ago | (#45765741)

Or just order a replacement from china. You can probably find one cheap in 1080p and matte. That's what I did after mine broke, it was also an upgrade from 1600x900, so I was pretty pleased with the end result.

Re: About bloody time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765921)

True computer wide screen was originally 16:10. The issue with wide screen is due to the high definition tv standard of 1920x1080 (16:9) which is subpar to the original widescreen computer monitor standard of 16:10 (ie 1920x1200), which meant computer users lost some screen real estate.

But I disagree with you on the idea of business not needing wide screen. Have you worked with spread sheets and other documents that must be in landscape format? I had production reports that were horrible to use in the old 4:3 format. Before wide screen I had managers and other staff printing the report in order to view the whole thing. It was a business requirement that the report was in landscape format.

Re:About bloody time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765963)

Not just movies. Also... spreadsheets!

Now you know who makes the design decisions.

Laptops? (1, Interesting)

lennier1 (264730) | about 10 months ago | (#45765467)

Finally take care of the goddamn desktop market where the lion's share of commercial work is being done!!!

Re:Laptops? (1)

jimshatt (1002452) | about 10 months ago | (#45765595)

Citation needed?

Re:Laptops? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765677)

no need for a citation you fucking moron. Take a walk around any business environment, and notice what's on the desks. Desktop PCs.

The ONLY people in business env's with notebooks are those who need to be mobile or take work home with them. Those are usually senior staff. The minions use PCs.

Re:Laptops? (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 10 months ago | (#45765851)

Not universally. In my business environment, everyone has notebooks, but everyone has a docking station, keyboard, mouse and monitor too.

Re:Laptops? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765853)

You were probably marked "Flamebait" because you're a doucher, but you're a correct doucher -- basically every single office environment is packed to the brim with desktop PCs. I know several people who do some work on laptops or even mobile devices, but I know very few who do the bulk of their work anywhere other than a desktop PC.

Underdeveloped (1, Insightful)

Vlijmen Fileer (120268) | about 10 months ago | (#45765893)

Can I ask what country you live in? I have the feeling it must be rather underdeveloped.
Where I live and work, laptops for everybody has been the standard for years already. Finding a desktop PC is a curiosity that makes you halt in your track.
Cheers

Re:Laptops? (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 10 months ago | (#45765911)

Yeah, affordable desktop monitors stop at 27inches and 1080p.
I have a nearly 6 yr old monitor that cost me $250 new, 28in and 1920 x 1200
I don't want to replace it with a smaller monitor

Re:Laptops? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765955)

It's taken nearly a decade, but high-density displays are finally beginning to appear. Witness the soon-to-be-released Dell UP2414Q, a 24" 3840x2160 screen currently squarely aimed at the professional market but with a rather luscious >180ppi pixel density. The price will probably start at about $1500 each but that's comparable to an ancient s/h and much less flexible T221.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7556/dell-leaks-details-of-a-24-uhd-4k-3840x2160-monitor-the-up2414q [anandtech.com]

Personally I'm looking forward to getting a couple for video/photo work. Sadly, it looks like computer monitor technology is now forever intertwined with whatever the TV industry is doing (since they're basically the same industry now), so I suspect that anything non-16:9 will be either ludicrously expensive (as in more so than they are already) or completely absent in the very near future, and I also suspect that any resolutions above 3840x2160 will be a *very* long time coming.

(Posting anon since I've already moderated in this thread)

DPI (5, Informative)

Bert64 (520050) | about 10 months ago | (#45765475)

A higher resolution should not translate to more things on screen, it should translate to greater levels of detail, assuming the UI is designed properly...
Font sizes for instance are measures in points, where 72 points equals an inch. As such, a 72 point font should always be an inch high when displayed on screen, irrespective of how many pixels are required to render it.
Or to put it another way, when you watch a standard def movie on an hdtv you don't get a small box in the top corner and a big empty black space around it, the movie fills up the whole screen as best it can and you just have less detail than if it was an hd feed.

The extra level of detail may make it viable for smaller font sizes to still be readable...

Re:DPI (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 10 months ago | (#45765539)

That depends upon what you are using it for. Some applications benefit from showing a lot more on a screen. RTS games come to mind: Some games can use the higher resolution to display a greater area of the battlefield without all the units turning into vague blobs. Very handy for commanding those epic battles, which can take up a sizeable area of the level when you're dealing with things like two-pronged attacks.

