Get Ready For The 20-inch Laptop

linumax writes "With so many DVDs featuring letterboxed or wide-screen versions of films, consumers' fascination with larger screen sizes is changing the size and shape of the laptop industry, stated an IDC report issued on Monday. The wide-screen format, found in only 39.2 percent of laptops expected to ship this year, will become dominant in mid- to late 2006. It will nearly eclipse standard screen dimensions by the end of 2009, the market research firm estimates. Samsung has already unleashed its upcoming 19-inch laptop. The product is expected to ship later this year. Dell, a major partner of Samsung, could easily adopt the large screen format for its high-end XPS laptops. And, LG Philips is also touting its 20-inch LCD displays for laptops."

Comments

Lap Top vs Table Top

[OctoberSky]

I don't want to sound too much like flamebait but how on earth is this a Laptop?
I thought my brothers 17" Notbook was beyond portable, but this thing should come with a gift certificate to a chiropractor.

Re:Lap Top vs Table Top

[TCaptain]

I have a 17inch laptop and while its certainly a bit more awkward than my old one
(9.2 lbs vs 7), I'm a big boy and I can carry the weight.

The upside is that its a much nicer screen and size-wise in a car, cafe, or bus its not MUCH larger than a regular laptop and once you're used to it its nice.

Re:Lap Top vs Table Top

[Bastian]

Interesting, because I feel quite the opposite. I have a 15" laptop, and I would love to have a 12" one. I think the 15"er takes up too much space and is an awkward thing to put in a backpack and carry around all day. The screen isn't MUCH smaller than a regular laptop and once you're used to the size it's not so bad; and at home I can plug it into my 19" monitor.

Different strokes, I guess. I have a feeling that we aren't going to see a massive shift in what laptops folks are selling, I'm more inclined to guess that the PC market will follow Apple's suit and have size be the primary selling point on their laptops.

Re:Lap Top vs Table Top

[CastrTroy]

I have a 19 inch monitor at home. At work, I was using a 17 inch for a while. I didn't really notice much difference. I've also used 15 inch monitors that are set to 800x600 at the university. In the end, I don't really feel like it makes that much of a difference. If I was going for a laptop, i'd get a 12 inch or 15 inch, since portability is really what you want in a laptop. The only time I found that having more screen space was an asset was with multiple monitors. I find its the only way to have more than 1 program at a usable size. 1 monitor, no matter the resolution, doesn't really work too well with multiple programs opened. Maybe its just the way the window managers are designed.

Re:Lap Top vs Table Top

[moro_666]

Dont know about you but i cant usually fit the code that i write on an 800x600 display. I like to see a few blocks back and forth, so i dont have to scroll around to see what my bozo coworkers added to cvs the last night and what might break my code. even 1024x768 is far too small for me :(

My laptop is a widescreen 15.4", quite a perfect fit for me. It fits fine on my lap and is small enough to carry around. I'm around 184cm/6feet myself, so i dont concider myself neither a small nor a big boy. But a 20" laptop on my lap would look pretty redicilous ... (as a tabletop/desknote it would be pretty ok thou).

On the other hand, what would you think about having the screen in your glasses (or sunglasses if you dont wear regular glasses) ? They could have pretty enormous resolutions and still be portable ... so your laptop can be as small as suits your fingers (I always have issues with these mega-mini laptops that require you to use a pencil for typing on its megamini qwerty keyboard, i use an attached normal keyboard everywhere i can and luckily my laptop keyboard is about as big as the normal one, without the numpad ofcourse). Or even more the future way, have some kind of screen beamed at your eye or a contact lens covering the eye ? Any more ideas anyone ? Beamable sound would be cool too, so i could hear stuff that i want to hear as loud as i need it without wearing funny earphones and without upsetting the coworkers.

Re:Lap Top vs Table Top

[jacksonj04]

With me it's not the screen size, it's the resolution. I have a 19" monitor set to 1600x1200, and find it comfortable to work at (As long as I set the DPI properly). If I drop that to 1042x768, I immediately find it cramped. At school I'm forced to work with 800x600 on a 15" monitor, which drives me insane when you can't even view an entire webpage horizontally without scrolling.

