Slashdot Mirror
Linus Torvalds Advocates For 2560x1600 Standard Laptop Displays
beeudoublez points out a Google+ post by Linus Torvalds arguing that today's standard laptop display resolution is unreasonably low. He said, "...with even a $399 tablet doing 2560x1600 pixel displays, can we please just make that the new standard laptop resolution? Even at 11"? Please. Stop with the 'retina' crap, just call it 'reasonable resolution.' The fact that laptops stagnated ten years ago (and even regressed, in many cases) at around half that in both directions is just sad. I still don't want big luggable laptops, but that 1366x768 is so last century."
See title
My 7 year old laptop had a 1920x1200 resolution and when I bought a new one a few months ago I had to look all over just to find one that had a 1920x1080 resolution.
Go Linus!
How about 4K standard desktop resolution for 22" monitors? All this DPI fighting needs to leak over into desktops eventually.
Along with higher resolution.
^^^ Score -1, completely fucking wrong.
I realize that this is a lost cause and all; but why would you endorse a 16:10(at least it's not bloody 16:9...) rather than a 4:3 for a laptop? For a tablet, sure, where you can change the orientation and turn your sprawling rectangle into a nice, readable, page-width reading surface; but a laptop, where the keyboard keeps you from doing that?
If virtually all laptop displays are going to be laid out as though they are used for nothing but watching movies it would be nice if they at least threw in some additional pixels; but do we have to give up the shape that is better for dealing with text in a reasonably sized package? Absurdly wide desktop screens are fine, because you can just make them larger, and treat them as multiple page-sized screens when needed; but laptops have space constraints to deal with...
Apple doesnt have retina displays.
Samsung, LG, and Sharp do.
Apple packages/resells retina displays, developed by others.
These are already available in cheap Chinese tablets, in the new android tablet, Linus has a good point.
It was years before LCDs even had something available in a store approaching the higher-res CRT monitors, much less at a reasonable price.
Yet they phased all the CRTs out well before they had reached that point.
Who makes decisions like this, and the re: the laptop resolutions? How can we make them ~rue~ those choices?
I suggest you go pick up a low end laptop at about lets say 500 dollars. Hook it up to a display that can run 2560x1600 and tell me how it works out for you playing a game on the native resolution vs the 2560x1600
Most desktop monitors have stopped short of the 2560x1600 standard as most computer monitors now use the same glass as HDTV. If laptops with 14-17" screens become standard at 2560x1600, then I'd expect my desktop 23" monitor to go to at least 5000x3000 or so.
I have been holding off buying a new laptop.
Give me a thinkpad (well, lenovo) with 4:3, 12-13", and 2048*1536, and I'm buying one tomorrow.
Similarly a 23-24" 140dpi or so monitor
You have no idea what you're talking about
Agree 100%
After all, CRTs capable of doing 2304x1440 has been around since 2000[1], and LCD monitors doing 3840×2400 has been around for over a decade.[2] It is a total utter rip off for manufacturers to decrease screen resolution for over a decade.
[1] http://www.docs.sony.com/release/GDMFW900.PDF
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors
You are completely nuts, and uninformed. 2560x1600 is the true pixel resolution of the iPad. It uses a SoC with a quad-core graphics chip to drive it. Current laptops could easily drive that resolution, except those using 5+ year-old tech.
Even for applications that are just "blown up" with pixel doubling, additional smoothing can be applied, and it can still look better. Text is generally rendered directly through the system, and so you would get a true improvement in text in all applications. In fact, the additional resolution helps text readability far more than it helps anything else.
Along with higher resolution.
+1 on the full keyboards!
My kingdom for a damn 10-key...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Retina displays are the full actual resolution. For example, the Macbook Retina I'm typing on has a physical resolution of 2880x1800 and the GPU is physically rendering all those pixels. What you've just said actually makes no sense whatsoever. Multiplication of pixels in a 1:4 ratio of a smaller resolution? Making smaller resolutions just "blown up". WTF does that actually mean?
You can run the retina display at native mode but everything will be half the size (physically) on the screen. The standard default mode for the retina display keeps all your elements the same "physical" size on your screen but renders them with four times the pixels (1:2 ratio) to increase the detail and crispness of text and images.
