Windows 8 and Screen Resolution: WXGA Still Most Popular

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Windows 8 and Screen Resolution: WXGA Still Most Popular

Posted by timothy on Saturday March 24, 2012 @05:45AM from the how-tight-are-your-pixels? dept.

jones_supa writes "The Building Windows 8 blog comes up with a detailed post explaining the improved support of Windows 8 regarding different screen sizes, resolutions and pixel densities. Early on, the Windows team explored an inch-based scaling system, but found out that bitmaps would look blurry when scaled to unpredictable sizes. They ended up choosing three predefined scale percentages: 100%/140%/180%. The article goes on pondering the best solutions to make each app look good on different screens. Also shown: the distribution of resolutions being used today with Windows 7, 1366x768 having a huge lead at 42%."

301 of 382 comments (clear)

1366x768 by CyberK · 2012-03-24 05:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

Also known as the cheap laptop screen.
1. Re:1366x768 by hjf · 2012-03-24 05:54 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I was shopping around a few months ago. ALL laptops have that resolution. Because it can be marketed as "HD". Either that, ir "FULL HD" 1920x1080.
  So it's not "cheap". It's just what it is.
  And it's not any better in the "affordable" desktop monitor realm either. I'm still sticking to a 17" 1280x1024 because i think it's stupid to get a 23"-27" with "only" 1920x1080.
2. Re:1366x768 by No,+I+am+Spratacus! · 2012-03-24 05:55 · Score: 2
  
  Indeed. It really is an unfortunate trend. Going to 1366x768 is cheaper for manufacturers, and it seems most people don't care. 16:9 is a convenient way of selling less screen area for the same diagonal size than 16:10. Sure, people will argue about how widescreen this and widescreen that, but virtually all websites and documents scroll vertically. The only thing 16:9 is good for is watching HD videos without having black bars along the top and bottom.
3. Re:1366x768 by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2012-03-24 06:02 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  DPI probably has something to do with it.
  Having arbitrarily high screen resolutions at small to medium(13 to 15 inch) range is a goddamned nightmare on the eyes.
  And yes there's probably HDTV to blame too, as HDTV has been a big push behind LCD panel production making 1366x768 screens cheap as hell too.
  
  --
  Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
4. Re:1366x768 by icebraining · 2012-03-24 06:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I disagree: widescreen is great for having two VIM windows side-by-side, or having only one VIM and a document, etc.
  Most websites have to be scrolled anyway, more vertical space doesn't make much of a difference, but tiling windows horizontally is damn handy.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
5. Re:1366x768 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-24 06:05 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  I'm still sticking to a 17" 1280x1024 because i think it's stupid to get a 23"-27" with "only" 1920x1080.
  There are plenty of affordable 1920 x 1200, 2560 x 1440, and 2560 x 1600 flat panel monitors.
6. Re:1366x768 by x0d · 2012-03-24 06:06 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  That is correct. Older higher-end Thinkpads had like 1600x1200 or 1440x1050 even on smaller screens, like 14" and that was back in 2002-2003, so, by now everyone should have caught up as parts became cheaper(they did, right?). But it's 2012, and the standards haven't been raised by much. Maybe the arrival of the new iPad will improve things...
7. Re:1366x768 by cpu6502 · 2012-03-24 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  >>>The only thing 16:9 is good for is watching HD videos
  Which is probably what the majority of computer users are doing... watching youtube or hulu or other video sites. Very few are doing actual work with vertical documents like we do every day.
  I don't have a wide 16:9 screen but if I did, it would HAVE to be at least 1024 vertical (same as my old 12:9 CRT). The currently-popular res is too cramped (though it beats the 320 or 640x200 of my early computer days).
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
8. Re:1366x768 by eldorel · 2012-03-24 06:16 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  plenty of affordable
  I have to assume that your definition of affordable is different from mine, or prices have dropped drastically in the last few months since I was shopping for a new screen. (just checked google shopping, the prices haven't changed. )
  
  All of the monitors that see I with with higher resolutions are almost twice the price of the "1080p" units.
  
  An extra $100 for 200 more rows of pixels? Not interested.
  
  Additionally, I can't even FIND a 19-22inch monitor with anything higher than 1200p vertical resolution without shopping at medical supply shops. I can get the resolutions I want on screens designed for use on an MRI, but I'm not even going to consider a $2300 monitor. (especially since I need 4 of them...)
9. Re:1366x768 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-24 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  There is high hopes future lines of Macs will break this annoying HD craze, if new Ipad didn't already.
10. Re:1366x768 by thestuckmud · 2012-03-24 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree: widescreen is great for having two Emacs windows side-by-side
  FTFY ;-)
  Seriously, though, in addition to old school text editing (which I use every day), many of the modern applications I regularly use (IDE, GIS, CAD/CAM) make efficient use of wide screens. I typically work with three wide screens on two computers and love it.
11. Re:1366x768 by hjf · 2012-03-24 06:21 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Thanks for taking care of the troll. I'm in the exact situation as you. I'm a photographer and I can really use vertical space (google for Lightroom and you'll see how it's arranged and why a big, high res monitor matters.
12. Re:1366x768 by no1nose · 2012-03-24 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Why don't the use 1680x1050??
13. Re:1366x768 by jones_supa · 2012-03-24 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  What is interesting is that 320x200 has actually the same aspect ratio than 1280x800. Well, to be honest, I think it was designed to be used in the 4:3 format with non-square pixels. However it's nice to run games in DosBOX with sharp quad-pixeled graphics.
14. Re:1366x768 by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-03-24 06:29 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Speaking of how things were better in the old days, shed a tear for the IBM T220:
  
  3840×2400 pixels on a 22.2 inch widescreen. Discontinued c.2005
15. Re:1366x768 by amiga3D · 2012-03-24 06:29 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Actually 1366x768 is bad for almost everything except watching video. I had a nice dell laptop that I sold cheap because everything about it was great except the damn screen size. I actually went back to an older one because new laptops with decent screens are expensive. I'd actually love to have a new version of the D630 laptop with an i5 processor and a newer discrete nvidia graphics chip. Even the old T7500 in this one runs well with Mepis Linux but encoding video takes a while.
16. Re:1366x768 by isopropanol · 2012-03-24 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  Rotateable monitor... especially if you shoot a lot of portraits.
17. Re:1366x768 by jimicus · 2012-03-24 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  > by now everyone should have caught up as parts became cheaper(they did, right?)
  They did indeed. Driven by small widescreen LCD televisions, the cost of 1366x768 screens plummeted.
  Now, the PC industry is heavily driven by cost. Basically every commodity PC manufacturer is in a race to the bottom to see who can build a computer the cheapest. It's been this way for some years now - there's a reason a cheap laptop feels like it's constructed out of cheese.
  Which means that if the 1366x768 16:9 television panel costs $20 and the 1280x800 16:10 is $24 (numbers pulled out of thin air), the laptop manufacturer will go for the cheaper part unless they're pretty certain that the more expensive part will result in a laptop that can easily be sold for a little bit more.
18. Re:1366x768 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-24 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, another "outsourced our IT to HP" victim.
  Our on-site support guy DOES NOT EVEN KNOW HOW TO CHECK a screen's resolution. I pointed out to him that my co-worker got a 1600x900 screen on her laptop, and that (while it's still a lame 16:9 AR) I'd like to get the same on my upcoming replacement. His reply: "Well, she can select that resolution, but it'll be fuzzy because it's not native." No, it'll be SHARP because it IS native, you FUCKING MORON. But your stupid fucking "catalog" only lists one resolution, and so that must be the only resolution HP ever ships us, and that's what our equally stupid upper management signed off on, so that reflects Corporate Reality, and if we're holding a laptop in our fucking hands with a 1600x900 display, well, it must be time to bring out the electrical tape and "correct" the screen by covering part of it up.
  And don't even get me started on desktop/dock displays, where most people are issued 1366x768 or, if they're lucky, 1600x900. I went through all the proper channels, pointing out that developer productivity scales pretty directly with screen size (ESPECIALLY screen HEIGHT), and that they were being pound foolish giving us tiny displays. They responded by graciously upgrading us to 22-inch displays -- at 1680x1050.
  Fuck. My. Life.
19. Re:1366x768 by tenco · 2012-03-24 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  Having arbitrarily high screen resolutions at small to medium(13 to 15 inch) range is a goddamned nightmare on the eyes.
  I don't understand. Why is a high DPI value a "goddamned nightmare on the eyes"?
20. Re:1366x768 by FairAndHateful · 2012-03-24 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  The only thing 16:9 is good for is watching HD videos...
  I read a lot of documents. A lot of documents. The wider the screen the better, so long as I get to rotate it 90 degrees.
21. Re:1366x768 by FairAndHateful · 2012-03-24 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  Goddang it, didn't close my tag properly. PIMF.
22. Re:1366x768 by TheRaven64 · 2012-03-24 06:43 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I used one, and while they looked great I won't be shedding too many tears. For one thing, it used two single-link DVI connectors, so it looked like a multi-monitor configuration to the computer, meaning you needed something like Xinerama to make it work properly, and often things like OpenGL applications would decide that full screen meant half of the monitor. It also cost over $10K, putting it well out of the price range of most people.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
23. Re:1366x768 by Luckyo · 2012-03-24 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  Arguably, it's the human eyes that are the limit, and we're hitting it. As quite a few people pointed out, if you don't specifically look for differences, most people will not see the difference beyond current resolutions used. It's a sweet spot between what people find acceptable in terms of quality and acceptable in terms of price.
24. Re:1366x768 by jo_ham · 2012-03-24 06:44 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Because Windows and OS X have spotty support for high dpi modes right now (both slated to improve enormously in next release), so while your images, video, scaled up vector fonts etc all look fantastic, the UI elements tend to be tiny. You can scale the UI, but this sometimes breaks some apps.
25. Re:1366x768 by sourcerror · 2012-03-24 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  Because of small fonts. At least that's how it was with XP system fonts. And when you increased it's size, everything looks butt-ugly.
26. Re:1366x768 by dave420 · 2012-03-24 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  You must be really bad at buying computers. I have an old Dell from 2007 with a 15" 1920x1200 screen.
27. Re:1366x768 by Mr+Z · 2012-03-24 06:52 · Score: 2
  
  Sure, current OSes and applications don't support high DPI very well, but that's not a good reason to shun high DPI. Higher DPI is actually easier on the eyes. It's the reason a printed page is much more readable than a PDF scaled to the exact same size onscreen.
  Rumor has it the next MacBooks will have high-DPI screens. I hope this is the case and it inspires a few others in the PC world to follow. Once developers start getting high DPI monitors in greater quantities, they'll be more inspired to fix their apps and websites.
  
  --
  Program Intellivision!
28. Re:1366x768 by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-03-24 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, it was a hell of a weirdo, and would have done a great deal better with more recent display connection standards. The price, also, was undeniably an issue.
  
  It's just sad that, unlike many of the other technologies that were a bit hacky and/or excessively expensive in the 2000-2005 range, the T220 just sort of died rather than improving. That specific product had the issues you get when you push a little too hard against the envelope. It's just frustrating that 6+ years since its introduction didn't result in there being a "T420" with the weirdness ironed out and the cost reduced.
29. Re:1366x768 by Aliotroph · 2012-03-24 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, if you like your games to look squashed. DOS games running at 320x200 were indeed designed with non-square pixels in mind. Playing fullscreen in DOSbox without aspect correction turned on looks awful.
30. Re:1366x768 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-24 06:58 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  You might be surprised to find that it's now hard to find those 1920x1200 monitors in any size. Starting a couple of years ago the standard higher-end resolution became 1920 x 1080. Go into a computer store. You'll find 40 monitors at with that resolution and 1-2 with 1920x1200, and those ones might not have features you want like integrated speakers or webcam or usb hub built in or whatever.
  
  I had your attitude before and then I had to buy computers for my office and I was pissed off that my options had gotten worse than before not better.
31. Re:1366x768 by hjf · 2012-03-24 06:58 · Score: 2
  
  That's the point, Einstein.
  It's *now* that's hard to find high rez screens. In the past it's been much easier.
32. Re:1366x768 by meerling · 2012-03-24 07:00 · Score: 2
  
  4 monitors ?! I so want to know what you are playing!
  Ok, it could be for work, but when you've done that, what games are you playing on that rig?
33. Re:1366x768 by armanox · 2012-03-24 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  Another one with an 8100. They also have a replaceable graphics card. Talk about "good old days"
  
  --
  I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
34. Re:1366x768 by traycerb · 2012-03-24 07:17 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  this. I have twin 1920x1200 screens, which I bought a few years ago when they were abundant. They're a *lot* harder to find now, and typically are more expensive higher end models, e.g. IPS. On the chart labelled "Windows 7 screen Resolutions" it shows 1920x1200 is ~1-2% of Win7 installs, reflective of this. Relative to 1920x1080, I feel 120 pixels is a lot to give up. Surprisingly 1920x1080 is only 8%, which speaks to the broader trend of how more than 50% of installs are on cripplingly low resolutions. I think this is a combination of factors: fewer desktops/more laptops, and work environments that won't ever spring for more than bottom of the barrel monitors. I checked my work monitor, and even though I use medical apps to view radiology/echos etc, the resolution is a meager 1280x1024.
  
  --
  Relax. Have a muffin. Enjoy the show. --Slick, Sept 13th, 2007.
35. Re:1366x768 by donatzsky · 2012-03-24 07:22 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Let me introduce you to the Dell UltraSharp monitors: http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/sna.aspx?c=us&cs=ussoho1&l=en&s=soho&~topic=ultrasharp_monitor
  High-quality IPS panels that can be adjusted every which way. 24" and smaller can pivot as well.
  Not terribly expensive, and if you buy them on Amazon etc. they're usually a good deal cheaper.
  
  --
  VPS-like shared hosting, on under-crowded servers.
36. Re:1366x768 by TheRaven64 · 2012-03-24 07:25 · Score: 2
  
  The yields for he high resolution displays never got high enough for them to be worthwhile. My Nokia 770 had the same DPI, but on a 4" screen. TFTs have the same issues as other solid-state devices: defects happen in random places and so the bigger they get the higher the probability of a defect meaning you can't sell it. If you're making a big panel and one a sixteenth the size, then a single defect means a complete loss for the big panel or a 15/16 yield for the smaller ones (or a 3/4 yield if you're really unlucky and it happens in a corner between 4, but you typically have small borders to reduce the likelihood of this). We're starting to see high DPI screens become common in portable devices now. I wouldn't be surprised if something like the T220 came back once the manufacturing improves. The problem with it was that, beyond being a good tech demo, it wasn't really a marketable product. Very few people are willing to pay 10-100 times as much for a monitor to get four times as many pixels. Until you can make them cheap enough that you can ramp up the economies of scale, they're not a good product.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
37. Re:1366x768 by hairyfeet · 2012-03-24 07:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Bimbo Newton Crosby, this isn't so much that the customer is "choosing" this resolution as it is the LCD manufacturers have decided that this is THE resolution for all the 12 inch and 15 inch, and all the 17 inchers have settled on 1600x900. Since folks are gaga over laptops for some reason and you can get new 15 inchers for $399 no wonder their little chart says that size is the most popular. Still won't stop the stench of fail that is Windows 8.
  Anybody else notice they quietly changed the EOL for Vista Home to 2017 and for Win 7 Home to 2020? I have a feeling the closer Win 8 gets to release the stronger that "Oh shit WTF are we doing?" feeling is getting and they are hoping that if they fail (I'd argue when) that Win 7 will save them. Maybe so but I can't picture the shareholders being too happy about a billion plus blown on another Vista bomb. Man I hope this gets ballmer fired, never before have I so wanted to see someone get a pink slip but he makes the Apple Pepsi CEO look like Jobs for all the flailing and dumb directions he has taken the company. And lets be honest folks, when normal users (which I've shown it to over 200 myself) end up like this when they use your FLAGSHIP PRODUCT? You are so full of fail it is beyond epic, its into mythical.
  BTW I'd like to make a minor apology to the Ubuntu guys, yes your new UI sucks but compared to Win 8 its a God damned masterpiece. I thought for sure nothing could top the suck of Unity but now I have to give the Ubuntu devs credit, at least Unity is consistent and discoverable, Win 8 is just a fucking mess. It TWO different UIs jarringly jammed together with no rhyme or reason, NO hints or pop ups or clues to tell you what to do or where to go, its fucking awful. I have run every beta since Win2K and other than the old Dell dual core i have set up in the shop to let customers play with Win 8 I will NOT run Win 8, two weeks fighting that bitch is enough. Whereas before i needed to learn enough to work on it I can already tell that like Vista the only "work" I'll be doing on win 8 is removing it. Who the fuck thought have a touch designed UI as the MAIN UI on a NON TOUCH desktop or laptop was a smart idea? So I apologize Ubuntu guys, yours is NOT the worst UI I've ever seen, not by a long shot.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
38. Re:1366x768 by MrHanky · 2012-03-24 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Is it really all that hard? I'd just look at one of the many price grabbing sites and filter by resolution. You don't need hundreds of options as long as you've got the option to buy what you need. To me, a 24" IPS 1920x1200 monitor costing twice as much as a 22" 1080p TN screen seems a decent buy. I'm tempted to upgrade.
39. Re:1366x768 by ceoyoyo · 2012-03-24 07:31 · Score: 2
  
  Widescreen is great for doing all sorts of things - the key is that you have to use multiple windows. I've never understood the habit of having full screen apps.
  On the odd occasion that I actually want lots of vertical space, I've got a (widescreen) Samsung monitor that rotates. Stick it beside a regular widescreen and you have the best of both worlds.
  Where widescreen doesn't make sense is on devices designed for a single window: tablets and phones.
40. Re:1366x768 by hjf · 2012-03-24 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  Here in Argentina I have yet to see small LCD televisions. Most of them are 32"+ with few exceptions, and 32" with 1366x768 isn't the same panel as a 24" desktop monitor. LCD TVs have driven down the cost of large, low DPI panels.
  But remember there is another factor that determines small LCD prices: mobile phones. I have a 3.5" Motorola Milestone with an 850x480 resolution. So it *can* be done AND marketed. I wish i had a 27" monitor with the pixel density of the Milestone!
  If monitor manufacturers start pushing ULTRA HD and YOUR IMAGES WILL LOOK SHARPER THAN EVER! they would sell. Just like they do with the "HD" tag right now.
  We just need 1 manufacturer to take the plunge (that would be Apple, most likely) and wait for the others to follow suit.
41. Re:1366x768 by roc97007 · 2012-03-24 07:46 · Score: 2
  
  Agreed. I find 1080 tall confining when I work on documents. There is, after all, more to life than watching movies.
  My current old-style tube is 1600 by 1200, is taller than most screens and has better colors. When it dies I'll have to look at 1920X1200 (16:10) monitors, which are rare and expensive.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
42. Re:1366x768 by jtseng · 2012-03-24 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  My 2+yro 14" Vaio is 1366x768 (111.9ppi), and I got it a few months before 1st iPad debuted. I suspect when I'm in the market for a new laptop the resolutions will be at least approaching that for the current iPad. I would imagine that screen would be the standard that everyone *should* be shooting for.
  