Re:Lap Top vs Table Top

[It doesn't come easy]

I have a widescreen laptop, and while the screen is great, I've decided the weight is just too much. My next laptop (whenever that might be) will weight less, so the only way I'm going to get a 19 inch or better laptop is if they get the weight down at the same time.

Re:Lap Top vs Table Top

[LurkerXXX]

If I was going for a laptop, i'd get a 12 inch or 15 inch, since portability is really what you want in a laptop.

You mean it's what YOU want in a laptop. I want a large screen. I don't carry mine around with me constantly. It goes to work, and it goes home. I don't take it to cafe's, on trains, or to random places much. I want a big screen and dont' really care if it is 20" wide or weighs 10 lbs. Unlike you, I also have several apps open and onscreen at what I consider usable sizes. Different strokes for different folks.

It's nice that we are getting a wider selection of models available so that each person can chose one that suits them and the way they like to work. I don't think 19" and 20" models will take over in what's used. I think we will see that sales in laptop sized will be broadly distibuted, jusst like their uses.

Re:Lap Top vs Table Top

[bleckywelcky]

It's really just an easily moveable computer anymore. Pack it up at home, unpack it at the hotel room and sit it on the table. Or pack it up at your primary residence, unpack at your investment residence while you spend a week there taking care of business.

I know a couple people who have picked up 19"ers. The things are absolute monstrosities and weigh half a ton. But you don't see them carrying the laptops around in their backpack every day. They carry it in a laptop bag from their permanent residence to their next temp residence then to the next temp residence after that. They aren't out in the field using their laptops for diagnostics on equipment. People just want a computer they can use wherever they happen to be for that week.

Having said that, I was looking into getting a true "portable" laptop computer, and was thinking that even a 15.4"er might be kinda hefty. I am contimplating something in the 12" to 14" range because I simple want the laptop for collecting and manipulating data, and writing documents on the fly. I have no desire to watch a 2 hour movie on a screen in my laptop on a daily basis. Although, for convenience, I might watch a movie or play a game during a flight if I don't have any other work I can complete. But that's about it. I'll stick to a 110" diagonal projection screen for watching movies for real :)

Re:Lap Top vs Table Top

[Johnso]

Last year, I traded in my 14.1" Inspiron 8200 for a 17" Inspiron 9200. I've regretted it ever since. I'm big so it's so the weight is no big deal. Unfortunately, it's too awkward for lap-top typing. The keyboard sits in the middle of it and takes only about 80% of the horizontal space and 50% of the vertical space. So you have this hard, flat surface which your palms, wrist, and a portion of your arm are resting on just to get access to the keyboard.

In short, the keyboard is worst typing experience I've ever had. I'm sure some vendors place the keyboard better and make it more comfortable, but it's still going to be awkward with that much useless real estate.

Re:Lap Top vs Table Top

[moro_666]

1) Not all my coworkers keep the lines short, and i dont like dynamic wrapping nor do i want to wrap the code for them. If some long lines would be wrapped for 80x25(just as an example) all the time, i would again see less lines of the code :(. I often read/recode code that isn't mine (all sorts of coworker creations and also a lot of open source software stuff) and i dont want to indent it all the time to read it humanly.

2) Sometimes you have to read overbloated specification pdf files with annoying but useful graphs left-right from the text.

3) Sometimes i like to have some applications overlapping, like editore on the right, chat window on the left, so i see right away when my chat mate types anything. Or just a debugger/output window running there to see right away when smth goes wrong.

4) it's also relaxing to watch a movie from time to time :)

---

in a perfect world ofcourse, nobody would require a wide screen for programming. but as most coders probably know, the word perfect is just an illusion.

Re:Lap Top vs Table Top

[rossifer]

Try working with 1600x1200 on that 15" monitor and see how sane you stay.

You seem to think that high resolution on a smaller screen would be a bad thing. My experience dramatically contradicts your statement. In my experience, the smaller the pixels, the better.