Re:DPI (2)

NoZart (961808) | about 10 months ago | (#45765589)

I do video editing and 3D modeling, and i benefit GREATLY from having more stuff on the screen. I don't have to scroll around in the timeline as much and the toolbars don't take as much space, thus giving me more viewport estate.

No. (1)

XaXXon (202882) | about 10 months ago | (#45765481)

What a peasant. I don't know what you do on a laptop, but 1080p is a terrible resolution.

If nothing else, there's not nearly enough vertical resolution -- but in general 1080p is a very low resolution for any computer to have.

Because text size need not be defined by px number (5, Informative)

Derec01 (1668942) | about 10 months ago | (#45765487)

The summary makes the same ridiculous assumption I see repeatedly, which is that a desire for higher resolutions means that I want the text to remain tied to a number of pixels. Of course I don't want the text to get arbitrarily smaller; I just want it to get sharper. And I definitely notice. Every time I take a look at my boss's MacBook Pro I feel my eyes relax a bit compared to the jagged fonts on my Air.

The real problem is that the OSes are terrible at rescaling to take advantage of the increased ppi. OSX is unfortunately bitmap based and many parts look pretty terrible if you turn the HiDef monitor option on. Windows is actually a little better with arbitrary % scaling, but many third party programs will still look awful.

Re:Because text size need not be defined by px num (5, Informative)

_xeno_ (155264) | about 10 months ago | (#45765523)

OSX is unfortunately bitmap based and many parts look pretty terrible if you turn the HiDef monitor option on. Windows is actually a little better with arbitrary % scaling, but many third party programs will still look awful.

Which is hilarious, because the OS X UI was originally based on Display PostScript, which evolved into Quartz2D, where one of the stated design goals is "resolution-independent rendering."

Which, of course, it does not really do. I remember seeing a non-"retina" app running on a retina MacBook, apparently they "solve" this case by bilinearly scaling the app up. Genius!

Re:Because text size need not be defined by px num (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765727)

Indesign CS6 doesn't even interpolate and it looks horrible. It feels like you're editing on a Gameboy Color.
Properly coded apps look amazing on high PPI screens.

Re:Because text size need not be defined by px num (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765529)

Android got this one right, I have to say. It looks just awesome on a 2560x1600 tablet. But of course there are always apps (and web sites) that have only low resolution icon or bitmaps - those really stand out, and not in a good way.

Re:Because text size need not be defined by px num (1)

Pascal Sartoretti (454385) | about 10 months ago | (#45765555)

Every time I take a look at my boss's MacBook Pro I feel my eyes relax a bit compared to the jagged fonts on my Air.

It depends on your eyesight. Mine is not so good, I don't really see the difference between a Retina display and a regular one. And I am happy with the low price I paid for my MacBook Air :-)

Re:Because text size need not be defined by px num (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 10 months ago | (#45765629)

The real problem is that the OSes are terrible at rescaling to take advantage of the increased ppi. OSX is unfortunately bitmap based and many parts look pretty terrible if you turn the HiDef monitor option on. Windows is actually a little better with arbitrary % scaling, but many third party programs will still look awful.

What parts of the OS look bad? And what parts of apps that have been written in the last two years? "Bitmap based" doesn't matter if the bitmap is a 1,024 x 1,024 pixel icon.

Re:Because text size need not be defined by px num (2)

GordonBX (1059078) | about 10 months ago | (#45765867)

What parts of the OS look bad? And what parts of apps that have been written in the last two years? "Bitmap based" doesn't matter if the bitmap is a 1,024 x 1,024 pixel icon.

Well, er yes it does mater if it is bitmap based because only integer multiples of resolutions will look good (which is why that's what Apple did in iOS). If you want to do a 1.33 times scaling, then a bitmap will be horribly interpolated.

Re:Because text size need not be defined by px num (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765787)

>Every time I take a look at my boss's MacBook Pro I feel my eyes relax a bit compared to the jagged fonts on my Air.

Wrong, that's penis envy.

Re:Because text size need not be defined by px num (1)

Andreas Mayer (1486091) | about 10 months ago | (#45765833)

OSX is unfortunately bitmap based

What is that supposed to mean? A lot of artwork comes in bitmap format. But there are also quite a few PDFs and the OS doesn't really care either way.
The graphics system is point based. Where a standard display features one pixel per point and a high dpi display has two (by two) pixels per point.
Apple tried to make the UI scale arbitrarily, (the feature was available for development purposes for years) but it didn't really work all that great, because there are too many cases where you get off-by-one errors that look quite bad. They eventually decided that it wasn't worth the effort and instead opted simply for displays with a 'high enough' resolution (i.e 'retina' displays) and integer scale factors.