  --
  Sanity.html - Error 404 not found
43. Re:1366x768 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-24 07:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  At least your resolution was on the chart. I have 1600x1200 panels both at home and work. Those aren't even on the chart. I far prefer them to the newer "short screen" panels (you can call them wide screen if you want, but as you correctly call out they typically get shorter as well as wider). I also have a short screen panel in my dual screen setup, but I run that in portrait mode and use it for PDF files, documents, and web pages.
44. Re:1366x768 by danbob999 · 2012-03-24 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Your 5 year old Dell probably cost you $2000.
  A 1366x768 acer laptop can be had for $300.
45. Re:1366x768 by Howitzer86 · 2012-03-24 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  If you do a lot of writing or coding I can see that. Just having 56 more lines of vertical resolution means little no matter how big your screen is. You should look for the 1920x1200 monitors. There should also be some 1600x1200 screens available somewhere.
46. Re:1366x768 by AliasMarlowe · 2012-03-24 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  I have an old Dell from 2007 with a 15" 1920x1200 screen.
  And I have a laptop from 2004 with a 17" 1920x1200 resolution LCD built-in. A replacement with similar resolution is nigh on impossible to find - they all seem to have the 1920x1080 shortscreen instead. It's been due for replacement, but I have found nothing suitable (in this case, suitable means similar or better resolution).
  
  --
  Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
47. Re:1366x768 by TheGratefulNet · 2012-03-24 08:37 · Score: 2
  
  my 32" lcd tv (3 or 4 yrs old now) is that resolution.
  my htpc is a lightweight atom and it prefers having LESS pixels to push around. I am quite fine with 32" and this resolution for an average size room distance viewing.
  the more data you push thru, the harder it is on ALL your system parts; network, video, ram, drives.
  1366x768 is just fine! it really is. even for a laptop, its fine.
  I guess I dont' see the complaints since smoother playback is a higher prio for me than absolute pixels.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
48. Re:1366x768 by dave420 · 2012-03-24 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  Dell still sells them, so they're no harder to find. Which was my point, which still stands.
49. Re:1366x768 by Tacvek · 2012-03-24 08:42 · Score: 2
  
  You are quite right that Windows 8 is two entirely different UIs mashed together.
  The idea is simple: Microsoft wants tablet computers. Existing tablets that use the regular he regular windows UI have been tried but nevr caugh on. Tablets that use touch-specialized UIs have caught on.
  Microsoft wants to be different from Apple. So instead of having a Windows tablet be a scaled up Windows Phone OS device (Like an iPad is a scaled up iOS device) Microsoft decided to make it a scaled down version of their Desktop OS. To do so, they decided to basically replace the existing OS UI with Windows Phone inspired UI. Of course, they needed to have backwards compatibility, as well as compatibility with their other major apps (like Office and Visual Studio), so they kept the old UI around too, albeit somewhat gutted.
  Here is what I predict will happen: Desktop application developers will almost completely ignore the new Metro-style app options, and only lightly metro-fy their apps to blend in with the redesigned Office and Visual Studio apps.
  Tablet application developers will create metro-style apps, but only care about the user experience on tablet devices, so the applications will really suck on a non-touchscreen Desktop PC.
  Casual-game developers will target metro-style apps for both both platforms since they can wdo so with minimal effort.
  I'm really not sure what traditional games developers will do. They may target Metro on the PC, which will piss off many gamers who like the option to have windowed games, rather than only full screen. Or they might target the traditional desktop style for the PC. If they target Metro, they may provide settings for a touch based control scheme and to drop the graphical quality substantially in order to allow for more-or-less unmodified tablet build. If they target traditional Windows, they may either ignore tablets, or treat they as a second class porting target, with the usual gutting of the game when they perform the port.
  In summary, my prediction is that except for Casual games there will be minimal overlap between Metro-style apps that work well on a tablet, and those that work well on a desktop, which is exactly the opposite of what Microsoft is counting on.
  
  --
  Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
50. Re:1366x768 by Mad+Merlin · 2012-03-24 08:48 · Score: 2
  
  Monitor options have steadily gotten worse over the last 5 years or so. We were making great progress and then somebody decided that shortscreen (16:10) was the new way to go. Then, not long after that, somebody decided that shorterscreen (16:9) was the new way to go.
  Luckily, I bought two 1600x1200 20" monitors right around the time progress stopped and they've remained top of the line ever since. I'd love higher resolution (note - not larger, 2x 20" is perfect, neck would get sore looking at 2x 27" or 2x 30") displays, but they don't exist for under $1000.
  
  --
  Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
51. Re:1366x768 by Electricity+Likes+Me · 2012-03-24 08:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  More to life yes, but I suspect in marketing to the general consumer "1080" is now a secret codeword. Hollywood in reference to HDTV and Blu-Ray throws the term "1080p" around as the thing you want. Hell, it "feels" nice when I think about it. So for the average consumer it certainly sounds good.
  It's just you, and other posters are right: for general purpose computing, it's not really so good because in working with documents, web-pages etc. everything we do is much more orientated towards "tall" resolutions (i.e. we work with portrait documents, not landscape).
  One of my brothers runs 3 monitors and he has 1 24" screen configured specifically in a portrait configuration for this very reason.
52. Re:1366x768 by FlyingGuy · 2012-03-24 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  You can still get VERY high res monitors but they are going to be glass, weigh 60lbs+ and take up a LOT of space and will be re-furbished units.
  I had a Viewsonic P220 for years, had it sent back to viewsonic twice for repairs until the damn thing just went up in flames ( high voltage PS just exploded ) and I really liked that monitor. 22" flat screen, .24 dot pitch, would sync to damn near anything. You can still find them out there for less then a grand.
  I currently have two Dell 1908FP's for regular work but fire up a big glass monitor for really fine work.
  The thing I dislike are the widescreen monitors. Just hate the damn things.
  
  --
  Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
53. Re:1366x768 by AmiMoJo · 2012-03-24 09:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You are right, but I'd say Facebook is as much to blame. Stick with me here. 1366x768 is the most common resolution, and presumably Facebook knows that because get they stats from HTTP request headers. So why do they design their site not to make better use of the available horizontal space?
  Cheap widescreen laptops would suck less if websites realised that most people use widescreen displays these days. In fact it is hard to buy a non-widescreen display. I know, long lines of text are not as easy to read, but newspapers and magazines figured out how to get around that 200 years ago.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
54. Re:1366x768 by AmiMoJo · 2012-03-24 09:23 · Score: 2
  
  Panasonic do a 4k resolution 20" monitor. My hope is that as 4k TVs start to appear we will get 4k consumer monitors too.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
55. Re:1366x768 by amiga3D · 2012-03-24 09:46 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  For the desktop it's pretty simple. I turn the monitor on end.
56. Re:1366x768 by Vegemeister · 2012-03-24 09:56 · Score: 2
  
  2560x1440 IPS panel, $360. They are glossy, however, and they allow up to 5 dead pixels.
57. Re:1366x768 by tepples · 2012-03-24 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  Casual-game developers will target metro-style apps for both both platforms since they can wdo so with minimal effort.
  I predict that casual PC games developed by hobbyists, as opposed to companies like Zynga and Rovio, will still use traditional Win32 APIs. I've read rumors that like Apple with iOS devices and Microsoft with the Xbox 360 console, Microsoft will charge you per year to test Metro style apps that you wrote and compiled on a computer that you bought.
58. Re:1366x768 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-24 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  Every 2-3 years I buy the latest 13" Dell Latitude. Every time I lose some vertical screen space. The latest iteration, which I just got yesterday, has slightly larger external dimensions than the previous one but a smaller screen. WTF? These are business laptops. I don't need a 16:9 screen, I need as much screen space (in particular vertical screen space, for documents) as I can in a small form factor.
59. Re:1366x768 by Vegemeister · 2012-03-24 10:08 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah... no. 1366x768 would only become wetware-limited in a smartphone form factor.
60. Re:1366x768 by claus.wilke · 2012-03-24 10:13 · Score: 2
  
  I totally agree with you on this one. The Dell Latitudes have gone downhill since the D630. The latest 13" E series has the same crappy 1366x768 display. This is a business laptop, for gods sake. I don't care if I have to pay $300 more, give me a screen with which I can actually get some work done!
61. Re:1366x768 by sunspot42 · 2012-03-24 10:14 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Apple took the plunge several years ago. The 27" iMac has been shipping with a 2560 by 1440 screen since its introduction in late 2009. I wouldn't be surprised to see them ship a 32" iMac sporting even higher resolutions at some point in the not-too-distant future.
  It's sad and kind of shocking the degree to which Apple drives innovation in the PC market. Just what the hell do the thousands of employees and overpaid executives at Dell and HP do all day long? Play Angry Birds on their iPhones?
62. Re:1366x768 by claus.wilke · 2012-03-24 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  Certainly not on their small-form-factor business-class laptops. 16:9 is your only option.
63. Re:1366x768 by PhunkySchtuff · 2012-03-24 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  And now with the march of technology, you can 1/3 this number of pixels in a handheld tablet costing under a grand. Look to Apple for the next wave of high-res desktop displays (although don't expect them to be $200 for a 27" display)
  
  --
  Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
64. Re:1366x768 by locopuyo · 2012-03-24 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah really. At work I have 2 low end 19" 1280x1024 resoultion monitors connected to my machine whereas at home I have 7 good monitors and can be much more productive.
  
  --
  The Official Site of 1337 Pwnage
65. Re:1366x768 by garyoa1 · 2012-03-24 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  1980 x 1200 hanns G is under $300. Not an amazing monitor but decent with a 3 year warranty. So the prices are "slowly" dropping. But there still isn't anything like a CRT! :)
  
  --
  Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
66. Re:1366x768 by epyT-R · 2012-03-24 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  yes, assuming square pixels.. 320x200 was displayed at 4:3 ratio..they were stretched vertically..
67. Re:1366x768 by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-03-24 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  I predict that casual PC games developed by hobbyists, as opposed to companies like Zynga and Rovio, will still use traditional Win32 APIs.
  
  The "game API" for Win8 Metro is still DirectX, which is about as traditional as it gets.
68. Re:1366x768 by gnapster · 2012-03-24 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  Funny. But in all seriousness, maybe he is building four identical workstations? or two dual-headed workstations? That brings the notion of 'need' down out of orbit.
69. Re:1366x768 by swalve · 2012-03-24 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  Just put your taskbar on the side, and the widescreens work just fine. It is nice to be able to put two windows side by side and do work. Plus, now notebooks can come with numeric keypads. I'm all-in.
70. Re:1366x768 by mdf356 · 2012-03-24 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure how much it costs sine $WORK bought it for me, but all over these threads I see 1920 x whatever and it all sounds very small. I've been working for three years using a 2560x1600 and that's quite nice. I can get 4+ xterms wide at the top to monitor my cluster, and three emacs windows below that with space for a terminal window on either side for grepping through code and other tasks.
  
  --
  Terrorist, bomb, al Qaeda, nuclear, yellowcake, kill, assassinate. Carnivore is dead... long live Echelon.
71. Re:1366x768 by gl4ss · 2012-03-24 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  I'm still sticking to a 17" 1280x1024 because i think it's stupid to get a 23"-27" with "only" 1920x1080.
  There are plenty of affordable 1920 x 1200, 2560 x 1440, and 2560 x 1600 flat panel monitors.
  look, you think you're going to persuade someone who doesn't buy a 25" 1920x1200 because he doesn't see any benefit for the extra size and resolution and is content with 1280x1024 17"... he doesn't want to buy a new monitor, excuses are then excuses.
  1920x1200 on 25"+ vs. 1280x1024 is so obviously better, especially if you do any newfangled multimedia stuff on the computer it's attached to.
  and the 1366x768 screens ARE CHEAP BARGAIN SHIT. it's the bottom of the barrel. throw in an extra 15 bucks and you're in the 1600x900 realm. throw in an extra 40 and you're getting a fullhd. just pony up the 200 bucks and you can get a rather decent 20"+ fullhd screen nowadays.
  but one should remember.. a rather large amount of monitors and laptop are bought by corporate it. in other words, bought by people who buy computers for other people. they're going to buy that 19" 1280x1024 and hd ready crappers even for graphics designers.. it saves a buck - in the wrong place. but those buys ramp up the windows usage stats.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
72. Re:1366x768 by hairyfeet · 2012-03-24 13:19 · Score: 1
  
  Citation please? Because everything I've seen on Metro is that pretty much everything that doesn't run on ARM got thrown under a bus and i just don't see how you are gonna get DirectX, an API designed for killer graphics above battery life, to run on your average ARM tablet or even one of the midrange units. More likely each GPU will have a VERY customized OpenGL ES for their highly proprietary chip designs. In a way ARM now reminds me of PCs in the 80s, where nobody was really compatible with anybody and if you didn't code for the EXACT hardware the penalty was too great to make your game worth playing.
  And THAT my dear friends, along with the video i posted earlier showing how average users can't find a damned thing on metro, is why its gonna fail. lets be honest folks, metro is an insult, its whole purpose is to "trick" developers to write for WOA and anyone with a tiny bit of common sense can see that the whole premise simply doesn't work. ARM is low power above all and its IPC is worse than even Atom, much less Bobcat or a normal AMD or Intel CPU, yet they are trying to get devs to swallow they can "write once, use everywhere" when you are talking about arches THAT dissimilar? Are they stoned? Either the ARM version will suck a battery dry so fast it will make your head swim or it'll be using so little of the hardware because it was designed for WOA that it'll be like some fart app on the PC.
  in the end we ALL know what it really is and I'm sure any dev worth his salt can see the truth as well. Win 8 is a Hail Mary by MSFT who refuse to accept they have lost the mobile wars to Android and iOS so they are gonna take a giant shit all over their flagship product in an attempt to buy into the ARM market. But we all know this simply won't work, what sells people on windows is exactly what so many geeks hate about Windows, and that is backwards compatibility and the bazillion legacy programs everybody has. Since there is no way to emulate X86 on ARM without ending up with something about the speed of a 486 MSFT has simply reversed their earlier trend of making winMo look like a mini desktop and instead made the desktop into a maxi cell phone. Both routes are completely full of fail and if I had the extra cash I'd be shorting MSFT the week of the launch as I bet it bombs HARD.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
73. Re:1366x768 by Beardydog · 2012-03-24 13:45 · Score: 2
  
  If he plays any 3D games across multiple monitors, they look terrible, because multi-monitor gaming in general looks like garbage, and will for the foreseeable future.
  