My current and previous laptops (Thinkpad R51P and A21P) have had a 15.4" display with 1600x1200 resolution and I absolutely love that display. My fiance has also switched over to the same model of laptop after borrowing mine for a little while. Subpixel antialiasing on larger pixels just looks out of focus. Subpixel antialiasing on that screen looks nearly perfect. The math seems obvious to me: a 1/4" high letter on my screen has a lot more pixels than a 1/4" high letter on a lower resolution display. More pixels == smoother curves and fewer jaggies.

These are the first screens that I can read documents (PDF's, web pages, etc.) without any eyestrain whatsoever. I used to print just about everything out that would take more than a few minutes to read. Now I only print out things that need to go places that the laptop can't.

Technical manuals? Recipes? Research papers? All comfortable to read on that screen. For the first time ever. The only thing that worries me is whether or not I'll be able to find another laptop with the same incredible resolution in two years when I need to replace this one...

Regards,
Ross

ugh..

[jkind]

Give me the portability of a Tablet PC like the Toshiba Tecra anyday.. These large display systems are akin to SUVs in their power consumption, are they not?

Bigger Screens good, Wider Screens bad

[DoorFrame]

I like bigger screens. When I bought my laptop four years ago I got the biggest screen available at the time. The thing is a tall beast, but it's not widescreen. I don't want widescreen. Widescreen forces me to use more width, when in reality I never need more width, I only ever need more height. Never am I reading a webpage and think, "Damn, if only this computer were a little wider."

The worst part is, all the good new laptops are being made with widescreen because little Jane going off to college wants to watch DVDs. I don't want to watch DVDs on my computer, I'll do that on the TV. I want to use it as a computer, and computer need height.

I just wish some laptop companies would keep the big non-widescreen models around. It's sad.

Re:Bigger Screens good, Wider Screens bad

[el_womble]

I'm not saying you're wrong, clearly this is a matter of personal preference, but there is a counter point to your objections.

Since getting a 20" widescreen iMac I'd not go back. It gives you the same advantages as a dual head system but without the join: rather than reading more of the same webpage it means you can read the webpage AND see the document you're working on. Thats not so say I wouldn't want more height too!

Re:Bigger Screens good, Wider Screens bad

[MaestroSartori]

Although you are in the majority in not needing extra screen-width, I (as someone who wants a laptop for audio production) would love a 20" widescreen laptop. More tracks on screen at once, less scrolling, easier visualisation of what I'm working on. Marvellous :)

Re:Bigger Screens good, Wider Screens bad

[shic]

I've a 15" 1200x1600 display which is pretty damned great for my purposes - and until recently there's been nothing better I could find. If I were to buy again now I'd get the Sony 17" 1200x1920 as this would give me an extra strip down the left or right hand side... though I'd far rather have a 17" regular ratio display.

I accept the argument that big displays aren't very portable - but to me that doesn't matter. I only want to use my laptop on a desk - in fact I'm not even bothered if it is able to run on batteries.

Re:Bigger Screens good, Wider Screens bad

[ProppaT]

Oh, you're one of those who haven't had the good fortune of actually trying a widescreen. The great thing about widescreens is the fact that you can open more documents, web browser screens, etc. side by side. It's a godsend for multitaskers and people using their laptops for work. And, with the higher resolution widescreens, you don't even need to worry about vertical height...the resolution is high enough to display whatever you need.

I too thought the wide screen laptops were stupid until I tried one out. Now I could never give up being able to have 3 documents open side by side at work. Think of it as dual screens on one screen...

Re:Bigger Screens good, Wider Screens bad

[DingerX]

Well, it's not quite as good as dual screens, but as a widescreen laptop user, yeah, I'm with you; also a 17" or even 20" screen carries with it an added bonus: the bigger the screen, the more keyboard space; the more keyboard space, the better the chances it'll be a keyboard you'd actually like to lose.

There are a couple problems with them, though.

