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!
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.
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...
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?"
No, 1920x1200 should be standard.
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.
... 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.
(typed on a 2560x1600 monitor)
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
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
Agreed. I bought my current desktop monitor several years ago when 1920x1200 was more common, and I LOVE it. 1920x1080 feels too cramped.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
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 went from a 21" 1600x1200 monitor to a 24" 1920x1200. There's no downside.
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.
...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?
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.
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.
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.
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?