If you think they would run many games at their current crap resolution now you are sorely mistaken. That aside, they might have to do what we did in the old days... reduce the game's resolution until its playable! When you start off with a decent resolution, downscaling doesn't look so bad.
I agree completely. I'm writing this on my 10" netbook, where 1366x768 is quite decent. That my work laptop that is about twice as big has the same resolution is downright silly. I still miss my early nineties Thinkpad that had 1400 ( or so) x 1050.
Have you even TRIED a retina display macbook? Apparently not, since you're trying to argue it's not just blown up. It's exact 4x the size of the default 1440x900 for a reason. The ipad increased resolution display was MAGICALLY chosen to be 4x the resolution of the previous iteration for what reason? You guessed it, the exact same one.
bullshit.
Apps that don't want to use the full res can use half-res and get blown up while,looking just as good as a native 1280x800 app. Apps that want the full res can use it (i.e. opengl apps which render polys etc).
My ubuntu laptop handles an external 1920x1200 monitor in addition to its 1366x768 screen just fine, and that's just an intel video card. Since I use mainly text (coding) there is no problem 'blowing up' the low resolutions. Just set a bigger font size.
I suggest you pick up a real laptop and not the cheapest pile of crap you could find at Walmart and expect it to run Crysis.
I had an Nvidia 210 graphics card powering a 2560x1600 display with no problem but I wasn't stupid enough to expect games to run at that resolution..
I suggest you go pick up a low end laptop at about lets say 500 dollars. Hook it up to a display that can run 2560x1600 and tell me how it works out for you playing a game on the native resolution vs the 2560x1600
Gaming versus using the laptop for lots of other pixel-intensive things is apples to oranges. Good 2D performance is much easier to achieve.
Some examples of important, primarily 2D activities are web browsing, reading, and...software development. That last one just might interest Linux a bit. ;-)
Aside from all that, you could always run your game at 1/2 resolution (1280x800) and be just as well off as with a crappy display.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
There's this thing called DPI scaling. Been around for ages.
It is strange that the screen rez has been locked low for some reason. Maybe, considering how easy it is to create projection displays, maybe they don't want it getting really easy by using a laptop to do it.
what reasons are others coming up with?
Er, "interest Linus a bit" (sigh)
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Uhh no, the retina display laptops very much do have 2560x1600 and 2880x1800 screens. They simply use UI scaling to make text readable, and buttons clickable. They are absolutely the resolution stated, they just use it for quality, not quantity of screen real estate.
sure, you'd probably not be able to play the latest FPS on a laptop with a mobile gpu at playable frame rates at 2560*1600 resolution, BUT is that a serious argument for not having high resolution displays on laptops ? What's the percentage of people who buy laptops for the purpose of playing BF3 on them ? And just because there is a significant number of 17 people who wouldn't be able to play BF3 on their laptop at that resolution, laptops should not have that resolution ?
I dare you to even find a desktop that can handle 2560x1600 for modern games that doesn't cost you upwards of $2000 and I quadruple dare you to find one even for $3000 that can even reach 60fps consistently because they don't exist.
However, putting higher resolution in just for display purposes, the laptops can handle it. Maybe not for gaming, but there are a lot of other uses for resolution.
Turn your fontsize up a notch?
Totally Agree. Mod Linus Up! Oh, he's in the real world, I forgot. Bummer.
Apple don't make display's, So no they have NOT produced displays better than anyone elses, they have simply rebadged displays made by the big manufacturers. There are only 3 or 4 large display manufacturers in the world that supply everyone.
Wasn't its 1024x768 and 1280x1024 that were popular in the late 90's?
1366x768 is the bastardised "720p HD Ready" TV panel. Its cheap and everyone produces them.
I don't think its a coincidence that Samsung stopped producing high res panels for Apple just before a new range of high res Android devices were announced.
Samsung and LG seem to be the only ones with the capability/capacity to do it in volume right now. Low res panels are cheap because everyone can do it.