A) First, I like my screen high resolution for exactly that purpose: it's supposed to replace a dual monitor setup. So I run a 15.4" widescreen in 1920x1200. It works great for all kinds of things, but the web can be problematic: it seems web designers like to make stuff in absolute pixel values, assuming a 72 dpi screen. Cheap streaming video players, like that crap that Microsoft pawns on me or Apple's crippleware player, also like to limit scalability to the medium. 320x200 at "200%" is still tiny. Apple's crippleware is useless (I know, I know, there are many fine Quicktime players out there that aren't made by Appple) for the same reason.

B) Second, everything still has to be on the same screen. With a dual-monitor setup, you can stick your comms and entertainment on one screen (the "distraction" screen), and focus on the task at hand on the other.

C) Most widescreens are not made for geeks who want to have 40 windows open. They are, in fact, made for the college kids who want to watch movies on them. So their resolutions are not near the "eyebleeding" level I demand.

(oh yeah, and this is what that 1920x1200 screen looks like in operation -- I stuck this up on Flickr some time ago: Desktop shot

Yes, I know, my life will be better when I get rid of that (X software in there) and run (Y software that's not) that's clearly superior, or use a free photographic host that allows more than 1024 pixels in their pictures.

Re:Bigger Screens good, Wider Screens bad

[nine-times]

The worst part is, all the good new laptops are being made with widescreen because little Jane going off to college wants to watch DVDs.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but that's not the only reason why screens have been moving to widescreen. First of all, vertical scrolling is generally considered easier than horizontal. But also, ask yourself, why are movies widescreen?

Think about the position of your eyes. Your field of vision is wider than tall. Really, screens should have always been wide. I assume that the main reason they haven't been is that it's harder to engineer CRTs that don't have roughly a square screen, but even "normal" screens are a little wide (when you're talking about 4:3, 4 is the width).

Now that we have LCDs and are free to make our screens whatever shape we want, it makes sense to me that we'd be looking for screens that more closely represent our natural field of vision.

Re:Bigger Screens good, Wider Screens bad

[bogado]

Tables don't overflow text from one column to the other. Table usualy have an unintuitive layout in the source that makes hard or even impossible for a screen reader to make out the order on witch the text must be read. Sure blind and hard to see people are a minority, but why not include them in your audience?

I don't like tables layout more then I dislike CSS hacks to emulate coluns, but this is my opinion. I do use tables, to display tabled data, not much else.

Re:Bigger Screens good, Wider Screens bad

[MaestroSartori]

I dunno, horizontal piano roll with vertical = pitch, horiz = time, makes decent sense to me. Mixers and other stuff horizontal is just fallback to the old hardware days. Even then though, eq's and stuff are normally laid out hi-mid-low top->bottom, which again makes a kind of logical sense.

I just love ableton, and want a huge laptop to run it on :D

Re:Bigger Screens good, Wider Screens bad

[badasscat]

I don't think widescreen is worth the expense. As it is, for example, a 20" widescreen costs just as much or more than a 21" standard aspect ratio, but gives the user less vertical resolution, despite having the same horizontal resolution. Why pay more for fewer pixels?

This is not really true. For example, currently on Dell's web site, there are a 20" 4:3 and a 20" 16:10 monitor that are exactly the same but for the aspect ratio and the inherent resolution difference that that implies. The 4:3 version is $749 and the 16:10 is currently on sale for $545, though it normally sells for $699.

The resolution on the 4:3 model is 1600x1200, while it's 1680x1050 on the 16:10 version. That's a negligible difference in total pixels, and the price reflects that negligible difference (i.e. the widescreen version is actually slightly less expensive).

Now, are those extra 80 horizontal pixels useful for anything? Well yes, because it's not just about pixels. It's also about actual horizontal size. When you're watching a DVD or HDTV, you're not going to be looking at actual pixels anyway. The same is true of today's high-resolution digital photos. In those cases, it's better to have an aspect ratio that more closely matches the source aspect ratio to give you the most actual screen area (in inches, or however you want to measure it... but not pixels). Viewing a 3:2 photo (standard 35mm/APS ratio) on a 4:3 20" monitor will appear much smaller than it would on a 16:10 20" monitor when opened in an app that puts various tools on the side (as almost all image browsers/editors do).

