Slashdot Mirror
1366x768 Monitors Top 1024x768 For the First Time
mpol writes "Statcounter released new statistics today and 1366x768 is now the most used screen resolution on the internet. These screens are available in most cheap laptops, and therefore probably sold and used very much. With 19.2%, it is beating the old 4:3 resolution, which still has 18.6% usage share. (But as you know, you have lies, damn lies, and statistics.)"
The numbers are still close, but it sounds like the tide has turned.
768 lines of resolution is too few.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Writing this comment on a HP ProBook 4530s with a 1366x768 screen.
Emotions! In your brain!
My wife was just bitching about her new work laptop today because it's got a smaller screen than her old one. This is the resolution she's running at.
I find it kind of pathetic that in this day and age companies are rolling out laptops to their employees with something which is only modestly better than 1024x768, which I was running in '91.
Reminds me of a monitor I got with a work PC a couple of years back -- it was a widescreen monitor, but it's native resolution was still 4:3. Which basically meant it couldn't draw circles, and was optimized more to be a TV than a computer monitor. WTF is the point in doing that? It looked like crap as a computer monitor.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
...to my dream of owning a 30" 4k resolution computer monitor.
I've been looking into replacing my current laptop, which has a 1680x1050 resolution. But I see that MOST laptops nowadays have this crappy 1366x768 screen. What gives? Why isn't our screen resolution improving along with out CPU speed, RAM capacity, HD capacity, and virtually everything else???
uh oh... cue the aspect ratio people.. the ones complaining about 16:9 and saying 16:10 is so much better for computer work, only to be snubbed by the 4:3 people who don't know why anybody would want to work with any sort of 'wide screen' monitor, who in turn will be ridiculed by the CAD people stroking their 5:4 monitors, while the 16:9 folk just roll their eyes, and their monitor by 90 degrees, and put on a trollface.
Now... where's my 32" 4k 3D 12bit 2.39:1...
Aren't most desktop monitors at least 1280x1024? Isn't 1024x768 something strictly limited to older CRTs? Or are there far more of those out there still being used than I suspect?
and how many are TVs with a DVI port?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Is it still the nineteenth century ????
1920*1080 should be standard by now.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Writing this comment on an iPad with a 2048x1536 screen.
Don't you know that higher resolution means smaller text?
Sure, when you have a proper application & OS, you can resize the text all you want, and also get the benefits of much better graphics.
However, most end user reaction to seeing over 2000 lines was "The text is too small. Change it back."
Why give them something better* & more expensive if they don't want it?
*I suppose that better could be that lower res = lower graphics card power use = longer battery life & cheaper cost.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
My wife and I have 1920x1200 screens on our desktops and laptops. The laptops are getting old and have become almost impossible to replace unless we want to step into the "mobile CAD workstation" market of laptop at 3 times the cost we paid for her Dell. Even desktop screens have all moved down from 1200 vertical lines to 1080 "HD". I had hoped my 24 to 27 inch screens would have bumped up to 2560x1600 by now but it's going the opposite direction.
I have two monitors, each one 1280*1024 both at home [my choice] and at work [not my choice]. My wife's desktop PC at home has one 1280*1024 monitor, but she's not a geek/didn't want two monitors. We got our home monitors in 2009; I've had the same setup since I started at my current job in 2007.
At one point [not sure if they still do], Dell made a 1600*1200 20" monitor; I'd love that. I've never been a big fan of widescreen; I'd rather have two 4:3 or 5:4 monitors.
Yes, I know that you can have two pages of a document open side-by-side on a 1920*1080 monitor, but that's far fewer pixels than the 2560*1024 I have with my two-monitor setup.
... and web pages are getting narrower.
and while we are at it, why are 27" monitors the same resolution as 14" laptop screens?
and why is the highest resolution device easily available a 10.7" iPad ?
The world makes no sense to me.
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
I remember saving my pennies in the early 90s for a video card that displayed 1024x768 (XGA for you old-timers). So here we are, some 20 years later, and the standard display resolution is only slightly better.
A mobile phone with pixel grid of 480 x 320 is a 1.5:1 or 3:2 ratio. So desktop screens jumped right over mobile dimensions, it would seem. To me, 1.78:1 seems way too skinny when vertically the long way, and I find even 1.5:1 on the phone to be a bit narrow. I guess that puts me in the 1.33 or 1.00 camp.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
I run 16:10. Down with 16:9!