I'm not following you. Full keyboards are standard on 17" laptops, and for that matter, most 15.6" laptops have keypads.
Uhhh, What makes you think that "retina" has anything to do with colour gamut? Apple uses IPS (in pane switching), LCD displays, which actually manage more colours, and better colour accuracy than a typical OLED display. What they don't manage is blacks as black as an OLED display, but they do manage whites much whiter (and a bunch of variants in between that OLED displays can't do).
"Retina" displays only have to do with resolution –that is that they're high enough resolution for your eye not to be able to see the pixels at the typical usage distance.
Apple now offers you two laptops with that res and higher. Yet instead of praising what apple has done, he says "stop with the retina crap". How about advocating that Linux desktop developers make it so these resolutions are usable on laptop displays, as OS X and Windows 7 and 8 do? Have you seen what linux desktops look like on a MBPR? OS X has their method of scaling things properly, win7 in my opinion does a better job, Linux desktop environments simply don't do anything.
It is strange that the screen rez has been locked low for some reason. Maybe, considering how easy it is to create projection displays, maybe they don't want it getting really easy by using a laptop to do it.
what reasons are others coming up with?
This is a no brainer .. the vast majority of laptops are purchased by either businesses where the bean counters rule or by nontechnical folks who think that
the only thing a higher resolution is good for is making the text too tiny to read. Both groups tend to pick the cheapest product that appears to service their needs.
Jesus, split those hairs a little more. Did Samsung, LG, and Sharp bother producing these displays before Apple dumped cash into their laps? No.
Uh... where can I buy a 'cheap Chinese tablet' with a 15-inch 2800x1800 display?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
The problem with laptop and desktop LCDs, is that they adhere to the 1080p TV display spec, probably to shave cents of some controller somewhere, or to share a production line. Apparently it's vital that the hundreds of millions of computer displays made each year have everything in common with the non-existent 15" TV market, or whatever the fuck.
Luckily, there's a lot of progress on making 4K resolution the new standard for video, which means that it should trickle "down" to computer displays. Despite the name, the new standard will have 3840 x 2160 resolution, but that is still notably higher than what Linus is asking for, providing 183 dpi even on a 24" display!
If you can't wait, there's going to be affordable 4K TVs appearing soon with HDMI input. Just replace the monitor on you desk with a TV mounted on the wall behind your desk. You'll probably need a new video card, but the good thing is that most OS-es now hardware accelerate desktop composition, so the result should be silky smooth. You might even be able to get 120Hz going, but don't hold your breath: display connectors haven't caught up with the required bandwidth. Your 3D card might be able to generate a 48-bit 8.3 megapixel image at 120Hz, but that's almost 50 Gbps, and there is no PC video standard that will carry that.
Next, the operating system vendors need to get their heads out of their asses and finish implementing proper multi-resolution support instead of the half-assed job they've been getting away with for decades because of the persistent assumption that higher-resolution = bigger-surface-area!
Do tell!
I hear all these amazing things about having the latest, high end hardware in the Cheap Chinese Tablets yet I can never find any that are more than GPL-violation propagating garbage.
You know what drives changes like this. People showing they will pay a premium to have it.
By a 2880x1800 or 2560x1600 Retina Macbook, when they sell in numbers, competitors will follow.
You know why there is a 2560x1600 Tablet. Because Apple sold shipping containers full of Retina iPads (2048x1536) and Google took notice and decided to one up them.
Putting your money where your mouth is, trumps whining on a blog every time.
Tried it on windows anytime recently? It's a mess.
Thus TUXGA resolution gives thee 2560 x 1920 technicolor dots.
Uhhh, Retina is an Apple trademark, and Apple Retina displays have the best color accuracy out there in tablet and laptop formats. That's what retina has to do with color gamut.
Torvalds wouldn't be complaining if it weren't for Apple setting a higher standard. Apparently this really irks him.
Amazingly technology often progresses at an exponential rate, so none of us (King Torvalds included) should be surprised that even higher (and useless) resolution is to be "soon" available than was 7 months ago.
Apple's contract is fixed-time exclusive though - something they can ask, as they are such a high-volume customer. So Apple alone has access to those displays for retail purposes. Until the contract runs it's course, anyway.