1920 x 1280 (1)

Art3x (973401) | about 10 months ago | (#45765513)

1920 x 1280 is about the resolution I want. It has enough res to watch movies in high definition, gives text just enough crispness, and has an aspect ratio of 3:2, yet doesn't requires a new set of icons all over the place.

Godamnit!! Which is it?? (2)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | about 10 months ago | (#45765527)

One day everyone's complaining notebook screens aren't keeping up with hi res of modern tablets and smartphones.

Now you're bitching that 4K is too much for an utrabook.

Which is it, damnit?????

Re:Godamnit!! Which is it?? (1)

jimshatt (1002452) | about 10 months ago | (#45765685)

Well, as with most things, there isn't a single, objective truth. Some people want hi res to have more screen real estate, some want hi res to have crisper fonts and images. And then there's some that don't want hi-res but rather high fps in their games (fps in your FPS).

Allied to underwhelming GPU hardware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765553)

Meh....

Putting in huge 4k screens on asmatic GPUs might suite for Visio. It really starts tyo grind on CAD or Gaming and within that context, just watch the funny reviews on the Mac book stuff where the guy tries to run some VMs and then runs out of Vid ram.

Some seriously flawed stuff being shipped in this context..

Rise, after fall (2)

eSyr (3472173) | about 10 months ago | (#45765565)

First, in mid-2000's there was ThinkPad T42 with 2048×1536 option (not saying about rather common 1600×1200 resolution). Then, 4:3 was screwed and 1920×1200 became the new standard. And then, there were NO FUCKING NOTEBOOK WITH VERTICAL RESOLUTION GREATER THAN 1080 PIXELS FOR TWO FUCKING GENERATIONS (Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge, namely; except Apple MacBooks, of course). So, if you want your real estate, you stuck with your aging Nehalem-based (or core-based) laptop and can't buy any new laptop without DECREASING your working resolution. And even now, with all those shiny new screens, they are all 16:9 (and there are some 21:9 weirdness which i'm afraid would be the new standard), which do not add any usability and do not increase productivity. And there weren't any problems with custom DPI for, like, 7 years, thanks EDID. Okay, not in X.

No, 1080p isn't enough (4, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 10 months ago | (#45765569)

Granted, you can fit a lot more on your desktop but it raises the question, isn't 1080p enough?

10 internet points to you for not using "begs the question."

As for an answer, no, IMO, it's not enough (it's also not quite the right question to ask, because what really matters is pixels per degree). "Enough" will be when anti-aliasing/cleartype no longer have any visible effect.

1366 x 768 (4, Insightful)

temcat (873475) | about 10 months ago | (#45765571)

Screw super high res. Just give me laptops with resolution better than 1366 x 768 at 13" at least without the need to pay through the nose for this alleged "luxury".

Re:1366 x 768 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765697)

you're a fucking moron.

Would you be happy with a 80s style keyboard? Would you be happy with a 70s style green phosphor VDU? Would you be happy with a 60s style punch card thingamabob?

No, you would not. It's called progress you dumb crusty ape anus.

Grow up.

Re:1366 x 768 (1)

temcat (873475) | about 10 months ago | (#45765713)

I guess you either replied to someone else or didn't use your reading comprehension skills to understand what I said.

Re:1366 x 768 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765811)

wipe that mucus off your anus lips, you dumb crusty ape anus.

Re:1366 x 768 (1)

temcat (873475) | about 10 months ago | (#45765859)

You seem to concentrate on anal phantasies too much. That's not healthy.

Nice Post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765575)

Very Good post must read this post and also visit my webpage http://hangupin.com

Ergonomic distance to screen (3, Informative)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about 10 months ago | (#45765583)

For prolonged use, you need to have a comfortable distance from your eyes to the screen. That is, in general, at least 60cm (2 feet). Anything closer than that will make the focusing muscles in your eyes tired. The amount of detail we humans can comfortably dissolve at that distance stops at somewhere around 200dpi and the difference between 110dpi and 200dpi isn't much any more.