It really depends on what you use your computer for whether a widescreen monitor is worth it or not. For most "home" users, who watch DVD's, play games, maybe edit their digital photos, I would think a widescreen monitor would be best. I really enjoy having one myself. Obviously for any video or photo pros, widescreen is also better. For someone who's writing code, though, maybe not so much.

That said, a widescreen display is only 12% wider in aspect ratio (1.5 vs. 1.333)

No, 16:10 is obviously 1.6:1, not 1.5:1. You can also get 16:9 screens which are 1.77:1, matching HDTV exactly. Most people go for 16:10, though, because it's a compromise that allows you greater width for movies and photos while still being reasonable for web browsing and word processing apps that can better use the extra height.

obligatory whine..

[TheHawke]

You got laptops with 20" screens now, why don't they put larger keyboards on those very same laptops? Those ittybitty chicklet keyboards kill hands for just about everyone I know that use them, save for the odd elf. They got alot of area on the laptop to place additional items like USB ports, relocating that %#$*()&! speaker jack, loads of other items can go in that blank space now.

Re:obligatory whine..

[Jeff DeMaagd]

A lot of laptops now have a layout that uses the same size keys as a standard desktop keyboard, save maybe a few of the function keys. The only difference is that they are short throw keys.

Pretty soon

[strider44]

Pretty soon laptops screens will become so big that you won't even be able to carry them around, and you'll have to keep it permanantly on your desk. They'll have to come up with a new name though, I mean if you keep it on your desk, how about instead of "lap-top" call it something like "desk-top"?

Landscape vs. Portrait

[VoidEngineer]

It's a Good Thing this is going to happen. Why? Well, for one thing, it will also push the Tablet's into getting a little bigger. Oddly enough, Laptops and Tablets still don't screens that are big enough to fit an 8.5x11" full-size 1:1 ratio image of a piece of paper! People ask me if I find my Tablet too bulky (same problem with Laptop, essentially), and I tell them... actually, no, I want a bigger screen so I can write papers in real ratio format. Expect with this increase in size for some manufacturers to also start playing around with swivel screens to allow putting the screen in either landscape or portrait mode.

Of course, it's also great to have a portable movie playing machine. Nothing wrong with the entertainment side of the equation. I'm just saying that this is also going to push the adoption of swivel displays and increased tablet screens sizes.

Re:Landscape vs. Portrait

[MROD]

But, of course, the manufacturers will need to make two versions: US-Letter sized for the USA and A4 for the rest of the world. :-)

Actually, maybe a third version for the legal industry as well.

Re:Bigger = Better?

[Hey Pope Felcher . .]

. . . personally, I don't see the point of having to carry a screen, when I can carry a pair of goggles to view my applications with, and a pair of gloves (or smaller attatchments to my hands) to type on my virtual keyboard, and manipulate the programs with.

Simply put, I hope companies begin to innovate rather more than simply changing the dimensions of the screen I need to view with. I mean the things meant to be portable, not inexcusably large.

Laptop egronomics suck (sometimes)

[rice0067]

I like the form factor of a laptop, no messy wires and all that.. but having the screen so low is what sucks most for long term use. Not good for the neck.
The cool thing about this Samsung laptop is that the screen comes off and you can put a base on it. If its a quick change, and doesnt break after the 20th time you switch it, it should be a good concept. But I wonder what sort of wire goes btwn the screen and rest of the computer while the display is off. It would sort of suck to carry around a regular DVI cord. About as much as it would suck to cart around a 19 inch laptop.
Thats why i like my combo of a 15 powerbook and 20 inch cinema display. Leave the 20 at home and travel with the 15.
And wide aspect ratio is really the way to go. I just wish macs had a way to rotate the screeen output, like for reading big pdf files at 1080X 1650...

American market?

[Shano]

I assume this is being marketed in America?

The rest of us don't have laps that big.

A 20" laptop?