This sounds like the terrible argument I heard for Apple failing to comply with the UK ruling in Apple v. Samsung which forced them to post a notice on their page saying Samsung did not infringe. The problem was, they posted it in 14px not 14pt font. The argument I heard was that since the retina display scales up pixels (I pulled 1:4 out of my ass as a guess) that 14px would be much closer to 14pt than what I calculated, less than half the size.
Agree WilyCoder, completely fucking wrong.
...I just need a 2560x1600 monitor that doesn't cost four times as a similar res tablet, with its own processor, battery, wifi, memory, GPS, touchscreen and wireless HDMI.
HD TV seems to be driving this. Resolution used to be higher as far back as 5 years ago then the industry took a step backwards and everything including desktop panels regressed to 1080 lines.
This might take another leap forward with Quad HD at 3840x2160 when teh dust settles, but it will take a while.
As someone who actually developed some software for iOS I can safely say you don't know what you are talking about.
The only things that MAGICALLY get blown up is older software that doesn't understand the new resolutions. That is why there are apps marked "For iPad" originally. Because the screen resolution was different, it had a different set of resources. Most of the newer apps work by having different sets of resources based on the hardware it is run on and uses the appropriate one.
It isn't just blown up. Rasterized elements are able to have a direct mapping between the physical pixels at a lower resolution and the four physical pixels that take their place at the higher resolution, meaning that they appear identical to how they looked before. In the meantime, vectorized elements can take advantage of the additional physical pixels, allowing them to look significantly sharper on the higher resolution displays. That's why text on the new MacBook Pro line can look really great compared to how it looked before, while screenshots you took previously seem to not look any better at all.
Of course, one problem in this approach is that even though the rasterized elements actually appear identical on the screen to how they used to appear, people, such as yourself, perceive them as being blown up and/or more pixelated than they were before, simply on account of the fact that they look like they are that way when placed next to the vectorized elements. The fix for that is to provide higher-res copies of the rasterized elements, or else convert them to a vectorized format. Unfortunately, both of those are time-consuming when you consider the sheer breadth of items that need to be updated, not just within the OS itself, but also in web browsers, third-party applications, media, and other items.
I think you're missing his point. He's not quite satisfied with 0-9, he wants a 10 key as well... ;)
Complete stupidity.
The pixel quadruple resolution was chosen to allow OLD apps to run at the OLD resolution without looking as much like crap as they would on a non-integer pixel increase. NEW apps can and do run at the native resolution and work just fine and do look a lot better. The original post was completely wrong and stupid. That's all there is to it.
The problem is that they are not indeed "full" keyboards. Some have the 10-key on the side, but they still move around things like the directional arrows and other special keys (or remove them entirely).
The problem has been that the PC market was so commoditized that the amount of money made is so little. Everyone cries for the sub-$500 laptop, so manufacturers comply, leading to cutting of corners everywhere - LCDs are expensive (especially high-res ones), GPUs, etc. CPUs, RAM and hard drives are cheap, so you can get ones with the best gigas for marketing.
The only reaosn we have manufacturers going for higher quality displays is because of well, Apple. Since Apple refuses to participate in the low end ("Macs are overpriced!") it means Apple hsa to constantly refine their PCs to make it worth the money.
E.g., use of full metal bodies, high res displays, SSDs, etc. They do this to separate themselves from the rest of the pack.
Heck, once you promise better margins to manufacturers, they start spending that money on R&D - see the ultrabook line. They all cost around the price of a Macbook Air, or easily double or triple what the low end laptops sell for. As a result, we get them with all sorts of different screen resolutions.
Basically in the race to produce the cheapest laptop, they've left the premium market to Apple, who appeals to those who like a laptop with clean lines, "exotic" materials and other things.
Oh, and Apple invested a lot of money making high-res displays - it's not as easy to build a 15" 2880x1800 screen as it is a 15" 1366x768 screen. First off, more pixels mean more transistors and greater chance of dead pixels, lowering yield. Second, being able to address those transistors and ensure the pixels are all good is a lot harder with the smaller pixel size. So Apple's pretty much owning all the R&D on that (especially with Sharp in financial trouble).