Given these hard biological facts, going anywhere over 110dpi for screens you look on longer than a few seconds at the time is mostly luxury and posing. Sure, you can put more information on a screen with more pixels, but you can't really use it effectively, since you will have to leer over to look at the screen more closely and your eyes and brain will have to work a lot harder to get that information processed if you don't. This does not apply to short term screens like your phone or tablet, but for laptops and desktops, just get a screen that has great colour rendition and enough resolution to look pretty at a comfortable distance.

Re:Ergonomic distance to screen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765647)

No such thing as "hard biological facts". The word 'hard' implies there's a solid limit, and there isn't. And regardless, some people are willing to endure the excrutiating motion of moving their head a little closer to the screen occasionally to see densely packed information.

Re:Ergonomic distance to screen (2)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 10 months ago | (#45765675)

For prolonged use, you need to have a comfortable distance from your eyes to the screen. That is, in general, at least 60cm (2 feet). Anything closer than that will make the focusing muscles in your eyes tired. The amount of detail we humans can comfortably dissolve at that distance stops at somewhere around 200dpi and the difference between 110dpi and 200dpi isn't much any more.

[citation needed]

When, as a kid, I first took an interest in computers, 300dpi laser printers were all the rage. Now they boast around 2400dpi. No one seems to complain that images and text are sharper. Now displays and the printed page may be different but one certainly doesn't generally hold a piece of paper 2 feet away to read a book.

We can go much higher than 1080p on a 22" monitor. But smaller dot pitch will require higher refresh rates than, say, the 60hz found in my cheap Samsung LCD - we've come along way from when CRTs had a maximum resolution of 1280x1024 on a 15" monitor but that was generally unviewable on cheap tubes at that maximum because of refresh.

Re:Ergonomic distance to screen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765775)

LCDs don't require a refresh rate at all. It's a legacy "feature". See nvidia gsync.

Re:Ergonomic distance to screen (2)

Dr. Evil (3501) | about 10 months ago | (#45765707)

"Given these hard biological facts"... not even sure what that means.

It's like the difference between looking at a fax and a laser printed page. Worse actually, since the fax has discrete black dots, whereas the 96-120dpi display renders colour by mixing rgb at a higher horizontal resolution under a fine mesh.

And laptops are often used at less than 2'. Either you're reaching with your shoulders and killing your back, or you're looking down all the time and killing your neck. Horrible ergonomics.

Re:Ergonomic distance to screen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765747)

Given these hard biological facts, going anywhere over 110dpi for screens you look on longer than a few seconds at the time is mostly luxury and posing.

Well, let's look at the world of printed things... where 300 dpi has been considered one of the standards for ages. They're just making shit up, or perhaps it's a better limit?

Re:Ergonomic distance to screen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765797)

Many of us are near sighted. Without my glasses I can (barely) make out individual pixels even on my Macbook Retina. That's comfortable for me, but would be too close for those with normal vision.
Back in the '90s I saw no need for display resolutions higher than 640x400 pixels. I also vividly remember the chronic migraines I got from staring at those screens for hours on end.

Re:Ergonomic distance to screen (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765823)

you're a fucking moron, you smelly anal infection.

Re:Ergonomic distance to screen (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765861)

Easy to verify: Display this [imgur.com] at 1:1.
If you can see a step in the line, you don't have high enough resolution yet.

The moon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765617)

Yeah, 1080p is plenty.

It's like the moon, we've been to the moon, we don't need to go any further right? The moon is enough. Don't need any more than the moon.

We settled this years ago on printers (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 10 months ago | (#45765619)

300 DPI, no matter what size the page.

Re:We settled this years ago on printers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765735)

Yah.. except billboards, they go a lot lower without issue. Viewing distance is quite relevant.

Lenovo Yoga 2 Pro (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765645)

The problem I see with that Lenovo is it doesn't have a powerful enough GPU to take advantage of that resolution. Anything that is 3D accelerated is going to have to run at a lower resolution to get decent framerates and that's going to introduce hideous scaling artifacts.

, isn't 1080p enough?" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765661)

the poster is a moron, and the among the shuffling deadweight slowthinkers who hold back progress.

What about entry level (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765663)

Can we please get those every ay laptops into something higher than 1366x768 before we start dishing out these 4k screens?

Please stop! (1)

Ecuador (740021) | about 10 months ago | (#45765715)

I have a large TV/monitor for 16:9 content, I actually want to do work on my laptop. Give me at least 16:10 please (4:3 would be so much better, but I don't want to be difficult) and I don't care for super-ultra-high rez - I REALLY can't see the difference from where I'm sitting...
Oh, and I don't want a fucking mirror for a display, I don't work in a dark dungeon.