[8127972]

Well.... I guess some of us have to make up for our shortcomings somehow (not that *I* have that problem).

Why is everything 'unleashed' these days?

[RandoX]

I mean really, it's just silly now.

Don't confuse these with a laptop

[JanneM]

Don't see these as laptops; they aren't. If you click the link on the Samsung 19" machine, it's obvious that these are rather the heir to the all-in-one portable desktops that were available some years ago (they tended to look like a sewing machine, with a detachable keyboard and a screen behind a side panel).

You don't lug these around every day, and you're not expected to. Instead, they are space-saving uncluttered desktops without the hassle of cables and multiple beige boxes to move around. You can take it out into the dining or living room to work or play for a few hours with the rest of your household instead of being relegated to some study or den. When it's time to clear the table you can just unplug it and move it away.

The format just looks rather like a laptop since it's the all-in-one form people are used to by now, and lots of components are made to accomodate it. I would prefer the sewing machine model myself (and Sony has some VAIO's for the Japanse market that are pretty close).

Re:Don't confuse these with a laptop

[MacGod]

I agree. While in general, I wouldn't want to haul that 19" Samsung around all day, it seems like the perfect compromise for a business person. You bring the computer part to the office, where a full-sized monitor awaits you. If you need to make a presentation with a projector, your scren can be omitted (I know PowerPoint let's you have visual cues and extra text on a second screen, but for many presentations that's irrelevant). At the end of the day, you bring home the computer, and can use it at home for gaming/browsing/yet more work, by connecting it to your monitor there. Hell, if you're lucky enough to afford a Plasma screen, hook it up to watch a DVD in your living room! I agree with the parent post-if you don't think of this as a laptop, but rather a luggable computer that happens to come with a (detachable) matching monitor, it actually is a cool form factor.

Re:Don't confuse these with a laptop

[utexaspunk]

Are you talking about the Compaq Portable 386? Those things rocked. Mine still does. Every once in a while I boot it up (with my EGA monitor attached) to play Space Quest 2 in all of its glory. For some reason computers just don't seem as fun anymore...

Same tiny keyboard?

[Vo0k]

My biggest gripe with all "big screen" laptops is that tiny keyboard stuck in the middle of the huge room of the bottom part. So instead of giving us correctly placed arrow keys, full-size enter, Ins/Del placed conveniently, just for websurfing and games on bigscreen, they stuff the remaining rum with numpad. Yeah, great for widescreen accounting and displaying several columns extra in Excel, isn't it? Oh, and yes, and since the numpad took some extra place, and the rest of horizontal space was wasted with inch-wide margins on both sides and some extra column of "custom" keys, stuff all the keys that in a normal laptop fit in a column right from enter, just below it right Control, where you rest your wrists.

This is great

[multipartmixed]

Widescreen format may seem like it's aimed at windows users, but it's really a boon for us nerds, too!

I spend a lot of my day wishing I had a wider display, about another 4", for those stupidly-wide Oracle SQL*Plus queries, other-people's code which uses insane tab widths for indenting (I use two spaces), and so forth.

Really, I rarely want a widescreen when in GUI land, but wish for one daily as I live in Terminal Land.

'Only' 39%?

[Anonymous Coward]

'Only' 39% of the market? That is a huge percentage of a market that exists to make portable computers. Given that the vast majority of people don't need the power offered by today's desktops, the idea of having a device that is small (er), quiet, and can be packed away and transported when necessary, is a significant advantage to most people. Does this indicate a transition from the traditional desktop form-factor to the 'luggable laptop' for the majority of consumers?

Return of the boombox...

[__aaclcg7560]

If the business people walked around with these things like 80's boomboxes, and doing the moonwalk, I'm going to be sick.

Re:I have to ask...

[MichaelSmith]

I honestly can't see a need for a 20 inch laptop.

In the office where my wife works all the computer systems (I assume except the servers) are laptops. They cost about the same amount of money and people tend to take them home on the weekend.

So the laptops are being used as car-portable desktops.