1920 x 1200 for internet, and 2304 x 1440 for games. CRT widescreen. Not many made :D sony gdmfw900, beast monitor.
nt
I prefer 16x10. I used to have two 16x10 monitors at work, one 19 inches, the other slightly smaller than that. I kept asking my boss to get me a match for the larger one, even sent the link where she could get the exact same model. She ended up getting me two new monitors, both 16x9. There is just not enough vertical space for be to be comfortable using them.
I have an 1920x1200 at home, which makes me very comfortable.
Technoli
Except in Antarctica, where 100% of the screens are 1600x900.
I have a system where I'm doing some testing. It has a shelf of multiple blade servers, each of which has a terminal displaying current status. I have another few windows open controlling traffic generation tools, another one showing the steps to take for the testcase.
In an ideal world I want to have all of these open and visible simultaneously without needing to flick through them manually. With a 1920x1200 monitor this is possible, barely.
I code. And I mean, I code all day.
I set up two 16X9 monitors side by side.
I would buy a third and go three across before considering going taller.
Whatever the heck you prefer in your goofy column width for inputting code and reading code, Im still goina need two additional introspection panes open on each screen for each document/class file. You wanna tell me debuging a runtime is better on a 4:3 screen ? I did plenty of remote work while on 'vacation' using a netbook. Maybe you're just coding for a hobby ;)
I went from a 21" 1600x1200 monitor to a 24" 1920x1200. There's no downside.
As I said elsewhere, I went from 21" 1600x1200 to 24" 1920x1200. No downside, just extra space.
A 32" 2.39:1 would be an awesome desktop monitor! Panel size of 29.5"x12.35" at 135dpi.
...to finally support these huge mega-pixel resolutions.
Bill, himself said, quite frankly, that he can't imagine needing any more than 640 (x480).
At work, I'm 1024x768 (:
My TV screen doesn't need higher resolution than 1366x768!
*posting via wireless keyboard/mouse while laying on sofa 10 foot away*
Because the surface of a screen is not mentioned when you buy it. Only the diagonal. But comparing rectangles with the same diagonals, the square has the most surface. So comparing a 19"-4:3 and a 19"-16:9 with the same pixel size, the first has more pixels.
At best you can read from one and write into another
But good luck figuring out how to aggregate all the windows that you would otherwise be skimming from in your peripheral vision into one "read" window.
Which on a 27" screen ranks as "acceptable". I would happily double it, 5120x2880 would make the screen a shade over 200dpi, which would probably make things look pretty similar to laser printer quality output on the scree, when adjusted for viewing distance.
1366x768? That's a good resolution for a phone.
So turn your bloody monitor sideways
Good luck doing that with a laptop.
But in the real world, I generally have multiple windows open, each no larger than half the screen area
Which is why window managers have been able to "Tile Vertically" since at least Windows 95, with cute little "snap" gestures starting in Windows 7 and recent Linux window managers. Yet web designers insist on adding so much extra crap within a web page that one must scroll horizontally to view a web page in a 680px window. Design for half of a 1366x768 monitor will have a lot in common with design for 640x480.
Thats the largest my company provided
...to think that screen resolution (dpi) has been essentially static for over ten years. My 1999 laptop had a 1024x768 display. The new laptop I was just issued at work has 1366x768 -- a downgrade, IMHO, from the previous laptop's 1280x800.
I've been thinking of getting a 17" MBP (1920x1200) for personal use, but I'm holding out in light of rumors that the new models might have double-res screens. After using a 4G iPad, I've realized that a 200+dpi laptop or desktop display is worth whatever extra it costs. I'd take a 15" 2880x1800 display over a 17" 1920x1200 in a heartbeat, and I'd easily drop an extra grand for it.
I'm not going to cheap out on something can increase or decrease my eyestrain for many hours a day.
Widescreen is ideal for a two-page spread. I'll grant that 680x768 (half a 1360x768 pixel monitor) isn't enough for a whole US Letter page at 96 dpi. But in what way is 960x1080 pixels per page (half 1080p) not enough for a page?