  It is my quest to inform my fellow man.
74. Re:1366x768 by jo_ham · 2012-03-24 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  It's still not perfect. Most of the scaling works perfectly, but just like on Windows, there are some apps that simply do not like to go off piste with a "non-standard" dpi.
  Like I say, it's getting better, but it's still not 100% there yet.
75. Re:1366x768 by hawk · 2012-03-24 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  apple ][, 280x192 screen.
  56 more lines would be 7 more lines of text on top of the 24 you had . . .
  hawk
76. Re:1366x768 by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-03-24 15:12 · Score: 2
  
  Citation please? Because everything I've seen on Metro is that pretty much everything that doesn't run on ARM got thrown under a bus and i just don't see how you are gonna get DirectX, an API designed for killer graphics above battery life, to run on your average ARM tablet or even one of the midrange units.
  I don't know where you've getting your information on Win8 so far, but it's clearly not the primary sources (i.e. MSDN library & blogs), because the fact that DirectX is available in Metro has been publicly known since Developer Preview release last year, which had both the docs and the SDK.
  Anyway, as far as primary sources go: this gives an exhaustive list of supported D3D API surface, and here is a D3D Metro sample. Good enough?
  By the way, what makes you think that Direct3D is "designed for killer graphics above battery life"? I mean, sure, it's designed to allow for it - same as OpenGL - but there's nothing inherent in the API design that mandates that. Again, if OpenGL can downscale to ARM, what makes you think D3D can't?
  
  . ARM is low power above all and its IPC is worse than even Atom, much less Bobcat or a normal AMD or Intel CPU, yet they are trying to get devs to swallow they can "write once, use everywhere" when you are talking about arches THAT dissimilar? Are they stoned? Either the ARM version will suck a battery dry so fast it will make your head swim or it'll be using so little of the hardware because it was designed for WOA that it'll be like some fart app on the PC.
  So, what exactly is "THAT dissimilar" about the architectures that makes it impossible to write portable apps? Linux world has been managing that just fine. As for battery, the techniques to conserve it are exactly the same on both Intel and ARM, namely - don't run stuff in background unless absolutely needed, let the OS put your app to sleep and out of RAM, and awake it when it's re-activated. Metro is specifically designed for that - apps can be expected to be unloaded at any moment and have to save/restore state transparently, and practically all APIs follow the asynchronous callback model to force programmers to use the reactor pattern rather than polling or doing other stupid (battery-wise) things.
77. Re:1366x768 by ozmanjusri · 2012-03-24 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  Hannspree HZ281HPB 28" Class Widescreen LCD Monitor - 1920 x 1200 Price: $279.99
  http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=835615&CatId=3774
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
78. Re:1366x768 by ryanov · 2012-03-24 15:38 · Score: 1
  
  I ran into this upgrading from a D620 to an E6420. I just assumed the screen would not be shittier than the one it replaced and actually had to go back and change the order when I noticed how bad the screen specs were on the new laptop. I also would have bought the smaller size but there's no decent screen even available.
79. Re:1366x768 by ryanov · 2012-03-24 15:47 · Score: 1
  
  The dumber we are, the easiest it is to keep power over us. There's been a steady attack on the public schools here for years.
80. Re:1366x768 by cshay · 2012-03-24 17:57 · Score: 1
  
  That particular Dell "upgrade" was a downgrade in many other ways, most notably CPU throttling (google "throttlestop" for the solution), and the sound quality of the built in speakers.
81. Re:1366x768 by jones_supa · 2012-03-24 18:00 · Score: 1
  
  Hahaha, that was awesome. I'm an European, though.
82. Re:1366x768 by tlhIngan · 2012-03-24 18:24 · Score: 1
  
  You might be surprised to find that it's now hard to find those 1920x1200 monitors in any size. Starting a couple of years ago the standard higher-end resolution became 1920 x 1080. Go into a computer store. You'll find 40 monitors at with that resolution and 1-2 with 1920x1200, and those ones might not have features you want like integrated speakers or webcam or usb hub built in or whatever.
  I had your attitude before and then I had to buy computers for my office and I was pissed off that my options had gotten worse than before not better.
  The problem is, it's not cheap. You want a $500 laptop? Sorry, 1366x768 it is. But open your wallet a little bit, say, $1000 and you'll get ones with 1440x900 screens easily enough.
  And open your wallet up more, and you'll find laptops with 1920x1200 screens. Hell, Apple sells them by the boatload (17" Macbook Pro - 1920x1200 has been standard for a few years now, and an option a few years before that). And Dell still sells 1920x1200 screens. Just instead of paying under $200, you're looking at $400+.
  Same goes for higher resolutions. Want a 27" or 30" monitor with more than 1080p? Apple has a 27" at 2560x1440 screen, as does Dell. Go 30" and Dell has 2560x1600. Again, you're looking at $500+, so look for stuff on sale.
  If you're wanting to cheapskate it, you won't find anything good. Those nicer screens that cost more tend to be PVA or IPS screens, while your cheap ass WXGA screen is 99% TN.
  Cheap laptops are $500, yes. But they're really nasty. I wonder if it's because it has something to do with the price. Cheap monitors are 1080p as well (because the electronics are cheap - the same as what they drive TVs with). But good monitors and laptops have always costed more - everyone with their 1600x1200 CRT screens probably doesn't remember how much they used to cost (especially if you wanted one that wasn't blurry, flickery and pretty damn nice to look at).
  The laptops and monitors still all cost the same as they always had. The low end just moved lower by making things even crappier.
83. Re:1366x768 by vikisonline · 2012-03-24 18:38 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks Neil there goes my mods now :P Putting the task bar at the side doesn't help much. What also doesn't help much is that most IDEs and other programs tend to stack things up high. If UI practices were to abandon this design pattern and stack UI elements side to side, and not have your (eg compile messages in the bottom take up a bunch of room) it would help. But still tall screens are just so much better. I just recently pulled out my old IBM x40 recently and I was looking at the screen in awe. It looks so pleasing with a screen so much closer to a square shape. The sad thing is I remember not being perfectly comfortable with it back then because of its low resolution. Back then I knew things were going south when shortly after getting the x40 the x60 came out, with a widescreen monitor. All this for.... movies. So you can watch some movies without black bars. Some, because a lot of them will still be the wrong aspect ratio. So whats the point? Why is it such a huge deal to have black bars on a movie? But sadly there are way more mindless consumers that only think about how great a monitor will be at watching movies than people who use it for real work. So for us only more expensive alternatives will remain for now. Later, maybe not even that.
84. Re:1366x768 by jrumney · 2012-03-24 19:11 · Score: 1
  
  I have an old Dell from 2007
  Which is of no use in talking about laptops that are on the market TODAY.
85. Re:1366x768 by Mad+Merlin · 2012-03-24 21:15 · Score: 1
  
  Taskbars are always set to autohide, so I don't see how this helps.
  
  --
  Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
86. Re:1366x768 by Luckyo · 2012-03-24 21:25 · Score: 1
  
  I do not need glasses and I find it acceptable on my 15" monitor.
87. Re:1366x768 by pablo_max · 2012-03-24 21:32 · Score: 1
  
  How is 169 USD not cheap for a 22 inch monitor? Think about what would have cost you 7 years ago in a CRT!
  Costco
88. Re:1366x768 by isorox · 2012-03-24 23:05 · Score: 1
  
  I was shopping around a few months ago. ALL laptops have that resolution
  ALL doesn't mean what you think it does.
  http://shop.lenovo.com/us/laptops/thinkpad/t-series/t420s
  > Display type
  > 14.0 HD+ (1600 x 900) LED Backlit Antiglare Display, Mobile Broadband Ready
  My current t410s is 1440x900
89. Re:1366x768 by Tastecicles · 2012-03-24 23:53 · Score: 1
  
  1920x1080, incidentally, is the format for standard Blu-Ray. At 1920x1200 you'd have horizontal bars.
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
90. Re:1366x768 by Tastecicles · 2012-03-25 00:08 · Score: 1
  
  Walmart are selling some extreme budget (sub-£100) integrated DTV/DVD players with 15" 1366x768 panels. They look nice, but if I'm buying something that small I want a fucking laptop chassis attached to it.
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
91. Re:1366x768 by Tastecicles · 2012-03-25 00:14 · Score: 1
  
  I do love those laptops. The 8100/8200, C640/C840 - those four models all had completely interchangeable parts! Right down to the 14", 15" and 15.4" panels!
  Still got my i8200 running a P4m 2.0 with 2GB RAM, 100GB HDD, DVDRW, 1600x1200 15.4" panel on GF4 Go440 AGP graphics.
  Processor fans are getting hard to come by though...
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
92. Re:1366x768 by GeckoX · 2012-03-25 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, that's great. Except you went and drank the kool-aid.
  You are getting this but with a drastic loss in vertical screen resolution, which is what people are saying sucks.
  What is missing from the market that everyone here really wants is a widescreen that actually has a higher resolution than monitors from a few years ago. 768 vertical resolution is absolutely pathetic, and yet, that is what the bulk of people are using. And as others have mentioned, it's not that this is by choice, better options just aren't readily available.
  
  --
  No Comment.
93. Re:1366x768 by Patchw0rk+F0g · 2012-03-25 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  Cheap widescreen laptops would suck less if websites realised that most people use widescreen displays these days. In fact it is hard to buy a non-widescreen display. I know, long lines of text are not as easy to read, but newspapers and magazines figured out how to get around that 200 years ago.
  Duly noted, my friend. I've been looking into this with regard to responsive grid-based design. Problem is, there are still peeps out there with lower resolution/4:3 ratio screens. It's stultifying, but it's also LCD (lowest common denominator). Yeah, I wish we could ignore them too...
  
  --
  When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. ~~ Hunter S. Thompson
94. Re:1366x768 by galanom · 2012-03-25 03:32 · Score: 2
  
  Dell U2711 costs 630euros and is 2560x1440. 30" monitors (2560x1600) cost 1000-1200euros. Idk where you heard this $2300.
  Instead of having 4 small monitors (19-22) you might consider one big, or one big and 3-4 small or medium (22-24").
95. Re:1366x768 by TheGoodNamesWereGone · 2012-03-25 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't about what the consumers want. It's about what the manufacturers can crank out the cheapest.
96. Re:1366x768 by hardwarefreak · 2012-03-25 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  Also known as the cheap laptop screen.
  Don't forget LCD and plasma 720p HDTVs. Over the past 5-6 years there have been over 100 million of these units sold worldwide with a native panel res of 1366x768, in the 27-42" range. I'm sure some are running Win7 and seeing media center duty today. These TVs were $900-1200 USD in 2006. People are more likely to move them to the bedroom/basement when they buy the new 50"+ 1080p model for the living room. I've even heard of some guys using the 32" models for their desktop monitor.
97. Re:1366x768 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-25 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  "Rare and expensive" my ass. JUST looking at newegg, there are 9 models of 1920x1200 monitors in the under-$400 price range. One of them is 27.5"... FOR LESS THAN $300. You likely paid >$600 for that CRT.
  Again, a widely-available 28" monitor at the resolution you are requesting for $280 is NOT RARE and NOT EXPENSIVE.
  Also, you're so deeply in love with your 120 pixels of height that you're sacrificing 320 pixels of width and using an ancient piece of shit CRT that was either VERY EXPENSIVE, or is slightly blurry around the edges and flickers. I'll give you the better colors thing, but it's utterly irrelevant if you're not a colorist or a pro photographer.
  If you're a coder, have you ever considered that you can fit a text editor in ONE HALF of a 1920 wide screen, but can't do so on 1600x1200? We've already established that 1920x1200 is available and cheap, so what the fuck you bitching about? I'm willing to bet that the 28" x1200 LCD for $300 is physically TALLER than your CRT, which means you should have no problem scaling the text on the screen down slightly and fitting twice as much, while still being able to read it.
  Now, try again, but this time complain about 2560x1600. They're all $1200 and over. You may have something to complain about there.
98. Re:1366x768 by toddestan · 2012-03-25 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but they are huge. I find that the 20" 4:3 screens are a pretty good balance between desk space and being able to see everything without having to move my head around. I just want some higher DPI. The 1600x1200 that the 20" monitors come in is okay (and I easily prefer that over 1920x1080 despite slightly less pixels) but if they were 2048x1536 (as seen in the iPad) or even greater it would be awesome.
99. Re:1366x768 by toddestan · 2012-03-25 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  Then you end up with a monitor that only has 1080 horizontal pixels. That's only tad more than XGA. The other problem is almost no one supports subpixel rendering of fonts on rotated screens.
100. Re:1366x768 by toddestan · 2012-03-25 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure that part of the reason is due to the limitation of the graphics hardware available back then. If I recall correctly the refresh rate was also well below 60Hz too, which may or may not matter depending on what you're doing with it. In some ways, that monitor was ahead of its time. My guess is that a decent GPU from 2012 wouldn't have a problem handling that resolution at a refresh rate of 60 Hz.
101. Re:1366x768 by toddestan · 2012-03-25 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  If it was any good, Apple would actually use it in their latest iPad and iPhones. Instead, they go with a screen with exactly twice the resolution of the previous version because they can't figure out any other way to scale the applications and still have them look good.
102. Re:1366x768 by devent · 2012-03-25 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  As if Linux or Ubuntu users are have to stick with Unity. You can just choose your desktop and if you don't like the default one, a different desktop is just a few mouse clicks away. For example, on Fedora KDE open Apper, go to "Desktop Environments" and I can choose Gnome, KDE, LXDE, MeeGo, Sugar, various window managers and Xfce.
  
  --
  http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
103. Re:1366x768 by coxymla · 2012-03-25 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  you'd have horizontal bars anyway because 16:9 is a compromise format in itself. Most movies are even wider than that, so 1920*9xx pixels or sometimes even shorter.
104. Re:1366x768 by ryanov · 2012-03-25 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  I don't run Windows. Is something supposed to still be happening? I don't really see it -- it frequently speeds up to the 2.5GHz it's supposed to.
  As for the speakers, I think I disagree. The D620 was mono. The speakers aren't great on this thing (sometimes I notice they're too quiet) but at least it's stereo.
  Not much else I like about the E6420 though. I preferred the E6410 but I was too late.
105. Re:1366x768 by eldorel · 2012-03-25 15:16 · Score: 1
  
  Please go read my original comment.
  
  1920x1080 is not a higher vertical resolution than 1200 pixels.
106. Re:1366x768 by eldorel · 2012-03-25 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  630 euros is $836 US.
  1200euros is $1591
  
  and a 27 inch monitor is not equal to 19-22 inches.
  
  I want a crisp image, but with mutiple screens on my desk, a 27+ inch screen isn't a good fit.
  
  That doesn't even address the lower PPI ("pixels per inch" aka DPI) issues with larger screens.
  
  I don't want to see the pixels on my screen, and I don't want to sit 6 feet away to see the entire screen either.
  
  The larger screens may have a higher number lof vertical pixels, but the pixels are larger and less dense.
  This means the screen is actually less clear.
  
  My home theater projector can display 1080p,and so can my cell phone.
  On the projector's 110inch screen, each pixel is a forth of an inch square... on the phone you can't see them.
  
  I don't want a bigger screen, I want a better image, and more available room for data.
107. Re:1366x768 by galanom · 2012-03-25 15:56 · Score: 1
  
  You cell has 720p, not 1080p, unless I'm really missing something. But even 720p is a bit overkill for a 4.x" device. Apple said it's new ipad will have 2048x1536 i think. Dammit, if they can do such density for a 9,7", why can't they do it for 24-27"?
  Well, the 27" 2560x1440 monitors offer great density, nearly the double of standard 1080p resolution of 27" monitors.
  I meant you could buy a 27 only for your main monitor. The other two (or four) around it could be smaller and/or rotated 90o to fit.
  If you insist on 22", you can easily find monitors with 1080p (not 1200p) at $10,000 (and some are monochrome).
108. Re:1366x768 by mjwx · 2012-03-25 18:55 · Score: 1
  
  Actually 1366x768 is bad for almost everything except watching video.
  Or gaming on a 13-14" screen, or web browsing on a small screen. Last thing you want is for text to become unreadable because the number of pixels per letter amounts to 4 mm of actual screen space.
  
  For small laptops, 11-14" WXGA is not that bad, for larger, 15+" laptops, I prefer a higher res screen but WXGA has become cheap and the de-facto standard on cheap laptops. 1680x1050 was the sweet spot for 15" IMHO, but you wont find that any more, it's either 1366x768 or 1920x1080. I can get cheapo Clevo-horize W255 laptop with 1920x1080 screen for A$800+99 for the glossy or matte 1080 display, so high res is not restricted to expensive laptops.
  