Strange market developments

[OnoTadaki]

A few months ago I was advising a friend of the family on purchasing a new computer. She was adament that she NEEDED a laptop with a widescreen monitor. After going through why she needed a portable computer over a desktop she had no answer. These new monster laptops are being marketed as full fledged desktop computers with added portability.

Personally I'd like to see a step in the other direction, something akin the Apple 12 inch iBook, except smaller and less fruit.

I don't get it

[Apreche]

Why would anyone want a laptop so big? The point of a laptop is that it is portable, you can take it with you places. If it's 20"+ diagonally that really doesn't fit in any bag I know. It's one thing if you are using it as a desktop replacement. And it's another thing if you are using it for something like a display in your booth at a trade show. But for a computer you use on the plane, train and other public spaces it's gotta be smaller. Right now the only things that even come close to good enough are incredibly expensive laptops from japan, the small vaios, the fujitsu lifebook p series and the 12" apples. I haven't found any other laptop even close to small enough.

In other news:

[CortoMaltese]

People are getting fatter and fatter...

Bigger laps, bigger laptops!

Re:In other news:

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

People are getting fatter and fatter..

And Leon's getting LarRrRrRrRrgggerrrrrrrr!

Re:In other news:

[pablodiazgutierrez]

They should have Michael Moore publicise it.

Result of better PDA technology

[RevMike]

This is a direct result of better PDA technology. Devices like the Treo, Blackberry, and ultra-light tablets are allowing the normal business user avoid lugging around a normal laptop and still have access to email and office suite apps. So the pressure to make laptops more portable has been relieved by the emergence of a new market segment and devices specifically aimed at being ultra-portable.

Meanwhile, the desktop users, all but the l33test gamers, and developers are demanding more powerful transportable devices. They don't need to travel accross the country, but would like the flexibility of using their PCs from their living room or the backyard without sacrificing their big screens and better power.

The transportable desktop replacement business is naturally growing while the ultraportable segment is shrinking.

Not laptops

[unoengborg]

I have a 13" screen on my current laptop. When I'm buying a new one I would probably want it to be smaller rather than bigger. Perhaps 12" with 1024x768 resolution, with a weght that hopfully will be below 1 kg.

What the article really is saying, is that the end is near for the standard desktop computer. These new large screen semi portable "laptops" will replace them. The price of standard desktops are allready falling rapidly.

Laptop gauge

[VincenzoRomano]

We all hope that Philips will speed the technology up.
Wider screens means also heavier batteries and bulkier carrying bags!
And also more fragile devices!

Finally I'll be able to show up that wiseass Smith

[elrous0]

At last, a status symbol worthy of my small penis size!

-Eric

Re:Desktop Replacement!

[CastrTroy]

resolution says nothing about how much you can fit on the screen. It really gets me mad, when people set their tiny monitors to some really small resolution. Either you can't see anything, or the fonts are so big, that you get no advantage of actually having a higher resolution. If you want you fonts to be x mm accross, then a bigger monitor will always be able to fit more letters on them.

keyboard

[CaptnMArk]

How about a full size (except numpad) keyboard with real keys that click.

Based on www.pckeyboard.com?

Careful Linux users ....

[phoxix]

Many of these laptops with odd ball screens have a real problem: The native resolution of the screen isn't supported by the video-bios.

Why is this a problem for Linux users ?

Last time I checked, Xorg/Xfree86 didn't support resolutions your video card didn't advertise. Which becomes a real PITA because now you are either forced to use the screen with chopped off ends, or full screen with the image being badly stretched out.

You could use the closed source XiG X server and you wouldn't have these issues. But a) it cost a pretty penny and b) they software itself is kinda dumb. (You'll install their X server, but you won't get any psuedo-rpm/dpkg's to trick the distro into thinking you have a regular X installed. It becomes a nightmare with dependencies.)

Re:Careful Linux users ....

[dfghjk]

If there's one thing that's certain, it's that the native resolution of a the screen WILL be supported by the BIOS. Perhaps nothing else will support it but the machine itself always will.