... it was just easier from economies of scale perspective to make the same size LCD's for PC's and TV's. It sucks, CRT's were big bulky and put out a lot of heat but whoever originally spec'd "HDTV" resolution helped kill 4:3 on PC.
You can still get 16:10 monitors at a premium but they have slowly been coming down to more reasonable price points (below $350 dollars). But for the masses cost is everything.
Macbook pro 17" is the easiest to find, but the Eurocom Montebello has it as an option, as does the Panasonic Toughbook 52 (in a 15" screen!). The first two are above $2K though, and I have no idea about the third.
What you say is your opinion (and your welcome to it), but having the wider screen for a vast number of us is more productive
If you cant deal with a little markup, you're in the wrong place.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
And any display system with a hard assumption of 1:1 pixel aspect ratio "is naive and generally crap." Apple II was 6:7 PAR, Commodore 64 was 3:4 PAR, TI-99/4 and NES were 8:7 PAR, and pre-VGA PC graphics modes (including the mode 13h used by so many DOS games) were mostly 5:6 PAR.
1024x768 I haven't used one for about 15 years. People can't still be using them, surely?
There was an unknown error in the submission.
Don't you know that higher resolution means smaller text?
Only if your applications are hardcoded to display fixed pixel sizes. For example, Windows can be set to a different DPI, which well-behaved applications will respect. I've written instructions on how to set DPI when using a TV as a PC monitor. Even CSS doesn't actually use pixel distances anymore; instead, it uses "reference pixels" (abbreviated px) of 1/2688 of the distance from the viewer to the document's plane, based on a nominal 96 dpi and 28 inch viewing distance for a desktop PC monitor.
The laptop's internal monitor is 1366x768, which is the old "720p class" TV standard. (Laptop makers tried higher pixel counts once, but misbehaving applications didn't like the Windows DPI setting needed to get text legible on them.) Newer HDTV monitors will tend to be 1080p, and it just takes one HDMI cable from your laptop to your TV to get that resolution.
...is because it's been the ONLY friggin resolution available on laptops that are in any way affordable for Joe Public for the past 5 years or so.
I've recently been given a new laptop at work and despite having a 17" screen, as opposed to my previous (4 year old) laptop's 15" screen, the resolution is only 1600x900. This is compared with a 4 year old laptop that had a 1680x1050 screen...
Apparently a laptop with a resolution any higher than that would push the price up from about £500 to twice that.
THAT is the only reason this has happened, and it fucks me off no end, as monitor resolutions should be increasing along with all other related computer technology, but in the past 10 years it's taken a step backwards on laptops.
I really hate how mainstream dropped 1920x1200 using mainstream terminology 1080p. Artificially limiting pixel height and pixel DPI has to be my few gripes at displays for both monitors and laptops. 1366x768 is useless and has a horrible DPI, but its been the standard size for years on laptops. Now Apple tablets and phones have higher dpi than most monitors. People want progress but the display glass monopoly has been holding progress back for years.
1080p is a gold standard when 2048 or 4K should be making inroads other than Tablets or 30 inch displays.
It is slightly depressing; My last CRT was capable of 1600x1200 with a dot pitch so fine that anti-aliasing was virtually unneeded.
Nowadays, LCD still hasn't had a significant reduction in dotpitch so they've remained pretty much static; Worse yet, even when you get a larger monitor, half the time it has the same damned resolution as the smaller ones! e.g. 4:3 17" and 19" monitors, and the various 1366x768, 1280x800 etc. widescreens...
So if you have a lot of operations going on, each with its own status bar, do you bring each status bar to the front in order to look at it, or do you position the status bars so that they are all visible at a glance? Why do security camera setups often split the screen into 4, 9, or 16 windows, one for each camera?
Why use such a small resolution monitor? Because it doesn't take a $500 graphics card to max out games at 1366x768.
Newegg has a couple for under $300, Dell has one that goes down to $250 sometimes (currently $329), HP/Compaq has one for under $300.
Screens with 768 vertical resolutions are the cheapest ones.
In other news: most people are driving cheap cars.
I use a Tablet PC for artwork.
Take the annoyance factor experienced on a regular laptop with the ubiquitous vertically-challenged display and multiply by FUCK.