  Personally I game on a 24" 1920x1200 IPS monitor, paid A$280 for it. The Pixel density on my 14" WXGA laptop is 111 PPI, my 24" monitor has a pixel density of 94 PPI. high resolution monitors are not necessarily better on smaller screens.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
109. Re:1366x768 by monkeyhybrid · 2012-03-25 21:08 · Score: 1
  
  My home theater projector can display 1080p,and so can my cell phone.
  On the projector's 110inch screen, each pixel is a forth of an inch square... on the phone you can't see them.
  110" diagonal at 1080p (presumably 16:9) is 95.9" x 53.88" resulting in a pixel size of 0.05". Still much bigger than your phone's screen, but far cry from quarter of an inch. I would have thought that still looks pretty tasty from a reasonable distance.
110. Re:1366x768 by badkarmadayaccount · 2012-03-26 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  Portait mode?
  
  --
  I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
111. Re:1366x768 by Harikas · 2012-03-26 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  I got one of them : Achieva Shimian QH270-Lite's for ~$250. They had the 2560x1600's for about $500-750. No dead pixelsin mine. 27 inches for either the x1440 or x1600. Seems like someone needs to start mass-importing these things to North America.
112. Re:1366x768 by webheaded · 2012-03-26 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  Windows Key + Left or Right is SO awesome on my PC for that. I love it. 2 SSH terminals? 2 browser windows? Browser window and an SSH terminal?!?! Filezilla, Browser, and then Dreamweaver on the 2nd screen...I'm in heaven.
  
  --
  "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
113. Re:1366x768 by webheaded · 2012-03-26 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Like here is my question though...would it be SO hard to have you choose Tablet or Desktop interface on first boot? Seriously. Would it? Like I completely understand Metro and the tablet stuff...I honestly do. But to force that on desktop users just seems SO stupid. Why can't it just be a simple toggle on first boot and something you could switch later in the Control Panel later on? Same thing with GNOME really...I don't understand why you would FORCE you users to deal with this. It seems really stupid.
  
  --
  "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
114. Re:1366x768 by TeknoHog · 2012-03-26 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  For the desktop it's pretty simple. I turn the monitor on end.
  Thus ruining subpixel antialising. Of course, the algorithm must know the orientation anyway, but it makes sense to have the subpixels vertically aligned, since text is mostly vertical lines. For movies it doesn't make a difference, so aligning them with the long axis of the screen would be great.
  
  --
  Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
115. Re:1366x768 by cpu6502 · 2012-03-26 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  320x200 is actually TV resolution, cut in half both ways, with a border around the screen. It was used on my Atari 800 and Commodore 64 computers. When I later upgraded to the Commodore Amiga it supported the full resolution of 640x400 (border) or 704x480 (no border). This ability to broadcast tv signals directly is why the Commodore Amigas became the first multimedia computers, for doing overlays over live video or computer-generated images (Babylon 5, seaQuest, Space: A&B). And also music.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
116. Re:1366x768 by Tastecicles · 2012-03-26 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's useful when inserting subtitles (which I have on for foreign language pieces of dialogue). Other than that, it's just damn annoying having a significant percentage of screen real estate not being used.
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
117. Re:1366x768 by eldorel · 2012-03-26 19:49 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry.
  The measurement I gave is not diagonal, that's the horizontal measurement.
  
  I'll get the horizontal later and post it so that we can do the math correctly.
1366x768 by CockMonster · 2012-03-24 05:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

I hate this resolution. I seems to me that screen resolutions have gone backwards, it's nigh on impossible to do any development with this shitty resolution. My old 5 year old Dell laptop supports 1600x1200 compared to my more modern Acer laptop despite the Acer having a far more powerful graphics card. It's not even a native HD resolution so your graphics card has to scale the 720p image up to display it on fullscreen... which totally defeats the purpose of 720p as the scaling hardware is probably crap. It seems to me that laptop manufacturers are shooting themselves in the foot with this crap.
Stop 16:9 displays! by ArchieBunker · 2012-03-24 05:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Please stop it with these 16:9 ratio displays. I can't stand having a two foot wide desktop with 6 inches of vertical height.

--
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
1. Re:Stop 16:9 displays! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-24 05:54 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Stop running your desktop in 4:1 then...
2. Re:Stop 16:9 displays! by UnknowingFool · 2012-03-24 05:55 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  "I can't stand having . . . 6 inches of vertical height"
  That's what she said. Thanks, I'll be here all week. Tip your waitstaff.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
3. Re:Stop 16:9 displays! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-24 06:25 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Pedantic: 6" / 9 * 16 = about 1' not 2.
  My way around this at work was to rotate the displays -90 degrees (into portrait instead of landscape, so to speak). It's not idiotproof, but I've got both windows and linux supporting this (a bit of trouble getting the welcome screen to rotate) and I get 4 screens of real estate in a large square. For sourcecode or long docs, stretching things to huge vertical rectangles makes all the hassles worthwhile.
4. Re:Stop 16:9 displays! by interval1066 · 2012-03-24 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  I can't stand having a two foot wide desktop with 6 inches of vertical height.
  Your married to the classic CRT ratio, and you are of course overstating the actual ratio of new displays. You would do well to get used to letterbox ratios for a few reasons; 1) LCD tvs come in letterboxed ratios. The old 4:3 CRT/TV ratio is not coming back. 2) LCD TV'S have one or more HDMI ports, and netbooks have them as well. The best deal for a larger display is an LCD TV w/HDMI. I "dock" my netbook by simply plugging it in its hdmi port to my Vizio 24" LCD, something I picked up at Walmart for under $150, and bluetooth my kb and mouse. A comparable LCD from a computer specialty store was twice as much. The resolution is crisp as anything, and not only do I have two HDMI ports on this thing it also has an RGB analog port, an rf cable plug, and I can tune in TV broadcasts over the air, if I were so inclined. I bought three of these cheapie LCDs just for my computers. I have a hellacious dual head display on my main rig and the one for my netbook. 3) If for some reason you simply can't wrap your head around the 16:9 ratio I think you can force the 4:3 ration on some configurations. 4) You really should try to get used to t he letterbox; its pretty sweet to have a window going on one side where I'm hacking some code and another off the other side where I'm watching a movie or something. Its not nessessary to have another display (even though I do on my main/gaming rig anyway.) I have more screen real estate than I know what to do with.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
5. Re:Stop 16:9 displays! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-24 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  I think he meant that 16:10 is a better deal for desktop use..
6. Re:Stop 16:9 displays! by roc97007 · 2012-03-24 07:49 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Wait until 2.39:1 becomes standard. Eventually we'll be carrying around laptops that look like ironing boards. Won't that be convenient.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
7. Re:Stop 16:9 displays! by 91degrees · 2012-03-24 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  and you are of course overstating the actual ratio of new displays
  
  This is true, but my work desktop effective ratio isn't far off that. Two 16:9 screens is effectively 32:9, and 2 foot by 6 inches as 32:8. And I will agree that I'm happier with a 1600x1200 screen than a 1920x1080.
8. Re:Stop 16:9 displays! by Electricity+Likes+Me · 2012-03-24 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  I really doubt we're going to get there. My appraisal of the future would be that high-resolution high-DPI screens will start to win out (which we're seeing thanks to smart phones to some degree) and then someone will make a consumer-priced, lightweight VR-headset and that'll be the end of the laptop.
  If you can track head-position/eye-gaze then you can after-all get away with using just the 1 screen and bringing content to the eyes as required.
  The new Sony HMD isn't quite there yet, but it's a big step in the right direction.
9. Re:Stop 16:9 displays! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-24 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  4:3 is a much more accurate representation of the human visual field than 16:9. All your points about ports and docking and whatnot are not 4:3 exclusive. The only reason 16:9 gained so much popularity is because they couldn't figure out early on how to make large 4:3 LCDs without horrible yields due to dead pixels. 16:9 was only used in movies because the thinner film was more economical. Why anyone continues to defend 16:9 as somehow superior continues to puzzle me.
10. Re:Stop 16:9 displays! by keeboo · 2012-03-24 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  its pretty sweet to have a window going on one side where I'm hacking some code and another off the other side where I'm watching a movie or something
  More like you're watching the movie while having an idle window the other side, so you won't feel that much guilty for not working at all.
11. Re:Stop 16:9 displays! by keeboo · 2012-03-24 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  Wait until 2.39:1 becomes standard. Eventually we'll be carrying around laptops that look like ironing boards. Won't that be convenient.
  I'm waiting for vectorial screens, like 1920x1 and 2560x1, which will be the best to use since Samsumg/LG/etc will tell you so.
12. Re:Stop 16:9 displays! by Snufu · 2012-03-24 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  I not my fault, that's the only spec thing coming out of Asia these days.
13. Re:Stop 16:9 displays! by roc97007 · 2012-03-24 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  > and then someone will make a consumer-priced, lightweight VR-headset and that'll be the end of the laptop.
  Not if implants occur first.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
14. Re:Stop 16:9 displays! by interval1066 · 2012-03-24 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  Since I work for myself I have a hard time feeling guilty. I also appear to have money for dual displays and internet access so I'm thinking there's no problem.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
15. Re:Stop 16:9 displays! by swalve · 2012-03-24 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  Only if your eyes are really close together. It varies, of course, but the human field of vision is definitely more rectangular than wide. 4:3 came to be because that was about all they could do with CRTs at the time it was standardized.
16. Re:Stop 16:9 displays! by k31bang · 2012-03-24 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  Wait until 2.39:1 becomes standard. Eventually we'll be carrying around laptops that look like ironing boards. Won't that be convenient.
  Speaking of which, I actually want one those 2.39:1 HDTVs that came out in 2010.
  Philips
  Vizio
  
  --
  -+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ *** http://www.mountainfort.com *** +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-
17. Re:Stop 16:9 displays! by roc97007 · 2012-03-24 14:32 · Score: 1
  
  Right, because watching most content with black bars on the sides is so much more convenient than watching the occasional 2.39:1 with black bars on the top and bottom.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
18. Re:Stop 16:9 displays! by toddestan · 2012-03-25 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it wouldn't be so terrible. You could probably replace a dual 4:3 or 5:4 set up with one monitor then and keep all your resolution and not have to deal with the black bar through the middle of the screen. Part of the reason I dislike 16:9 is that it's too narrow to effectively replace a dual monitor set up with one screen, and two 16:9 screens is awkward and takes up too much desk space.
I'm surprised so many people have widescreen by cpu6502 · 2012-03-24 06:00 · Score: 2

I'm still using a CRT with standard aspect ratio, and two spare CRTs/LCDs in the basement. I won't be going widescreen for awhile.
But an up-and-down resolution of only 768 would feel cramped to me. I'm used to 1024 pixels of room, so I can comfortably read documents and books (which are oriented vertically).

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
1. Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen by icebraining · 2012-03-24 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  To me, 1024 is definitively not enough for a full A4 page, and if I have to scroll, a little more or less doesn't make much difference, in my opinion.
  I have 800 vertical pixels, and I usually zoom the text to fit half the page. Having 1024 wouldn't give me anything.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
2. Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen by Hatta · 2012-03-24 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. I can get $2 CRT monitors at my local Goodwill that will do 1600x1200 easy, and usually higher.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
3. Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen by interval1066 · 2012-03-24 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  I'm surprised anyone is still using 4:3 CRTs. Seriously. Why?????
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
4. Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen by Luckyo · 2012-03-24 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  That's one funny thing. If I could get an affordable CRT monitor that is about 24" diagonally and can do 4:3 or 16:10 or even 16:9 at at least 1024 vertical pixels or better, I'd buy three and never look back at any of the LCD monitors ever again.
  Sure, CRT will use more power and may eventually get issues with convergence, but I will finally be able to get a monitor that can display colours properly. It's been years since I've seen a computer monitor with proper colours, even IPS is shit in comparison to CRT, and OLED is just not ready for being made in monitor sizes needed (and has dimming problems with time).
  I don't suppose the basement is actually a shop that sells those monitors somewhere? Please? :(
5. Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen by cpu6502 · 2012-03-24 06:56 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Because they didn't break. Throwing-away a still working piece of equipment is what is filling-up landfills and damaging the environment. In addition to the 4:3 CRT and LCD screens, I also still use a TV set from the 70s, a second set from the 90s, a Pentium 4 computer, a Pentium 3 laptop, a Dolby 5.1 surround stereo, and 1987 and 97 cars..... rather than toss them in the trash, I just keep using them until they die. THEN I will upgrade.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
6. Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen by interval1066 · 2012-03-24 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  THEN you will toss them in a landfill. Actually, there are services that will dispose of old electronics in a resposible way for you.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
7. Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen by cpu6502 · 2012-03-24 07:32 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Which really means they will ship the screens to China (thus burning oil), where the item will be recycled by workers not wearing masks, breathing dangerous fumes or dust, and the toxic components like mercury just dumped to the ground.
  BESIDES most of the toxicity actually comes from the manufacture of the new item: Digging-up the materials, or strip-mining the ground, plus shipping them from who-knows-where to the factory (more oil burned), plus side effects like pollution caused by the workers and their living quarters or cars. The longer you use an item the more you postpone the damage which manufacturing causes.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
8. Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen by jbengt · 2012-03-24 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  To me, 1024 is definitively not enough for a full A4 page,
  Hell, I'm typically working with ANSI E1, zooming and panning are a just normal part of life.
9. Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen by pruss · 2012-03-24 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  I wish I had a laptop with 4:3. Most of my serious work on my new work laptop involves either running Microsoft Word or a TeX editor. I don't want to decrease the font size to the point where I can get two side-by-side pages, and I really hate the loss of vertical space with 16:9 versus the 4:3 that I had on my previous laptop. A 1:1 or portrait laptop would be even better. (Yes, a rotatable external monitor can be attached, but I do a lot of work while not at my office. I managed to get IT to let keep my old 4:3 external monitor for when I am in my office. But even in my office, I find it more comfortable to lean back in a comfy chair and use the laptop in the lap.)
  As for movies, as long the physical width of the 4:3 screen stayed the same, and the screen just got taller (I wouldn't mind the lower portability much), it would be just as good. Black bars are no more problematic than a bezel on the screen.
10. Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen by roc97007 · 2012-03-24 08:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Bravo!
  I bought a high end tube TV in 1985, kept it until it couldn't be fixed anymore, finally replacing it in 2004. The computer on which I am writing this was first purchased around the turn of the century, replacing the guts over the years as they died. I tend to buy lease return vehicles (which tend to be low mileage and no "new car" premium on the sticker) and keep them for 15 - 20 years.
  A new version of my phone just came out this year. It has dual cores and a lot of other neat stuff. So I'm going to run right out and KEEP THE PHONE I HAVE, because, you know, it still works. When it stops working and can't be fixed, I'll look at what's available then.
  This rabid consumerism is shameful. It's not just electronic waste on the back end; the process of creating the devices is dirty also. As consumers we're expected to spend a significant portion of our discretionary income on the next incremental improvement on our entertainment devices, while a few companies, and a few people in each of those, get fabulously rich. So when 4K comes out, I fully expect a massive re-purchasing of TVs and monitors, along with a measureable spike in electronic waste. What a con game.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
11. Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen by hairyfeet · 2012-03-24 08:20 · Score: 2
  
  The problem with your theory is you are probably doing more environmental damage thanks to the amount of power you are pissing away. The average LCD uses around 30 watts and the 20 inch CRT I recently gave away used over 130 watts, and the Pentium 4 is even worse, it never really used low power states worth a crap and the added heat meant more fans to cool it and more AC to keep the room from being heated by the P4 whereas my AMD 6 core barely gets above room temp for basic tasks like web surfing and my new Asrock board turns off half the phases when you are idling if you so desire thus lowering the power even more. In fact out of all the old gear that has passed through my shop the only thing I have hung on to is a socket 754 Sempron which i'm typing this on now, its practically silent and is low enough power it doesn't put out any real heat and makes a great nettop.
  I bet if you were to invest in a kill-a-watt you'd find that old gear you are saving from the dump is blowing through more power than a new midrange gamer PC. The real pushing of power efficiency has only been in the last 4 years or so and netburst especially was a real power hog, the SUV of chips.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
12. Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen by hairyfeet · 2012-03-24 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  Put an ad on your local Craigslist saying you want 24 inch or better CRTs, there are plenty of those out there and most normal folks frankly can't tell the difference in color anyway. I know that when i switched to LCD other than the LCD was a little brighter and a lot less hot I didn't really notice, but then again having trouble seeing colors runs in the family ;-)
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
13. Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen by WalksOnDirt · 2012-03-24 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  Because they didn't break.
  Unfortunately, all of mine did break. Just bad luck, I guess. I am now using a 23" 2048x1152 monitor I've had for a couple of years, and it cost much less than my late lamented 19" CRT. I guess most people just don't care.
  