Re:Please stop! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765925)

I have a 16:10 15.4" laptop that can go up to 1680x1050. I tend to keep the resolution on 1024x640. At one point, I was using 1024x768. (Don't ask.) When using it with a 17" monitor that is 5:4 and I tend to use the resolution 1024x768.

Give me a monitor that's 4:3 or 5:4 that's 19" and I think I could be happy going to a higher resolution. I tend to want something between 5500 to 6000 dots per square inch. Although at 1200x900, it'd be over 6000 dots per square inch, but I'm hoping that'd be close enough. I just want more vertical space for what I tend to do.

I tried a 22" 16:10 monitor but it was just too wide, plus it was kind of too wide for my setup on my desk. There were some other issues too which I won't go into.

Widescreen laptops means wider keyboards, does it not? However, assuming a fixed width, a 16:10 aspect ratio means a longer/deeper/whatever laptop. Would that be an issue? Is there a compromise aspect ratio? I think 1920x1200 would be a good idea given that 1080p movies would work, although letterboxed/stretched/chopped off.

Give us 4320i! (1)

Gabest (852807) | about 10 months ago | (#45765721)

For the lulz.

What are you using it for? (1)

garryknight (1190179) | about 10 months ago | (#45765759)

isn't 1080p enough?

Depends on what you're using it for. I started out in the computer world programming home PCs with tiny resolutions, then coding in assembler for EGA then VGA, sometimes for 20 hours solid. That's what there was so that's what you used and your eyes got used to it. And now we're looking forward to 4K screens.

But as others are pointing out, the resolution you need depends to a large degree on what you're using it for. Not many people, as a percentage of the population, are creating 4K video. Most people simply need something that's comfortable to read.

As an amateur photographer I need a screen whose resolution is within a certain range. I need plenty of res to work with 14MB NEF files (photos of, say, 4000x3000) without having to squint. On the other hand, it's of no use to me if I zoom in to 1:1 and the image gets visibly smaller. A good fit would be something around 1920x1080 on a 22" monitor, which is what I currently have. I would imagine that a draughtsman would prefer something on the order of twice that in each dimension, or more.

I wouldn't be working on a laptop by choice but if I were, I'd still want around 1920x1080 on a 17" screen.

Print... (1)

unwesen (241906) | about 10 months ago | (#45765795)

... is considered to be rough at around 150dpi, ok at around 300dpi, good at around 600dpi, and anything at 1200dpi or higher is considered very fine print and is usually reserved for art prints, etc.

Of course, print dots and pixels aren't exactly the same, but comparison is hard - mostly because print dots are not as clearly part of a grid system as pixels are. Comparing print dots and subpixels would make more sense, but is even harder.

So assuming that pixels and print dots are equivalent 3200X1800 on a 13" 16:9 screen would mean the screen has something like a sqrt(3200*3200 + 1800*1800)/13 = 282ppi resolution (simplified maths).

So we're just about moving from "rough" into "ok" territory, by some 30+ year old standards. To me, that's not "good enough", but YMMV.

Agree (1)

Vlijmen Fileer (120268) | about 10 months ago | (#45765845)

I have been looking for a 13 inch ultrabook for a while now and I had been thinking exactly the same.
I already have a 15 inch laptop with 1920x1080. There is no way I would need or want a higher resolution on this screen size; it fits perfectly. The same on 13 inch would be nice as it gives a bit more room to play with how much content you get on the screen versus the size of the content.
But 3200x18800 on 13 inch is overkill. In addition, I would be paying lots of EUR extra for something that does not "do" anything for me. And I would say does not do anything for anybody.
In my eyes this is a marketing trick, just like the whining about how many petapixels your camera or phone cam has and how many 1000 times it can zoom in.

UXGA - 10 years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45765875)

My favorite laptop screen in 15 years of laptop computing was my Dell C840 UXGA (1600x1200) panel. Until now, I've never seen a laptop screen I would rather work on.

Perfect news for the Oculus Rift. (1)

Silpher (1379267) | about 10 months ago | (#45765881)

This is perfect news for the Oculus Rift which I'm super interested in as the next leap in gaming.
But they need the most amount of pixels in the smallest amount of space so this arms race is perfect news!

Regards,

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?