Let me tell you, when you're trying to paint something, having to constantly scroll up and down to see the image gets old fast.
At least with a regular laptop, there are options; they may cost more than the Office Depot vanilla, but they are out there. Whereas TPCs only come in size-stupid.
Sure, some people think laptops are passe, now that they've got their iPads that automagically detect which way is up and swap screen orientation, but laptops are still the way many of us work (or laptop plus external monitor at work.) And typing on a rotated laptop really just doesn't work.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
And then it is nolonger a laptop.
It is after the docking session is done and the HDMI cable is unplugged.
I have 3 monitors at work; 1 1680x1050 in the center, and two 1440x900 at each side. This setup could definitely be better, however I must work with what I am provided. I find that the triple monitor setup is fantastic for doing a multitude of tasks at once. Being able to keep more windows visible keeps me slightly more focused and on track. I am a "Desktop Analyst", so I do a tiny bit of everything. All at the same time. And I screw up a lot of shit because of that fact. This helps me with that.
Now, when my coworkers come by and complain that they no longer have a monitor, I beat them with a large stick. That's quite effective as well.
A Sun3 had a 1152x900 screen, and was really better than the 25x80 terminals, especially if you were running NeWS so your screen was rendered in PostScript. And the 1024x1024 versions of the Blit had slightly more pixels, for different usage models.
Later, in the early 90s, I started doing consulting kinds of jobs where we mostly used laptops because we needed portability, so I was suddenly thrown backwards into the WinTel PC world, which thought that 640x480 was pretty cool. (And when the department decided to spring for laptops with higher resolution, they chose the versions that had 640x480 with 16-bit color, because it was Really Shiny, instead of paying less for 800x600 with 8-bit color, even though we all spent more of our computer time doing text-based email, or word processing, or calculations of various sorts, not photography.)
Eventually we got 1280x1024 monitors for our desks, which most of the laptops could drive by then, but it wasn't like I was usually at my desk, so I finally had occasional access to screens that were better than I'd been using 20 years earlier. And about 3-4 years ago we finally got 1440x900 laptops, and now I'm running 1920x1080, which would be about enough if Win7 had any intelligence about how to pick font sizes. (At least most of the browsers support Control-Plus or Control-Mousewheel resizing. But Win7 still gets terribly confused running dual-monitor when the resolutions are different. Sigh...
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Because those are irritating as fuck and steal focus
"Steal focus" in what way? Notify OSD bubbles don't steal the keyboard focus. When the mouse passes over them, they blur and become translucent, and any clicks pass right through them. And they fade away automatically several seconds after they have appeared. If you want to see what I mean, and you have a PC near you running recent Ubuntu, try this command:
Ever since 1920 x 1200 stopped being widely available, we have taken several steps backwards in computer displays. 1366 x 768 being the latest.
At work, I have two 1680 x 1050 22" displays... not the best resolution, but I can work with them since they are 16:10. My work laptop has a 1920 x 1200 17". At home I have one 1920 x 1200 24", a 1680 x 1050 22" (different computer) and one 1600 x 1200 20" 4:3 (again, different computer). All are "pro" level IPS displays, and I'm comfortable working or playing on any of them. At work we needed to test drive a 3D monitor, so we bought an Asus 23.6" display with the NVIDIA shutter glasses. It's 1920 x 1080, and let me tell you... that monitor feels cramped. As a result of the 16:9 aspect ratio and the 120 missing vertical pixels, it actually "feels" smaller than my 22" 1680 x 1050 displays. I would not be able to do much work on that display, and since it's a TN panel, the quality is also crap. Sure, it was cheap... but I always say you get what you pay for. Even if it had a good IPS panel, the resolution and aspect ratio are too limiting.
I had to do a lot of searching to find my 1920 x 1200 and 1680 x 1050 displays for home... I was not going to accept a 16:9 display and the above confirmed my gut feelings that 16:9 is a horrible choice for a computer display. In the end I found the displays I wanted and with IPS panels as I wanted. They were not the cheapest displays, but I do not regret spending the extra money on them at all.
I will hate the day that my work laptop finally gets replaced, because even the new CAD models we are using have 1920 x 1080 displays. Pure crap in my opinion. Please leave the "HD" resolution displays for TV's and consoles and give us proper computer displays.