  --
  a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
14. Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen by Richard_at_work · 2012-03-24 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  If I used something until it died, I'd still have vable underwear from 1987. Sometimes switching just because you want to s perfectly fine.
15. Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen by AdamHaun · 2012-03-24 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  I'm surprised anyone is still using 4:3 CRTs. Seriously. Why?????
  1. I like the aspect ratio. I tend to do one thing at a time, usually web browsing. I don't like having to manually size windows to only use part of my monitor. It's much more convenient to hit maximize and not have to worry about comments being one giant line long.
  2. Input lag. CRTs are analog, which means there's next to no lag between my mouse/keyboard and my screen. Many LCDs (particularly the nicer ones) have upwards of 20-40ms of lag. I play first-person shooters and am very sensitive to visual feedback. Laggy LCDs feel mushy.
  3. 180-degree color correctness and better blacks. Comes from being an active light source rather than a backlight absorber.
  LCDs are a mediocre display technology. They are often sharper (at eye-bleeding tiny resolution for text/images on a PC), but mostly they're smaller, lighter, use less power, and look prettier. Those are huge advantages, but some of us want the things that LCDs gave up.
  
  --
  Visit the
16. Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen by cpu6502 · 2012-03-24 09:01 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Yeah I've thought about that, but I measured my CRT at only 50 watts. Ditto the P4 (I turned-on the laptop low power mode a few years ago). The manufacturing energy & strip-mining of new materials & toxic chemicals plus shipping from the other side of the planet would far-exceed anything I would save by switching to LCD or a new iCore CPU. (Same principle applies to why I use US-manufactured incandescent bulbs not CFLs imported from non-environment-friendly China.)
  Forgot to mention my phone which many of my coworkers call "ancient". I bought it in 2006 so I guess that is pretty old, but it still makes phone calls and accepts text messages, so why toss it in the trash? No reason I can think of.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
17. Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen by interval1066 · 2012-03-24 10:14 · Score: 1
  1. Ok.
  2. Never noticed this
  3. Don't see any difference. I am NOT using a small display. As I said in my post I'm using an LCD TV w/HDMI and the display is, IMO, spectacular.
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
18. Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen by bertok · 2012-03-24 12:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The manufacturing energy & strip-mining of new materials & toxic chemicals plus shipping from the other side of the planet would far-exceed anything I would save by switching to LCD or a new iCore CPU.
  That's probably not true.
  I've heard this kind of thing said a number of time before, for example about electric cars, the theory being that it somehow costs more energy to manufacture a battery pack than it will ever save compared to an ICE engine.
  However, a simple economic analysis shows this to be false in many cases. Energy is largely fungible, that is, it doesn't really matter if you're using electricity or oil, it's all pretty much just watt-hours at some fairly equal cost. There's variances of course -- electricity is cheaper near a hydroelectric dam, oil is cheaper in some countries, and both is cheaper to buy in bulk.
  Manufacturers pay for energy the same as everyone else, and they're not just going to ignore that cost out of the goodness of their hearts, it's going to be baked right into the cost of manufacture. So, looking at the cost of a good gives you an idea of the maximum amount of energy it could have taken to produce. You don't need to know anything about the specifics of its manufacturing process, just the cost.
  You can get a 23" Dell LED backlit LCD monitor for USD 170 delivered. Now, at most half of that is the manufacturing cost, because Dell has to pay taxes, make a profit, and this is the RRP that resellers can also make a profit on. Hence, lets say $85 manufacturing cost, including all design, materials, factory and equipment depreciation, etc... Of that, at most $40 would be energy costs, directly or indirectly, the other half would be paying for "man hours" in one way or another. These are rough numbers, but bear with me.
  Now, taking that estimated $40 worth of energy, we can figure that at a typical cost of $0.15 per kWh, it cost 280 kWh of energy to make that monitor. Now, an energy efficiency review shows that that model uses 16.65W of power when on, so that means that after 9,930 hours of operation, it will have made back its own manufacturing energy cost in savings compared to your current 50W CRT. At 8 hours per day, that's just over 3 years, and you've had your CRT for 6 years.
  Admittedly, this won't make it cost effective for you to personally purchase this monitor based on energy saving alone, that would take well over a decade of usage. However, it shows that it isn't wasteful environmentally to buy a new monitor, and you do get a new monitor that would look much better than your old CRT. Better colour gamut, no flicker, always perfectly sharp, no distortion, etc...
  Your example of CFLs is even more clear, in which case you would be personally saving money quite quickly by switching away from incandescent bulbs. That's been true for pretty much all models of CFLs for years now, and LED lights promise to improve on those savings even further.
19. Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen by Misagon · 2012-03-24 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  My CRT TV from 1995 broke down a week ago.
  After a lot of getting into the know about current TV sets, reading reviews and searching around in umpteen stores IRL and on-line, I finally bought a new one that got top marks in reviews, with the same screen size (for 4:3 programs) and which cost the same as my old TV had back in '95.
  Did I get a better TV? Not really. The audio is flat and the analog tuner is really bad.
  I also doubt that this new set will last me 17 years.
  All the computer keyboards I use are vintage, mechanical. Better feel and can be repaired. I started collecting them, and have close to twenty now, for work and home. That should last me for a while. I am saddened that people throw them away when buying new PCs instead of selling them.
  
  --
  "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
20. Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen by Luckyo · 2012-03-24 21:28 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately I'm not in US, so it would need to be an actual shop with an ability to mail stuff. I'd even pay import tax if monitor itself was reasonably priced.
  For me, on my current 2x TN setup, if I change angle by about 10 degrees below optimal, I start to have trouble telling links I've already clicked and ones I haven't clicked already in my profile on slashdot. It's that bad. And colour banding in games is horrible. IPS would probably help somewhat, but it's simply too costly at the moment for a big dual screen setup.
21. Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen by thetoadwarrior · 2012-03-25 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  Widescreen is just fine, imo. I can't imagine going back to having a big ass CRT (or two) on my desk and using a 40" HDTV as a second monitor is just awesome. I'll never get anything like that with CRT. Even if they made such a thing it wouldn't fit on my desk.
22. Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen by Sheepy · 2012-03-25 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  Better colour gamut, no flicker, always perfectly sharp, no distortion, etc...
  
  The adjustable brightness of LCD displays is normally implemented using pulse width modulation that can cause visible flicker. This is apparently much more visible with LED backlights than with the CCFL backlights.
  
  Flicker from LED backlights is typically much more visible than for CCFL backlights at the same duty cycle because the LED's are able to switch on and off much faster, and do not continue to "glow" after the power is cut off. This means that where the CCFL backlight showed rather smooth luminance variation, the LED version shows sharper transitions between on and off states. This is why more recently the subject of PWM has cropped up online and in reviews, since more and more displays are moving to W-LED backlighting units now.
  
  @see Pulse Width Modulation
23. Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen by AdamHaun · 2012-03-25 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  TVs are better about viewing from different angles. Cheap desktop monitors (TN panels) in particular are not. Light gray tends to disappear when I stand up at my desk at work. On IPS displays (the nice ones), there's a lot of backlight bleed at off angles.
  
  --
  Visit the
24. Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen by interval1066 · 2012-03-25 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  Whos talking about cheap desktop monitors, and I'm not seeing any of the color and backlight issues you describe. I guess I need one of those cheap monitors your talking about.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
25. Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen by mjwx · 2012-03-25 18:47 · Score: 1
  
  Because they didn't break. Throwing-away a still working piece of equipment is what is filling-up landfills and damaging the environment. In addition to the 4:3 CRT and LCD screens, I also still use a TV set from the 70s, a second set from the 90s, a Pentium 4 computer, a Pentium 3 laptop, a Dolby 5.1 surround stereo, and 1987 and 97 cars..... rather than toss them in the trash, I just keep using them until they die. THEN I will upgrade.
  I have this thing called a family. They get my old tech junk. I gave my mum a cheap desktop and my old 22" 1680x1050 monitor for Christmas and she loved it. When they dont want the junk I gave them, they give it to charity. There's always someone less fortunate then you happy to take stuff for free.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
26. Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen by Antony-Kyre · 2012-03-25 21:14 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, what about the cost to recycle the old product? Eventually it's going to need to be recycled after it falls out of use.
  I also say there is nothing wrong with using an old product until it dies or becomes a problem. But that can be a personal choice that isn't inflicted on anyone else.
  How many 5+ year old pieces of technology do you use?
  NEC MultiSync LCD1760V since November 2006.
  eMachines T1090 since February 2002.
  Panasonic RC-6310 alarm clock since the 1990s.
  A Galaxy brand microwave from 2006/2007, not much used anymore, but still works good enough.
  I also have a Nokia 6030 cell phone that is 4.5 years old, and a Skype CIT400 phone that is 4 years old, if I recall correctly.
  Oh, and when I got a laptop years back, I upgraded my backpack because the old one wouldn't do not being made for a laptop. Plus, it had a hole in it and it was probably time anyways, not that I threw it away yet.
27. Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen by cpu6502 · 2012-03-26 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  >>>the theory being that it somehow costs more energy to manufacture a electric car's battery pack than it will ever save compared to an ICE engine.
  According to ACEEE.org, an electric car's lifetime pollution (from manufacture to destruction) is no better than a 45mpg gasoline car. And signifigantly less clean than a 65mpg Honda Insight or 80mpg Lupo or CNG-power Civic. So your belief that electric cars are cleaner than a high-efficiency gasser is not borne out. (Unless you have solar panels on your house, and how many of us have them? Essentially zero.)
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
28. Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen by hairyfeet · 2012-03-26 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry about that, we here in the USA may not have health care but one thing we have too much of is tech. Hell i dump late model P4s all day long on Craigslist simply because i don't have any use for them and hate seeing good running machines end up in the dumpster and our CLs are filled to the brim with CRTs. Its a damned shame the shipping would be so insane as i bet I could find 20-24 inch CRTs all day long for less than $100, probably less than $60. Its the same as how I can find dual core desktops all day for a little of nothing because everyone is in the laptop/tablet craze right now and so nobody cares about desktops but gamers who don't want anything less than quads.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Thought by isopropanol · 2012-03-24 06:07 · Score: 2

No, the clue was that they tried to do an inch based resolution (like everyone else) but were still using bitmaps, which looked wrong. If they had used SVGs maybe we could finally get people on business desktops to stop setting their LCDs to the wrong resolution.
Above 1920x1200 ?!? by dargaud · 2012-03-24 06:09 · Score: 1

1366x768 ? Who uses that ? Even my mother in law has a better screen.
I've been using 1920x1200 and/or 1920x1080 for the last 8 years and lately trying to get something better than that. But there's nothing without a huge price jump (think x3 for the closest resolution and most screens are actually x10). When are we going to get an improvement in screen resolution ?!? And fuck the iPad3.

--
Non-Linux Penguins ?
1. Re:Above 1920x1200 ?!? by jimicus · 2012-03-24 06:34 · Score: 2
  
  > When are we going to get an improvement in screen resolution ?!? And fuck the iPad3.
  Were I to hazard a guess, I'd say "About 12-18 months after Apple releases a laptop with drastically improved screen resolution".
2. Re:Above 1920x1200 ?!? by Skapare · 2012-03-24 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  The HDTV market drove down panel prices in certain specific sizes, like 1920x1080. Other sizes around those remained expensive because fewer manufacturers wanted to do those. So even 1920x1200 is a big jump in price. When UDTV comes out, then it will probably give us 4096x1728 (cinema 4K) and maybe one common scaled down size of that.
  
  --
  now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
3. Re:Above 1920x1200 ?!? by deimios666 · 2012-03-24 17:37 · Score: 1
  
  Well good Sir I'll have you know that my Lenovo 11.6" ideapad uses that resolution.
  
  --
  I think, therefore you are.
I miss WUXGA. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-24 06:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Before 1080p LCD's were commonplace, 1920x1200 screens were common. Now they're hard to find, and expensive and I really miss them. It's the perfect resolution for a desktop, allowing full HD playback with subtitles on the black bars, plus it's tall enough to have two pages of text fit nicely.
Once 1920x1080 LCDs started being mass produced and used in both monitors and TVs, the superior WUXGA screens became much harder to find.
I don't really get the whole 1366x768 screen. I'd rather have 1280x800, as it's to 720p as WUXGA is to 1080p.
16:10 all the way. Stupid TV industry has pushed computer monitors to use 16:9.
1. Re:I miss WUXGA. by osu-neko · 2012-03-24 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  Before 1080p LCD's were commonplace, 1920x1200 screens were common. Now they're hard to find...
  orly? Took me all of ten seconds searching...
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
2. Re:I miss WUXGA. by traycerb · 2012-03-24 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Did you actually try clicking the link? If you identify yourself as a Home/HomeOffice user, it says "The product you have selected is not currently available for online purchase in the segment you have selected." IIRC it turns out to be easy to "pretend" to be a small business on Dell's site, so you can still get it from Dell Business, but this is far from a mainstream solution.
  Additionally, the price is $329, probably $150 over a typical TFT 1920x1080 monitor, a premium you're paying mostly for the monitor being IPS, even if all you wanted was the higher resolution. As 1920x1200 resolution is increasingly "relegated" to the premium market, it becomes increasingly hard to find it on inexpensive mainstream monitors.
  
  --
  Relax. Have a muffin. Enjoy the show. --Slick, Sept 13th, 2007.
3. Re:I miss WUXGA. by gbjbaanb · 2012-03-24 12:26 · Score: 2
  
  There are some Dells with 1920x1200 displays - the E6500 for example (remember to spec it as an option) or the XPS17, Vostro 1720 and Precision 6400.
  I think they're becoming harder to source though, so get one now if you need one.
Typical Broken MS crap by towermac · 2012-03-24 06:14 · Score: 1

Half the images in TFA were broken links. Of course, to Microsoft's credit, the broken link icons were scaling very nicely.
1. Re:Typical Broken MS crap by epyT-R · 2012-03-24 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  hurd only supports 24MB.. rms is thinking about how to add support for systems with more..
# 2 is 1280 x 800 by cpu6502 · 2012-03-24 06:15 · Score: 1

Another cramped resolution. Why wouldn't people use the higher 1280x1024 on their screens?

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
1. Re:# 2 is 1280 x 800 by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-03-24 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  Because 1280x1024 is a 17 or 19 inch 4:3 display, still pretty common on top of beige corporateboxen of the world; but not exactly setting the world on fire at retail or in consumer focused offerings. 1280x800 is almost certainly a cheap 'HD' widescreen in one of the smaller sizes(somewhere between 17 and 20) or a similarly nasty and similarly marketed as "HD" laptop panel.
  
  In most cases, those extra vertical pixels don't physically exist. The combination of cost-cutting and the marketing convergence of broadcast TV and computer monitors have done terrible things to display resolution.
2. Re:# 2 is 1280 x 800 by RightSaidFred99 · 2012-03-24 07:01 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Boxen is stupid enough, corporateboxen is truly something a douchenbaggen would say.
3. Re:# 2 is 1280 x 800 by meerling · 2012-03-24 07:12 · Score: 2
  
  It may be because of default font size, lack of desire to change resolutions, or maybe, here's a thought, THEIR MONITOR DOESN'T SUPPORT THAT REZ !
  
  I apologize for my outburst, but a lot of people got monitors with their computers (straight from oem, no consumer choice involved) that doesn't have that vertical resolution as it only goes to 768, though it often has 1360 or 1366 horizontal resolution. And as to those of you with money to burn and can just get one of those huge and gorgeous monitors we all drool over, good for you, but the rest of us can't afford to buy another monitor, at least not this year, and definitely not for elitist reasons.
  
  I wonder how many more times it will have to be spelled out to some of the posters on this forum that not everyone has the option of 1280 x 1024...
  