Of course, having BIOS support for a video mode doesn't mean X, or any other windowing system, will work. If it's new, you can be confident that X won't support it for a quite while. You could do it yourself as long as a driver exists for your video card.

The usual cycle for X is that new hardware comes out, untested support for the hardware is added, then after a few release cycles someone eventually tests it and fixes the bugs. Until then you can be sure that the hardware doesn't work with X.

Re:Careful Linux users ....

[veediot]

Actually, you would be surprised. I bought a gateway laptop with a 15.4 inch widescreen (native resolution: 1280x800) and Intel Extreme Graphics 2 integrated video adapter. Now, you would think that the video BIOS would advertise its 1280x800 resolution, but it does not, because that particular adapter isn't mean for that resolution. So I had to download a tool called 855resolution that lets you trick the video BIOS into advertising one of its existing modes as 1280x800 in order to get it to work with Xorg.

Re:Careful Linux users ....

[Kupek]

I have a Dell Inspiron 8500 which has an optimal resolution of 1680x1050. I had to hack the XFree86.config file to get the screen working at that resolution in Linux (using something I found on the internet, not figured out myself), but once I did that it worked fine.

Re:Careful Linux users ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit! X can use any video mode that your card is capable of. I hooked up an oldish graphics card to a TV with a home-brew VGA-to-TV adapter and I had no problems using a 712x534 interlaced screenmode (and other resolutions aswell), which I sincerely doubt that mode is in the video BIOS. Sure, I had to use custom modelines in my xorg.conf, but that is to be expected given the non-standard nature of what I was doing. So it might be a bit of hassle getting the correct resolution with X on these laptops, it is most definately possible.

Re:Oh...

[AdamWeeden]

I thought it was part of an an international conspiracy to irradiate the reproductive organs of /. readers to keep them from breeding.

I'm pretty sure that will take care of itself.

hmm

[ajs318]

It's two thousand and freaking five, for crying out loud.

Can't we at least say 500mm Laptop ?

Re:So what should they be called?

[halltk1983]

Just a "desk" as in Ender's Game. Once muni wifi becomes availible, look for the buggers...

So Much Wider... What about the keyboard then?

[rubberbando]

If we're getting such a wide laptop. I hope they finally put a full sized keyboard with keypad on it. I'm tired of having to either hook up a full keyboard or a usb keypad for full keyboard functionality. My hands feel so cramped on a regular laptop keyboard and the arrow keys are attrotious.

Higher resolution

[stu_coates]

I'd swap my 17" Powerbook for a 12" with the same resolution anyday. The 17" is barely portable but the screen is lovely to work on.

Re:Bigger = Better?

[bleckywelcky]

Lower power consumption. The screen is a huge sink on the battery. Decrease that by 50% or so and you can probably get a couple more hours out of your battery. Techies, admins, field engineers will buy those up in droves.

Size matters

[KayakFun]

A large-screen laptop will be a status symbol like a SUV: the bigger the better. This is opposite to the miniturization in many other electronics, but with the emphasis on the UI and productivity they are the way to go (boss/partner: are you listening?):

• designing XSLT with 3 windows of XML, XSLT, and XHTML next to eachother,
• DTP work (A3 + some dialogue boxes)
• webdesign
• GIMP
• email, if your friends like long subject lines
• tabbed browsing

And the subject says it all: size matters (My desktop at home is 23.1", so my work laptop looks like a letterbox)

How about making it PROPER HD widescreen ratio?

[Quizo69]

I don't have a widescreen laptop yet, but when I do get one, I'd like to see it with a proper 16:9 display at HD resolution, i.e. 1920x1080, NOT the bastardised 16:10 ratio of 1920x1200.

Who were the idiots that decided that LCD panels should forego proper TV scale resolutions (4:3 and 16:9) and use the non-standard 5:4 and 16:10 ratios???

Is Microsoft responsible? Did they ask to have TV resolution plus taskbar addon resolution? I mean seriously - who watches a DVD at full screen width and keeps the taskbar visible? Anyone? Didn't think so, so why make the panels that way? /rant

coming soon...

[hutteman]

dual screen laptops!