A game would be much better looking in a 30" 2560x1600 monitor with "high" detail rather than a 17" 1366x768 monitor with "max" detail.
I thought that this would be obvious, but it seems it isn't for some.
Not that it really means much (and neither is the article), but according to the Steam Hardware & Software Survey, the most common resolution is 1920x1080, by far.
Surely this only includes Steam users, generally gamers and desktop users, which care for having a reasonable monitor setup.
^_^
I think your sig is missing 1101 at the end.
This sig under construction. Please check back later.
TV-connected computer penetration is at an all-time high.
That's not what CronoCloud and others would have me believe. See FunkSoulBrother's comment, Altrag's comment, CronoCloud's comment, hawguy's comment, and Endo13's comment.
The point is that 16:9 now beats 4:3.
Tried finding a 4:3 these days? I needed and new monitor and was looking for 4:3. Frye's had nothing but 16:9. Not a 4:3 to be had let alone in a higher res than my eight year old flat panel (unless I went with an Apple which I'd like but it's expensive). Everything in 4:3 online seems to be pro and cost a lot more. I finally had to settle on a 16:9 because that's all I could find and it took some looking and money to get a decent vertical resolution.
use javascript
With Firefox going click-to-play for scripts, what will NoScript users see?
or choose your favorite server-side language
Which again brings in the problem of a transparent caching proxy. Even if I don't "have an ISP that sends you outdated, non-requested, cached versions of web sites", as Anonymous Coward put it, some of my customers are likely to. Specifically, if a desktop user and a smartphone user on the same ISP hit a web site within two seconds, the proxy probably doesn't consider it "outdated".
if user-agent equals mobile
But the value of the User-Agent header is never exactly the word "mobile". Are Safari for iPad and Android Browser for Transformer "mobile"? Their screen areas are closer to desktop than to smartphone. Are lesser-known mobile platforms such as BlackBerry PlayBook and HP TouchPad "mobile"? If nobody on a particular web site's testing team has one of those, they're not likely to be on the server's "mobile" whitelist.
if you have the slightest clue what you're doing you would never have assumed i meant match the string "mobile."
That was a joke son.
have you bothered to look up any mobile browser sniffing scripts?
No, because as a hobbyist, I lack the money to spend on buying devices on which to test, which rules out designing specifically for mobile. What's the best practice for smaller sites to test on devices that none of the staff happens to own?
hopefully you're using the technique of progressive enhancement. i don't see how your question applies to mobile browsers or those with lower-resolutions.
Say I have a front page of a web site. For a user of a device with lower resolution, I might want to send only the headline. For a user of a device with higher resolution, I might want to send the headline, the standfirst/kicker, and possibly a thumbnail photo. Pure progressive enhancement would imply sending only the headline on the initial page view and then having JavaScript download the kicker once the CSS media queries have resolved. Some purists want the server to ignore the User-agent: entirely.
use javascript detection to decide whether to dump your whole data source to the page with pretty markup, or replace it
If I replace the content entirely, then the replaced content still counts against the viewer's monthly download quota.
I still use 1280x1024 at home and 1600x1200 at work for my old LCD monitors! :P
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
vmware or your favorite virtualization software allows you to run other OSes in an application window on your machine
Provided one has a license to run said other OSes. This pretty much means buying a Mac and a retail copy of Windows to run on it, so that Safari for Mac is covered.
as for mobile, again virtualization
As for virtualization, again the cost of a sufficiently recent Mac to cover iPhone and iPad SDKs.
i can't tell if by "initial page view" you're talking about the document's ready state.
So as I understand it, the flow without server-side scripting, such as in ad-supported hosting, is that the server should send only the headlines. Then the script in the page would wait for ready and then either request the full version (and insert it into the DOM) or redirect to the full version. The problem with waiting for ready is that it often leads to the various display artifacts commonly referred to as FOUC (flash of unstyled or unscripted content), where the visual appearance changes drastically between the first draw and when the CSS finishes loading or the JavaScript finishes loading and running.
Anyway, you make good points that I'll keep in mind the next time I run into one of these pro-media-query, anti-UA-sniffing fanboys.
yay for hardware manufacturers who use diagonal measurement of screen size rather than a measurement of surface area?