  I saw a beautiful 24" 1900 x 1200 for only $200. I only had $70, and it was already reserved for important bills. God I hate being poor.
4. Re:# 2 is 1280 x 800 by hairyfeet · 2012-03-24 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  Try to find a consumer netbook or laptop at that resolution. I wanted a 12 inch netbook, handling plenty of units for customers i found that was the "sweet spot" for me as far as weight/size/portability goes. Easy to carry as a tablet, 6 hours on a 6 cell, and the keyboard isn't too cramped like on the 10 inches. But I had to get 1366x768 simply because that is the ONLY choice I could find at the form factor i wanted. hell look at the 15 inches its the same, and you don't get any higher rez until you hit 17 inchers which are all 1600x900 just like the popular 20 and 22 inch monitors.
  Everyone here says its because they can stick the "HD" sticker on it but I disagree, I think they like having the bullet point but with LCD manufacturing its always been about cost and I bet my last buck you talk to the LCD manufacturers and they'll tell you those 2 resolutions are the easiest to do without a bunch of failed pixels. I bet it all comes down to yields and those two resolutions are giving the highest yields so that is what they are pushing. After all if it was just HD then somebody out there would sell laptops at slightly higher resolutions so they could claim their units are "Beyond HD" but with nobody pushing anything higher for the consumer segment I bet its just not giving them the yields they want to justify selling them for anything but high end units where the markup can make up for the units that go straight from the assembly line to the garbage from stuck pixels/dead pixels. Maybe we'll get lucky and OLED will have higher sweet spots on their runs.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
5. Re:# 2 is 1280 x 800 by Rockoon · 2012-03-24 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  Because 1280x1024 is a 17 or 19 inch 4:3 display
  No, its 5:4, and has always been 5:4.
  
  still pretty common on top of beige corporateboxen of the world; but not exactly setting the world on fire at retail or in consumer focused offerings
  Thats because the resolution set the world on fire many years ago, but we both know that you didn't know that... what with leading off with bullshit like you did.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
6. Re:# 2 is 1280 x 800 by styrotech · 2012-03-24 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder how many more times it will have to be spelled out to some of the posters on this forum that not everyone has the option of 1280 x 1024...
  This is the sad part: 1280x1024 used to be a bog standard resolution.
  eg My old (at least 6 years old) lowend Philips 17" LCD does 1280x1024 very nicely. And that's on something too old or too cheap to even have a DVI port. Things have gone backwards.
7. Re:# 2 is 1280 x 800 by beelsebob · 2012-03-24 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  Germanic languages understand you not. The en makes it plural.
8. Re:# 2 is 1280 x 800 by tzot · 2012-03-24 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  1280x1024 is not 4:3, it's 5:4 (more square).
  
  --
  I speak England very best
9. Re:# 2 is 1280 x 800 by keeboo · 2012-03-24 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  Funny.. The CRT looked like 4:3 to me, with non-square pixels.
10. Re:# 2 is 1280 x 800 by Tooke · 2012-03-24 10:24 · Score: 2
  
  Whooshen!
  
  --
  Anybody want a peanut?
11. Re:# 2 is 1280 x 800 by Cwix · 2012-03-24 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  How do you say *Woosh* in German.
  Anyways I thought English was considered Germanic, and we do not use "en" for plurals. Perhaps you should save the pedantry for when you are correct.
  
  --
  You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
12. Re:# 2 is 1280 x 800 by swalve · 2012-03-24 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  He is correct. English is a hodge-podge of source languages. -en is indeed the pluralizer for German. It's still incorrect in English, though.
13. Re:# 2 is 1280 x 800 by Cwix · 2012-03-24 12:29 · Score: 2
  
  No, you are wrong. It is Germanic. If you need something better then Wikipedia feel free to follow wiki's sources as these articles seem to be well sourced.
  
  The most widely spoken Germanic languages are English and German, with approximately 300–400 million
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages
  
  English is a West Germanic language that originated from the Anglo-Frisian and Old Saxon dialects brought to Britain by Germanic settlers from various parts of what is now northwest Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands.[28] Up to that point, in Roman Britain the native population is assumed to have spoken the Celtic language Brythonic alongside the acrolectal influence of Latin, from the 400-year Roman occupation.[29]
  
  Lexical similarity: 60% with German, 27% with French, 24% with Russian.
  
  http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=eng
  
  --
  You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
14. Re:# 2 is 1280 x 800 by foniksonik · 2012-03-24 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  The last time I bought a display was in 2004. I paid $2400 for it. I made about 50k back then so it was a big purchase for me.
  I still have it and it works perfectly. I've been using it daily for 8 years now. Since then I've spent $100 on a new adaptor for a new laptop.
  30 in. Apple Cinema Display. 2560 x 1600, matte screen. Better than anything available today or then (for the price ).
  Sometimes it's worth it to invest in quality.
  
  --
  A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
15. Re:# 2 is 1280 x 800 by AK+Marc · 2012-03-24 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  The simple answer is that the number of pixels in a 19" 4:3 vs a 19" 16:9 at the same pixel density is less, so for cost savings, selling by the diagonal inch resulted in a race to the bottom. Widescreen had less screen for the same inches, so that's what the makers made, and the consumers didn't care, so the cheaper ones won, and 4:3 is gone. I wouldn't mind getting 4:3. I'm more interested in real estate space. like a 24" screen at a higher resolution, I'd go for that. Instead, I buy 19" monitors in widescreen because they are cheap.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
16. Re:# 2 is 1280 x 800 by swalve · 2012-03-24 15:48 · Score: 1
  
  -en is still the pluralizer for German and not English.
17. Re:# 2 is 1280 x 800 by ryanov · 2012-03-24 15:48 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't you ever play Oregon Trail?
18. Re:# 2 is 1280 x 800 by Cwix · 2012-03-24 17:20 · Score: 1
  
  And yet you have still missed the point.
  
  --
  You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
19. Re:# 2 is 1280 x 800 by tzot · 2012-03-24 20:21 · Score: 1
  
  There's no point discussing pixel shapes on CRTs. The monitor settings allowed the user to take almost any input resolution and shape it to the CRT's physical dimension ratio.
  
  --
  I speak England very best
20. Re:# 2 is 1280 x 800 by Tastecicles · 2012-03-25 00:03 · Score: 1
  
  Video is PRECISELY the reason. 768/800 vertical is optimal without making it obvious, for DVD (which is 720p). If you want higher vertical resolution in consumer kit, then you'd be looking at something with a BluRay drive in it, because I don't think there's a manufacturer around that puts a 1080/1200v monitor and a DVD drive together. It's ALL geared toward entertainment on-tap.
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
21. Re:# 2 is 1280 x 800 by coxymla · 2012-03-25 20:24 · Score: 1
  
  DVD is 480p at best, not 720. You may be thinking of "HD" vs. "Full HD."
22. Re:# 2 is 1280 x 800 by Tastecicles · 2012-03-25 20:41 · Score: 1
  
  yep, my bad. I was thinking of an abandoned technology (HD DVD).
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
23. Re:# 2 is 1280 x 800 by thejynxed · 2012-03-26 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  Mine is a widescreen 20" @ 1680 x 1050, paid $135 USD for it at the time of purchase. Monitors like that cost more now on sale than they did when I got it at full retail, even though this monitor only has a VGA output (to be fair, it came with a DVI adapter, this was at a time when true DVI was reserved for the very top-end models).
  
  --
  @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
Once again proving they are idiots by erroneus · 2012-03-24 06:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Microsoft had another option which they have completely ignored. SVG is a standard graphics format which is vector based. The code to support it has already been written over and over again. MSIE already supports the format from MSIE 8 and above. SVG does not have to mean the rendering is slow in the least and can easily mean bitmaps are rendered from SVG sources before displaying and only has to be updated if the screen resolution changes.
Of course, they could also have used WMF but... yeah... just no.
They could have selected any resolution after basing icons and other graphical bits on SVG and it would ALWAYS look as sharp as it needs to look.
1. Re:Once again proving they are idiots by Moridineas · 2012-03-24 06:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Making all art resources into vector graphics is not nearly as easy as you seem to think it is. Absolutely nobody believes that rendering SVG or other vector formats is the hard part--the problem is converting content to vector formats!
  Bitmaps are not going anywhere for a long time.
2. Re:Once again proving they are idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-24 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  It's near the end of the article, and I know no one ever rtfa here, but yes. That is an option. The reason they don't make it the default is because so many people are still used to doing bitmap graphics and MS doesn't want to face the wrath of the nerds that refuse to learn something new.
3. Re:Once again proving they are idiots by zephvark · 2012-03-24 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft suffers TREMENDOUSLY for their keeping the old stuff working.
  Another young fella who's swallowed the kool-aid without asking what was in it, I see. Microsoft doesn't suffer a bit. They intentionally break out incompatible new designs with every release of Windows. The "new way, this one will really truly fix all the old problems" gives them a leap ahead with all their own programs while everyone else is scrambling to catch up, and lets them sell an entirely new set of development tools. This "one new way" will then be replaced with the next version of Windows. And the cycle continues...
4. Re:Once again proving they are idiots by epyT-R · 2012-03-24 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  the reason ms is the mainstay of corporate computing is precisely because users don't have to throw out all their software investments every 2 years.
5. Re:Once again proving they are idiots by erroneus · 2012-03-24 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/File:SouthparkCards.svg
  I made that almost entirely starting with bitmapped graphics. I know exactly what it takes and exactly how easy it was. But the results were more satisfying than seeing bitmapped graphics when playing solitaire.
6. Re:Once again proving they are idiots by ludwigf · 2012-03-24 08:47 · Score: 2
  
  From TFA: "Windows 8, the platform natively supports vector graphics. Any images exported as SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) or XAML art will scale without getting blurry. Additionally, Windows 8 introduces automatic resource loading so developers can save three versions of images with a naming convention; images that correspond to each of the current scale percentages (100%, 140%, and 180%) load automatically to keep images crisp on high DPI. Developers can also use the CSS3 resolution media query or the system events to reload images at different scales. Windows 8 scaling to pixel density allows developers to achieve a baseline level of quality with little effort, and then tailor their images to look polished and crisp on high pixel density screens."
7. Re:Once again proving they are idiots by emddudley · 2012-03-24 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  They could have selected any resolution after basing icons and other graphical bits on SVG and it would ALWAYS look as sharp as it needs to look.
  It's true that SVG can scale, but you need tailor them for the intended pixel size. SVG images designed for 256x256 look horrible when scaled to 16x16 or 32x32. The smaller ones need less detail, so you can't just assume that an SVG graphic will work at any resolution.
8. Re:Once again proving they are idiots by Electricity+Likes+Me · 2012-03-24 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  I seriously disagree with this notion. It's not that I think you're necessarily wrong, but I think that being too open about the idea of simply dropping support for older protocols and ideas, far too easily leads to cutting useful things and trying to justify it by pushing untested ideas that someone is too enthusiastic about.
  Currently, everything about GUIs in the computer world is suffering this problem - Windows 8 Metro, Ubuntu Unity, Gnome Shell - all these things are currently abandoning well-tested, well-understood user interface concepts in the ridiculous mad rush that everyone's suddenly decided they need to cram a tablet interface onto everything. And all of them are characterized by it being done in a very non-optional, non-incremental way - which in the case of Ubuntu at least is simply costing them users, but it's absurd that the lesson is being learnt by failure rather then critical thinking or careful design and iteration. See things like the MS Office "ribbon" - pretty much forced on users by corporate upgrade inertia, yet the actual underlying ribbon infrastructure can easily support old-style MS Office menus. So why doesn't it? Why, after discussing all their careful iteration to come up with the ribbon, did the people who designed it not think "we should put these features side-by-side and gather data on how people use it, and at what point they switch back, or how many do switch back?"
  Apple - ironically - are currently the only ones being vaguely sensible about their desktop interfaces. How long they resist iOS'ing Mac OS will be interesting to see.
  When you talk about "bloat" it's very unclear what you mean. What bloat, and do we care about it? If we're talking about my OS wanting 5 gb's of disk space - well who cares? That's not a problem except in some special case environments, and most of the time what I want (and the reason I still use Windows) is that bloat and long-chain of backwards compatibility. To date, Microsoft has done a very good job on this, since usually by the time something straight up stops working, we're at the point it's either been gradually replaced or can be fully emulated by modern hardware (there's nothing so joyous as finding out DosBox runs an old game you struggled to play a decade ago perfectly). It is a very dangerous path to consider dropping support for things as universally a good idea, and currently too many developers are buying into the idea that we should exactly that.
  Postscript:
  (I suspect the current trend is at least in part a foolish reaction to the web - which experienced a lot of added functionality in recent years to "bring it up" to being able to do what desktop apps do, but which gets implemented by dramatic overhauls of the experience. I think the issue is everyone's missed the big issue there: we already knew from the desktop most of what types of UI interfaces and elements work and should be implemented - which is very different from inventing brand new ones and then dumping them onto users, the the rise of client-side CSS editors should be considered as evidence).
9. Re:Once again proving they are idiots by AmiMoJo · 2012-03-24 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  TFA mentions that Metro fully supports vector graphics and apps should use them so that they scale nicely. In fact WPF has also supported vector UI elements for years too.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
10. Re:Once again proving they are idiots by erroneus · 2012-03-24 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  I conceed the point that Windows 8 Metro (and the XBox360 console UI which preceeds it), Ubuntu Unity and Gnome Shell are ALL unwelcome changes. I dislike them and I expect them to fail from user rejection.
  When I talk about "bloat" I do mean the use of memory, but also the presence of so much needless use of processor resources as well. As disk space consumption grows, the cost is not only the disk space but the processor time used to access ever-increasing amounts of stored data. And not only the disk space and the processor, but also the RAM required to store, process and manage all of these things. The whole of the waste is much greater than the sum of the waste of all of the individual wastes combined. It is bad enough that as PC hardware has improved, we see so little actual benefit. In many cases, we are seeing a drop in performance because Windows 7 (and even "Linux + GNOME/KDE + Apps") is demanding so much more of the machine than the previous OS, Windows XP. (Vista does not exist and never did) I think many simply don't notice the changes as I have or are far too accepting of the increases in inefficiency we all see every day. From where I sit, Windows can be a lot faster an better than it is without sacrificing much at all. It's just written and built wrong.
  Actually, the movement to the web is in large part proof that people want and need standards and that the OS is not "the thing." The people are beginning to see they can have the same facebook on Windows, Mac OS X and on Linux. They get the same whatever else they need as well...except when it comes to Microsoft web-based things and people are actually noticing this glaring problem. I've always been pissed off at MS for making one OWA for MSIE and another for all other browsers. No one else behaves like this and it's definitely not necessary. The reaction to the web, as an interface, is far from foolish. As users begin to become more sophisticated, they begin to see that a document is a DOCUMENT and not a "Word Document" and that the data is the thing, not the application. The web and the general dissatisfaction of the public to be deprived of experiences simply because a particular vendor decides to do things differently. (And yes, I am also talking about Apple and their "brave" stance on supporting Flash.)
  Users are coming to realize that the OS is not so important. And it shouldn't be.
11. Re:Once again proving they are idiots by ultranova · 2012-03-24 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  SVG images designed for 256x256 look horrible when scaled to 16x16 or 32x32.
  
  True but irrelevant, since the issue here is scaling graphics up as the DPI increases, to keep them the same size on the screen. An SVG designed for 16x16 will still look nice and sharp when scaled to 256x256, while a bitmap won't, to put it mildly.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
12. Re:Once again proving they are idiots by JDG1980 · 2012-03-24 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft suffers TREMENDOUSLY for their keeping the old stuff working.
  You're looking at this from a purely technical perspective. From a business perspective, strong backward compatibility is one of the biggest competitive advantages that Microsoft has.
13. Re:Once again proving they are idiots by chebucto · 2012-03-24 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  How do you suggest people print those? On card stock?
  I'd love a set
  
  --
  The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
14. Re:Once again proving they are idiots by epyT-R · 2012-03-24 18:10 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not saying that backward compatibility doesn't have value. But what I am saying is that from time to time, you simply HAVE to bite the bullet on supporting some older things in order to make something newer and better. Microsoft hasn't really done that in all the years of its existence ... and the bloat, bugs and instability shows it for everyone to see.
  correct, but that incompatible replacement better offer something far more compelling/useful than the rube-goldberg thing it wants to replace. I'm not sure windows 8 (or any of the new UI paradigms from gnome or apple) offer that. all they're doing is grafting tablet interfaces onto desktop environments.. it's stupid because it's far less flexible and does not take advantage of the i/o formfactor.
  
  And they could have even done this if they planned on doing it this way all along. What do I mean? Well, if they said "This is the list of 1990 standards and it is good to be supported until 1995" and "This is the list of 1995 standards and this is good to be supported until 2000" and so on. (Don't be stupid or literal and respond with something like "but that's obsolesence every 5 years! The market would never tollerate it!") I know Microsoft already does this to some degree, but it is done without consistency and without announcement or product labeling.
  again, if the new thing doesn't offer anything compelling, but breaks compatibility with the old, most will stick with the old.. if anything, it's the known devil vs the unknown.. in this case, it looks like the new one is worse.
  
  I use Apple as proof that it doesn't have to kill the company or its customers to say "hey, we will support your old stuff for the next few years, but expect that support to stop" and then remain firm with it. What Microsoft has done is just inconsistent. Windows XP SP3 64bit anyone? Silverlight? dotNet?
  ..which is why they don't make much headway into corporate markets.. sure people use iphones and ipads, but only as peripheral devices. apple is not in the server room, nor on employee desks. corporates want stability over new features, so microsoft does little more than patch a few updates onto what exists and calls it a new version, then offers financial incentives to upgrade to it. windows 8 might be an attempt to break away from that model, but it's suicide imo because instead of of minor but useful updates, it's grafting an interface model not even intended for the hardware the OS is supposed to target.
  
  Sure, every 2 years is a bit too much to ask. But staying with the same old thing for 20 years? C'mon! We're still living in i386 land even if it is being stretched into "x86_64" now.
  we're still on x86 because nothing else has come along that offers the performance/price ratio...not even close. the best arm chips perform like midrange pentium 3 chips from 1999, with the only advantage being low power draw for portable devices. they're painfully slow compared with a modern desktop from 2003. ...and powerful PPC chips haven't outpaced their x86 competitors since the late 90s (even then it's debatable). the only ones that do today are in ibm servers costing far more than the average desktop, and they still don't run the majority of desktop software. I don't think we'll see x86 disappear until someone else comes up with a completely new way to manufacture chips that can outpace intel.
  also, x86_64 removes a lot of the cruft associated with x86, adds 8 new gp registers, removes the 16 bit bastard child that is 'real mode', among other things.
Affordable? by trum4n · 2012-03-24 06:19 · Score: 2

Can i borrow your Lambo?
1. Re:Affordable? by trum4n · 2012-03-24 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  I am an engineer who is buying his first house, marrying his girl, paying for his first new car, and trying to convert a car to electric to avoid 8$ gas. You're apparently living my dream life. BTW, i'm posting this from a 400$ 8 core computer. I'd love to have money to burn like you.
2. Re:Affordable? by epyT-R · 2012-03-24 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  lol.. there's your mistake right there. don't marry and don't buy a house..
3. Re:Affordable? by trum4n · 2012-03-24 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  Owning a house is cheaper than renting where i live. And marriage is a tax break.
4. Re:Affordable? by gl4ss · 2012-03-24 13:13 · Score: 2
  
  look, if you're paying for your first car, then a 300 bucks 27inch fullhd "tv" shouldn't really be a that big of a dent on your budget to compliment your 400 bucks pc.
  new car, house and poverty don't mix.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
5. Re:Affordable? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-24 14:51 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  1) Rent.
  2) Never get married.
  3) Engineering is for suckers.
  4) Use a bike.
  5) Learn to cook.
  You sound like every other suburbanite career-driven loser who can't figure out why he can't buy a few toys now and again. Enjoy your brainwashing, debt and vassal-like existence, oh excuse me, "career".
6. Re:Affordable? by aussie_a · 2012-03-25 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  You romantic son of a gun,
7. Re:Affordable? by thetoadwarrior · 2012-03-25 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  A house is cheaper than renting in almost all cases. But despite the marriage tax break, a woman will only increase your outgoing costs. The question is, do you want a kick ass computer and monitor or the ability to get easier STD free sex and someone to do the dishes?
Re:Thought by Tarlus · 2012-03-24 06:21 · Score: 1

Easy there, bucko.

--
/* No Comment */
Re:Thought by recoiledsnake · 2012-03-24 06:27 · Score: 1

The app developers are the ones that will be using bitmaps, not MS.

--
This space for rent.
You're the idiot by recoiledsnake · 2012-03-24 06:34 · Score: 1

You can't convert all images to SVG. Try zooming a PDF which has images, and see how the images get blurry while the text remains sharp.

--
This space for rent.
1. Re:You're the idiot by erroneus · 2012-03-24 07:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This isn't about bitmap "images." It's about user interface elements. Few applications use images for icons unless, of course, we are talking about thumbnails which, interestingly enough, are scaled down images which works well enough without requiring every image come in multiple sizes.
  I know too well what the limitations of both vector and bitmapped graphics are. But for user interface design, nothing beats vector graphics when keeping things future-proof. As Microsoft sets about saying "okay, here is the finite list of things Windows 8 supports" they are closing the door on flexibility, versatility and the future. They are, in effect, casting their vote in favor of backward compatibility over forward compatibility. And when you are planning to be relevant into the near future, it makes sense to care more about backware compatibility. But when you are planning to be relevant into the distant future... well... isn't it obvious to see how far Microsoft's vision extends?
2. Re:You're the idiot by Yunzil · 2012-03-27 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  Few applications use images for icons ...what?
4-8k screens by Twinbee · 2012-03-24 06:36 · Score: 1

This is why it would be great if we could have 5-20k+ screens. Scaling and blurring wouldn't be an issue anymore (hardware or in software manually), and we won't have to rely on tricks such as subpixel anti-aliasing (or even *any* anti-aliasing, so that scaling is faster, and where there are less artifacts if you work in graphics). Reading text would as clear as reading a book. And we would take one step closer to true resolution independence where all icons, gadgets and widgets would resize accordingly.

--
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Re:Thought by recoiledsnake · 2012-03-24 06:36 · Score: 1

Does this mean that Microsoft is actually putting some thought into their OS for a change?
An example of too much thought being put into an OS: Hurd.

--
This space for rent.
Re:Thought by mystikkman · 2012-03-24 06:38 · Score: 2, Funny

Fucking RMS cock sucking cum guzzler... I'll bet you were really holding yourself back not to say "Micros$oft".
Good grief.
He tried, but Hurd does not support the $ symbol yet.
There is a lot of thought being put into how to implement the support.
Why do they make crappy displays? by jones_supa · 2012-03-24 06:40 · Score: 1

Especially amongst the professional crowd, there's clearly a demand for displays with more vertical pixels. If someone just created laptops with 1920x1200 and 1280x1024, matte coating, hell, put a IPS panel there (they are cheap enough to make). It would sell like hot pretzels in Oktoberfest.
Welcome to 1995 Microsoft by El_Muerte_TDS · 2012-03-24 06:43 · Score: 1

Early on, the Windows team explored an inch-based scaling system, but found out that bitmaps would look blurry when scaled to unpredictable sizes.
Really?! Who would have thought that.
But do I understand correctly that Windows 8 (Metro) will pretty much abolish higher resolutions? Higher resolution, but still the same amount of screen estate.
1. Re:Welcome to 1995 Microsoft by epyT-R · 2012-03-24 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  making higher resolutions just about useless for those of us who want more desktop real estate... why would anyone want a desktop os to function like a media center pc?
Re:WTF is WXGA?! by Mr+Z · 2012-03-24 06:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

1080p is a thousand times more descriptive than UXWVGA or what have you, because it tells you both the vertical resolution and the fact that it's progressive scan (the 'p') as opposed to interlaced. TVs only come in a small number of aspect ratios (4:3 and 16:9), so the horizontal resolution is implied by the vertical.
And to boot, the "GA" part, which has alternately stood for "graphics adaptor" (eg. CGA == Color Graphics Adaptor) and "graphics array" (VGA == "Video Graphics Array"), is just stupid. That video card names somehow became a handle for resolutions is just silly, since originally, all these cards were capable of multiple resolutions. (Ok, the MDA wasn't, but then the MDA didn't end in 'GA' now did it?)
I guess this all happened around the time of the second wave of "SuperVGA" cards. The first wave did 800x600, and the newer ones could do 1024x768, and needed some way to distinguish themselves. Once XGA came along, the alphabet soup resolution plague was here to stay.

--
Program Intellivision!
1920x1080 by roman_mir · 2012-03-24 06:45 · Score: 1

I don't know why my W510 has this resolution. My old DELL Latitude D810 with WUXGA display has 1920x1200 resolution, but that laptop is now impossible to use, it's so old and underpowered and it overheats immediately and responsiveness is near 0. But I want that screen on my new laptop, WTF is wrong with this picture that since 2005 the screen resolutions have gone down as opposed to going up?

--
You can't handle the truth.
1. Re:1920x1080 by billcopc · 2012-03-24 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  2005 ? Even earlier... I had a 15.4" Inspiron in early 2003 with 1920x1200. It was a really nice display. Fast-forward 8 years, the 17" Macbook Pro has that same res, but the 15" is only 1440x900. Survey says: WTF!? Even Dell's 15" laptops are still on 1366x768, unless you go for the top-of-the-line XPS and pay extra to upgrade to a 1080p panel, by which point you're looking at a $2000 "desktop replacement" laptop with less than 2 hours of battery life.
  Laptops have stagnated because, like everything good in this industry, non-geeks have crowded the market with their unrefined tastes and wants, squeezing us elitists out of the equation. We are now the minority, and have little if any influence on product segmentation anymore. It simply isn't profitable for the big guys to cater to out exotic needs, when they can make 100 times greater profits by selling cheap junk to the everyman.
  
  --
  -Billco, Fnarg.com
2. Re:1920x1080 by Skapare · 2012-03-24 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  The HDTV market has made "attractor wells" in the pricing curves. 1920x1080 panels are way cheaper than 1920x1200. That and many people do want an exact 16x9 monitor so it can view 16x9 video without black bars or lost pixels and at the correct aspect ratio.
  
  --
  now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Re:WTF is WXGA?! by erroneus · 2012-03-24 06:46 · Score: 3, Informative

Oh for god's sake. Are you trolling?
VGA = 640x480
SVGA = 800x600
XGA = 1024x768 ...
Go look it up for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphic_display_resolutions
It's not a marketing term as much as it is a name for a numeric expression indicating a rectangular range of pixels. Those terms have been around longer than 1080p (which just means 1080 progressive scan lines).
And to the commenter above mine "I wish all TV manufacturers would..." Why? While 1080p TVs normally mean 1920x1080p, the ONLY thing they are really guaranteeing is 1080 progressive scan lines. From the days of analog TV, the contents of each line has effectively been analog variations in signal. In the days before color, it was merely an analog variable signal indicating brightness. So there was no effective pixel width as you understand it today. The density of phosphor was as close as you could get early on and actual pixel count could only be approximated in early color displays. Only Sony's Trinitron display tubes could really claim a true horizontal pixel count in CRTs as the arrangement of color bits were more hexagonal (or triangular depending on how you looked at it) in nature. Of course today's digital TV sources do account for horizontal pixel count as well as vertical, but the habit of referring only to the vertical count comes from the analog scaling of the horizontal scan line which still exists in today's TVs and signals. Technically, if someone were to make a 1280x1080 display and made the horizontal pixels wide enough to create a 16x9 aspect ratio, they might still be able to call it "1080p" even though most assert that it should mean 1920x1080.
We're still living with some legacy standards in our "modern age."
Best viewed at 640x480 by shoppa · 2012-03-24 06:48 · Score: 1

Does this mean that I have to go update all my webpages that proudly declare:

BEST VIEWED AT 640 X 480 ??
Re:Thought by schrodingersGato · 2012-03-24 06:55 · Score: 1

Haha, very true. My comment was clearly meant as a joke... I love to poke fun at ms, but I have to say I've been impressed with my experience with win7. Here's to hoping 8 is even better
Re:Thought by schrodingersGato · 2012-03-24 06:59 · Score: 1

OFFS! Lighten up. I apologize if I offended your delicate sensibilities with my pathetic attempt at humor...
Re:WTF is WXGA?! by Mr+Z · 2012-03-24 07:01 · Score: 1

Sure, those alphabet soup strings are standardized, but they're still opaque alphabet soup. At least 1080p is descriptive, and 1080p does actually mean 1920x1080. It's standardized by the ATSC.

--
Program Intellivision!
Re:WTF is WXGA?! by Skapare · 2012-03-24 07:07 · Score: 2

Just because it has been around for a while does not make it the best way. It's simpler to just give the numbers, like in 1920x1200.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
No not so much by Sycraft-fu · 2012-03-24 07:22 · Score: 4, Informative

Windows has flawless high DPI support since Vista. It scales everything properly vector based to any level you like. You can try it on a system if you want, crank up the scaling and watch it go.
All MS apps do it as well. IE, Notepad, the calculator, all the things that come with windows properly listen to the size requests for them OS. Even thing like images, IE will upscale images properly. They don't gain resolution, of course, but they are the right size and the resampling algorithm is quite good.
The problem is apps. Some flat out don't listen, Steam is one of those, it just won't scale at all. Some want to do their own thing. FF is one of those, it can scale, but won't listen to Windows for scaling. However there worst is some scale some things. They'll scale their text (because they use the Windows text renderer) but not the boxes the text is in (because they use their own pixel based controls).
So that's the issue. Developers have to start following the spec. If they use the provided Windows controls, it is no problem they scale themselves. If they make their own also no problem, they just have to write in the scaling logic. Problem is they don't, they are lazy about it.
1. Re:No not so much by AmiMoJo · 2012-03-24 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  Windows has flawless high DPI support since Vista. It scales everything properly vector based to any level you like.
  Except the on-screen keyboard. I used it on my media centre PC for a while and it doesn't scale with DPI. Actually quite a lot of bundled apps don't, but the on-screen keyboard particularly surprised me because it is an accessibility aid.. They fixed all that in Windows 7 though, and apps which don't support proper DPI handling are just scaled as a bitmap so support is universal.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
2. Re:No not so much by wiredlogic · 2012-03-24 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  Most of what was needed for quality resolution independent apps was in place with Win95. It has just been poor developer culture and dev tools that reinforce use of hard coded pixel coordinates that has been the real problem.
  
  --
  I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
3. Re:No not so much by gbjbaanb · 2012-03-24 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  Windows has had perfectly scaling high DPI resolutions since Windows 3.0 (possibly before). The old win32 windowing system (that is hated by the kids today) was a pretty good way of implementing windows as individual objects and handling things like screen and dialog units in a display-independant manner.
  I guess the addition of bitmaps screwed things up. but if devs had coded to use a high--res bitmap (and allow Windows to scale it to fit) rather than implement a fixed-size bitmap for a fixed-resolution then it wouldn't need fixing today.
4. Re:No not so much by gl4ss · 2012-03-24 22:43 · Score: 2
  
  Windows has had perfectly scaling high DPI resolutions since Windows 3.0 (possibly before). The old win32 windowing system (that is hated by the kids today) was a pretty good way of implementing windows as individual objects and handling things like screen and dialog units in a display-independant manner.
  I guess the addition of bitmaps screwed things up. but if devs had coded to use a high--res bitmap (and allow Windows to scale it to fit) rather than implement a fixed-size bitmap for a fixed-resolution then it wouldn't need fixing today.
  you know what's the real problem? shitty sw studios designing shitty sw in photoshop to make it look cool and then implementing pixel perfect versions of that. that's why devs bitch about fragmentation on android. because there's the culture to first draw it up on a fixed size, instead of designing by ui elements.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
5. Re:No not so much by webheaded · 2012-03-26 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  THANK YOU. I KNEW that was it too. Waahhh, fragmentation. No. If you're designing your application based on one screen resolution, you are a moron of a UI designer. This is like the first tenant of web page design and I have grasped this since the age of like 12. You design your UI so that it flows properly across all displays. Make it so that it can grow and shrink OR set the fixed width to something that works on the smallest of displays (that really is only for web pages and not apps). This isn't a difficult concept, it just takes a little more thought and work. It's not exactly a leap to apply this game logic to a phone application.
  
  --
  "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
Netbooks? by xlsior · 2012-03-24 07:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

The graph on that page shows that in 1024x600 only "desktop apps" will be supported, not Metro, which will require a minimum of 1024x768. ....Which means that a large percentage of currentNetbooks won't be compatible with Win8/Metro.
1. Re:Netbooks? by Tastecicles · 2012-03-25 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  hmmm... my EeePC 1008HA screen is 1024x600 native but will squish to 1024x768 (useful for some apps such as my mixing software)
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
2. Re:Netbooks? by peppepz · 2012-03-25 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  And the article calls this
  
  improved support of Windows 8 regarding different screen sizes, resolutions and pixel densities
  . Windows 8 is actually a regression from this point of view.
Ya well by Sycraft-fu · 2012-03-24 07:27 · Score: 1

You may have a different definition of "die" from some people. I've seen TVs from the 70s... In my view they were dead. The convergence and focus on all of them was AWFUL. Images were extremely blurry and poorly defined, even by the standards of NTSC. They also weren't very bright, the phosphors having decayed with those decades of use. Even if the goal was just an NTSC CRT, they failed in my opinion.
Then there's the fact aside of better technology. Even a flawless NTSC CRT I don't want. The reason is I want better resolution. HD is easily noticeable to me. I want that higher pixel count. I also want the better colour. NTSC is lousy at colour reproduction in a number of ways. A nice digital HD set has no trouble with that.
I'm quite fine with not throwing things away arbitrarily, but keeping them well past the point of usefulness is silly as well.
1. Re:Ya well by cpu6502 · 2012-03-24 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah I'm not that picky. I'm not looking at porn. ;-) I'm typically looking at the news, or the latest piece of trash released on the Big 4 broadcast networks, or some old 60s/70s/80s show (TwilightZone, Dragnet, Cheers) that is already blurry to begin with. Basically stuff I don't care how it looks.
  Recently I upgraded from analog to digital TV reception. The picture quality improved quite a bit... from watching a picture worse than VHS to DVD quality. I'm satisfied with that, because high definition isn't a mandate for the content I described above. And if it were, then I'd just move the video over to my computer screen.
  Trivia - the old 70s TV is the same one my parents gave me to play Atari games. The Atari died long ago, but the TV still keeps working. It says "Sears" on the front but I suspect it was built by Panasonic. Their stuff lasts-and-lasts.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
2. Re:Ya well by roc97007 · 2012-03-24 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Because most consumers are morons. Alternately, buy high end, get the service manual, learn to properly adjust your tv. It's not hard. The phosphor does eventually wear out, but we're talking decades. I think what the original power was decrying was frantic consumerism, where you junk your major appliances every time something shiny comes out. A lot of people do this, and it's massively wasteful and generally not necessary.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
3. Re:Ya well by epyT-R · 2012-03-24 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  professional level crts do wear more quickly because the demands on them are higher.. if you get 10 years out of one, that's pretty good (assuming daily use). yes, they can be recalibrated, but eventually a tube replacement is in order. since no one makes the tubes anymore..
4. Re:Ya well by roc97007 · 2012-03-24 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  The Sony XBR I purchased in 1985 was still bright enough and could be properly color balanced up to 2004, (I am somewhat of a videophile, was an early adopter of Laserdisc and DVD) when the high voltage section died. Even then it could have been fixed, but tuning one of those suckers to avoid X-ray emission was more risky than I could justify, especially with a small child. I'm not saying stick with your 1960 National TV at all costs. I *am* saying that we're way too quick to listen to marketing that tells us to throw out perfectly working appliances because there's something new and shiny available.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
5. Re:Ya well by epyT-R · 2012-03-24 18:54 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, in general.. However, I was referring to something like the sony GDM-f500r display (or the 520 perhaps). these were great displays. I think crt was cut short artificially by politically empowered tree huggers.. I don't mind moving to greener tech, but not if it's going to have huge corner cases, like lcd.
Because it isn't as cheap as you think by Sycraft-fu · 2012-03-24 07:35 · Score: 1

Dell and HP do make systems with IPS screens in them, matte coating. However it is like an $800-1000 on a pro laptop and few people are willing to pay the price. Same is true on the desktop as well. Despite the claims that everyone would flock to a great display, IPS screens are not heavy sellers because of the price. It is easy to pay a grand for a good professional one. Even at $500-600 the U2410 isn't all that popular.
People want cheap monitors. They want size over quality and that just is what it is. So with laptops, where screen options are more limited, TN it is for the most part.
As I said, you can have IPS in a laptop, extremely good quality (HP's Dreamcolor screens are even 10-bit) but you will pay for it. That is just life. You can't demand that by magic they make things both cheap AND good. If they could, they would.
1. Re:Because it isn't as cheap as you think by BrianRoach · 2012-03-24 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly.
  I also just bought a U3011. It's worth *every frigging penny*, because I sit in front of it at least 8 hours a day (telecommute gig). I have a 6 year old 22" 1680x1050 rotated to portrait next to it.
  The average joe user? $180 = TN 16:9 1920x1080.
Windows 8? No thanks. by Chas · 2012-03-24 07:49 · Score: 1

Call me when they design a non-toy UI that scales properly at 3840x1080.

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Feel free to read the article, you great plonker. by EnglishTim · 2012-03-24 07:50 · Score: 2

Microsoft had another option which they have completely ignored. SVG is a standard graphics format which is vector based.
and a quote from the actual article...:

Windows 8, the platform natively supports vector graphics. Any images exported as SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) or XAML art will scale without getting blurry.
No, the real idiots here are you and the wazzocks who rated you 'informative'...
Re:Feel free to read the article, you great plonke by erroneus · 2012-03-24 07:52 · Score: 1

What I failed to say clearly was that Microsoft should simply abandon a standard for bitmapped icons. If they want icons, great... let the OS scale them to fit and if they look back, point them to the SVG standard and say "make new pictures."
Microsoft needs to stop enabling bad programming and bad design. If they want to remain relevant anyway...
Re:30", 2560x1600 here by epyT-R · 2012-03-24 07:56 · Score: 1

too big.. I want 2560x1600 at ~24inches, 120hz (real 120hz), 30 bit color, no filtered scaling for even multiple resolutions, and no input lag,. when this happens, then crt is officially dead.
Brand brand branding by chromas · 2012-03-24 08:13 · Score: 1

It's a Laptop brand laptop. It's like cartoon branding.
Re:Thought by Frosty+Piss · 2012-03-24 08:17 · Score: 1

Snicker!

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Re:WTF is WXGA?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-24 08:32 · Score: 1

I would get the feeling using 1080p is just not accurate enough for a screen resolution discussion.
Bear in mind camera resolutions with square and non square pixels can both be 1080p
1440x1080p and 1920x1080p
Re:WTF is WXGA?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-24 08:42 · Score: 1

The alphabet soup as you describe is also horribly inconsistent.
By comparison,
QVGA = 1/4 pixels as VGA
QXGA = 4x pixels as XGA
Re:WTF is WXGA?! by Mr+Z · 2012-03-24 08:43 · Score: 1

ATSC has standardized the resolutions for televisions. 1080p means 1920x1080, period.

--
Program Intellivision!
Re:WTF is WXGA?! by Mr+Z · 2012-03-24 08:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'm beginning to wonder if they just take a handful of high-value tiles from Scrabble, put them in a dice cup to shake 'em up, and then pull out letters until they get something unique. Perhaps not, or we'd have resolutions with Js and Ks in them. ;-)

--
Program Intellivision!
Re:WTF is WXGA?! by rdebath · 2012-03-24 08:46 · Score: 1

Okay, I tried to look it up ...
WXGA 1280 720 16:9 0.922 WXGA 1280 768 5:3 0.983 WXGA 1280 800 16:10 1.024 WXGA 1360 768 ~16:9 1.044 WXGA 1366 768 ~16:9 1.049
It looks more like you're trolling; so now I too ask WTF is WXGA!
And this why MS fails so often by SmallFurryCreature · 2012-03-24 08:57 · Score: 1

It is a VERY simple piece of research that is also obviously flawed and out of date. Reason? The iPad 3. That device will probably sell millions and raise tablet screen sizes ( tablets are a target for Windows 8) to a size rarely seen on PC's, even those with multiple screens. It is a gigantic pixel size.
So... either Windows tablet hardware will lag behind in screen resolution which won't help them sell (although MS should be used to that) or they have to ignore their "evidence" and realize that any statistic you record now is outdated data by the time you analysed it. Those rotters at Apple just refuse to stand still.
Since this screen now clearly exist, its production will no doubt scale up and it will become available for others. There is no reason it can't be added to laptops. Might Apple put it or a similar sexy screen in their laptops? I don't think it is impossible.
And MS will be unable to cope because their next-generation OS, still not out has been build for what people have been using, not what they are going to use.
It is very difficult to get it right, you can easily produce a product so far ahead of itself that nobody can run it. But making a product for the past... that is not possible either.
Mind you, Windows 8 is touchscreen, that is futuristic because the fast majority of screens out right now are NOT touch sensitive. Intresting choice, build for the resolutions of yesterday and the input device of the day after tomorrow. SMART!
Forget Vista and ME, this is going to Bo(m)b

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
1. Re:And this why MS fails so often by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-03-24 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  Did you even RTFA? It specifically lists the supported resolutions, which includes 2560x1440 at 10.1" or 11.6". The figure quoted in TFS as most popular, 1366x768, is the minimum resolution you'll need to get full-featured Metro (with the ability to snap apps side by side).
  Heck, it even specifically talks about new retina iPad in the context of DPI scaling and how Apple handles it, and comparing that to how Win8 handles it...
2. Re:And this why MS fails so often by gl4ss · 2012-03-24 22:46 · Score: 1
  
  apples method of doubling up is .. well, fucking retarded, but makes some sense if you're hocking an extremely limited set of devices. but there's a reason the resolution jump was what it was..
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Buy a Mac by SuperKendall · 2012-03-24 09:13 · Score: 3, Informative

And I have a laptop from 2004 with a 17" 1920x1200 resolution LCD built-in. A replacement with similar resolution is nigh on impossible to find
The 17" Macbook Pro for a while now has had a 1920x1200 display. In fact all MacBooks eschew the HD fad and use a more realistic aspect ratio for display. You can even choose glossy or matte.
The system is due for an update later this year possibly to an ever higher DPI display...

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
At Ease by tepples · 2012-03-24 09:55 · Score: 2

I'd like to make a minor apology to the Ubuntu guys, yes your new UI sucks but compared to Win 8 its a God damned masterpiece. I thought for sure nothing could top the suck of Unity but now I have to give the Ubuntu devs credit, at least Unity is consistent and discoverable
And, if you still don't like it, easily replaceable: sudo apt-get install xubuntu-desktop

Win 8 is just a fucking mess. It TWO different UIs jarringly jammed together with no rhyme or reason
Something like the "At Ease" and "Finder" UIs of classic Mac OS?

Who the fuck thought have a touch designed UI as the MAIN UI on a NON TOUCH desktop or laptop was a smart idea?
Apple, in roughly 1993. But seriously, the Metro style start screen just replaces the start menu, and you're back to the desktop once you start a desktop application or close the start screen. My impression is that the biggest change compared to Windows 7, unless you install a bunch of Metro style applications from the Windows Store, is that the start menu is now full-screen instead of the bottom left corner.
1. Re:At Ease by firefrei · 2012-03-24 19:13 · Score: 1
  
  And, if you still don't like it, easily replaceable: sudo apt-get install xubuntu-desktop
  I think you made a typo, here's the correct command:
  sudo apt-get install cinnamon
  OK it's still pretty new, but it's very quick and functional, and people are making themes and addons for it already.
  
  --
  I remember when Linux was good... too...
2. Re:At Ease by Carnildo · 2012-03-26 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  Something like the "At Ease" and "Finder" UIs of classic Mac OS?
  At Ease had better integration with System 7 than Metro does with classic Windows.
  
  --
  "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
Re:WTF is WXGA?! by erroneus · 2012-03-24 10:01 · Score: 1

Touche'
It wasn't my intention to point out this unfortunate fact. It's true. WXGA is a pretty muddled and inexact standard definition.
But in a way, it also supports some of my other, unrelated arguments. Being finite and inflexible is one way to keep things more simple, but it also limits things in ways that the future will find intollerable.
Re:Care more about touch friendly by Billly+Gates · 2012-03-24 10:03 · Score: 1

After all it is not the resolution but the touch friendliness, that is key.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Feel free to read the article, you great plonke by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-03-24 10:40 · Score: 1

If they want icons, great... let the OS scale them to fit and if they look back, point them to the SVG standard and say "make new pictures."
You can do that when you're already dominating the market. When you're trying to get into a whole new one which is dominated by someone else (tablets, in this case), you have to suck it up to developers, because otherwise they'll just rightly tell you to GTFO.
And, given that vast majority of apps today still use bitmap icons, including on those new platforms like iOS, it's here to stay.
Resolution vs aspect ratio by xswl0931 · 2012-03-24 12:26 · Score: 1

16:9 is not better than 16:10 for side by side given the same horizontal resolution, it's worse.
Or by Snaller · 2012-03-24 12:53 · Score: 1

The "just about readable" resolution. Since most programmers don't give a shit about people actually being able to read their interfaces, and since windows scaling sucks big time, most of us don't go too big on resolution.

--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Textures are still bitmaps by tepples · 2012-03-24 13:05 · Score: 1

The textures on the 3D bubbles would blur out at huge densities.
Or they could stop selling netbooks by tepples · 2012-03-24 13:34 · Score: 1

I'm under the impression that Microsoft's clout means PC makers will stop selling netbooks altogether in favor of, say, Atom tablets. They're already gearing up to do so: witness "ultrabooks", which combine tablet thinness with a keyboard, and Dell's discontinuation of the Inspiron mini line.
Menubar position by denbesten · 2012-03-24 13:35 · Score: 1

I find a 16:9 much more useful if I move the menubar onto the left-hand side. This makes the "usable rectangle" somewhat similar to what I had on a 4:3 with the menubar at the bottom.
What happened to Dell Latitude resolution by clay_shooter · 2012-03-24 13:38 · Score: 1

I agree with parent. What's up with the low vertical resolution in the business laptops? The Macbook Air 1440x900 in a 13" package. Why is that higher than Dells standard 14" resolution?
MORE! by ChrisMaple · 2012-03-24 15:12 · Score: 1

I'm currently running two 1920x1080 LCDs over/under. It's inconvenient, and this is just home use.
A human can resolve about 7000x4000 without moving his head. I'd really like to see that, and I'd be willing to pay about $1500 for it - if a video card were available.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:Feel free to read the article, you great plonke by sapphire+wyvern · 2012-03-24 18:43 · Score: 1

I don't know why the market is dominated by bitmapped icons, though. I have an Android phone and an iPad, and for 99% of the icons, there's just no good reason why they need to be bitmap graphics. They're usually relatively simple geometrical arrangements in a very restricted colour palette (often greyscale). I see no reason why those assets couldn't have been created and displayed using a vector format.
Yet... I know you're correct. I've seen commentary on the new iPad display talking about how some developers might find it harder or easier to support based on "how they created their assets". Well, if they'd used SVG and just exported to a raster format at the end, they wouldn't have a problem, would they?
I'd be interested in commentary from Android and/or iOS developers on whether those OSs actually have good support for storing and rendering icons & graphics in native vector formats like SVG. As the article says, Windows handles it pretty well.
Remote Desktop Fullscreen bug by dangil · 2012-03-24 19:36 · Score: 1

Interestinly enough, this exact resolution (1366x768) triggers a bug in remote desktop that prevents it from going fullscreen when the window is maximized... switching to 1360x768 or any other resolution makes the issue go away as a workaround, you can use CTRL+ALT+BREAK to go fullscreen Please MS. fix this! it's really annoying
Re:WTF is WXGA?! by isorox · 2012-03-24 23:22 · Score: 1

ATSC has standardized the resolutions for televisions. 1080p means 1920x1080, period.
Yes, HD has fixed a lot of problems, not least active screen size and pixel ratio.
Wonder if that could be something to do with... by Tastecicles · 2012-03-24 23:40 · Score: 1

...the fact that cheap laptops are generally 1366x768??
I have one (Toshiba L755D), and while the laptop itself is friggin' great (6GB RAM, 500GB hybrid HDD, HD graphics and HDMI port), the panel SUCKS! So I use that for the desktop functions when I'm at home, with a 1440x900 HP 19" plugged in. OK it's not that much bigger resolution wise than the internal 15.6" panel but it increases my available desktop space to something semi-usable.
My previous laptop was another Toshiba (Satellite P100), same size laptop but with a dual core Intel instead of AMD which this one has, and the 17" panel (lid overhang on the machine was a totally weird design decision, but still...) went to 1600x1200. Still have the panel, might see if it'll fit the base on this one...

--
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Re:How about reporting the monitor size? by Tastecicles · 2012-03-24 23:43 · Score: 1

I don't quite get that... plug n play monitors are generally good when it comes to Windows guessing the optimum resolution, viewable diagonal size is surely just a matter of another field? That said, I remember back in the ugly days of configuring X you had to put in the screen diagonal as well as the resolution...

--
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
1366x768 is wxga equivalent for 16x9 screens by voss · 2012-03-25 01:40 · Score: 1

Its not an accident. (768/9) * 16=1366 (+/- 1) . Its basically the widescreen 1024x768.
42%? by kimvette · 2012-03-25 05:08 · Score: 1

I guess 42 really is the answer to life, the universe, and everything, and as it turns out, the ultimate question is: which resolution has a huge lead on Windows 7 machines? I'm sure it isn't quite what Deep Thought had expected, but there you have it.

--
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
1920 x 1200 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-25 08:57 · Score: 1

16:10 aspect ratio for some reason feels a lot better than either 4:3 or 16:9. I got an ASUS 24" 1920x1200 monitor about 4 years ago. I can no longer find any monitor with that resolution, it's all 1920x1080. I would like to upgrade but there's nowhere to upgrade to.
XNA by tepples · 2012-03-25 13:52 · Score: 1

i just don't see how you are gonna get DirectX, an API designed for killer graphics above battery life, to run on your average ARM tablet
XNA is a managed wrapper around DirectX, and it is the primary game graphics API on Windows Phone 7, an ARM-only operating system.
Re:WTF is WXGA?! by Antony-Kyre · 2012-03-25 20:51 · Score: 1

Yes, it's better to give the numbers, all the numbers. Then we wouldn't have issues with HD Lite being thrown around.