As long as everyone and their dog have high resolution screens now, we're doomed to see screen real estate dwindle back to the 80'ties level as designers keep inflating fonts, icons and white space to keep Joe Public with something that looks like the 800x600 he's used to. I miss the day when only enthusiasts had high resolution monitors and we actually got more space.
Have you even TRIED a retina display macbook?
I have. I got one a month or so ago, have been using it as my only machine since then, and am typing this response on it. (The main reason was to get 16GB of memory and a lot more "disk" space, not anything to do with the display.)
Apparently not, since you're trying to argue it's not just blown up. It's exact 4x the size of the default 1440x900 for a reason.
Yes, it allows applications/images/etc. that don't use the native resolution to do pixel-doubling while allowing those that do to use the native resolution. No, the graphics layer does not make all apps think they're on a 1440x900 display and then do pixel-doubling; it exposes the native 2880x1800 to Cocoa apps that can handle it, and does some high-res stuff ("framework-scaled mode") for Cocoa apps "whose code base has not yet been optimized for high-resolution graphics" and "[aren't] known to have significant issues when running in framework-scaled mode" and weren't explicitly opened in low-resolution mode, and does pixel-doubling ("magnified mode") for everything else. Follow The Fine Link for details.
So the claim that "the retina display and other 'high def' isn't actually a true display of that resolution, just a multiplication of the pixels in a 1:4 ratio of a smaller resolution.", if meant to be a general description of the behavior of all code on a Retina MBP under all OSes including OS X, is false. I can't speak for other high-def machines and the graphics layers of the desktop environments that run on them, but I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of them also provide native resolution to apps that can handle it. Anybody making the strong version of that claim has either not ever used a Retina MBP, did so on an OS that doesn't handle the native resolution, or did use it on an OS that can handle it but wasn't paying attention.
As for the rest of the post in question:
Laptops are lacking in graphical power and actually providing that as a true resolution is a bit of a hard proposition for anyone for an actual laptop that might have to do anything graphically demanding.
...which doesn't ipso facto mean that no laptop provides that as a true resolution. I don't know how you define "graphically demanding"; I generally don't do anything I would consider too "graphically demanding" (a lot of Terminal.app, a fair bit of Safari.app and Mail.app and NetNewsWire.app, a fair bit of VMware Fusion.app and Quicken.app, and bits of other things), so maybe anything truly "graphically demanding" wouldn't work well, but that doesn't mean that Apple didn't say "OK, maybe your laptop will heat up a fair bit and slow down somewhat if you do something really graphically demanding, but it'll still show pretty crisp text, UI controls, and images properly tuned for high resolution" (yes, some stuff probably not tuned for high resolution, such as the gear next to the "Post Anonymously" label in the posting box for the reply I'm typing, look noticeably fuzzy).
That and it doesn't particularly look very good just making those smaller resolutions just 'blown up'.
True, as noted, but when it's rendering stuff at native resolution, it looks pretty good. I'm willing to put up with fuzzy images in some cases in order to get the crisper text for my aging eyes.
I dare you to even find a desktop that can handle 2560x1600 for modern games that doesn't cost you upwards of $2000
I have one. It really doesn't take nearly as much as you think it does - people have been running in 1920x1200 at 4x FSAA on mid-range hardware for years now; for higher-res, you just drop the FSAA (because it's not needed anymore at those DPIs), and rasterized pixel count remains the same, or even lower.
MacBooks do not run iOS ... yet.
How would having a 2560x1600 display affect battery life over 1366x768? Given that battery life became a big issue, if it would affect battery life in hours I can see why laptop makers would have sacrificed resolution for battery life.
Most of us have been on rants for higher resolution displays for years.
Next, the operating system vendors need to get their heads out of their asses and finish implementing proper multi-resolution support instead of the half-assed job they've been getting away with for decades because of the persistent assumption that higher-resolution = bigger-surface-area!
This isn't just an OS problem, it's the apps that don't always handle multi-resolution support as well. It's easy for the OS to change, but when the apps look like crap or are unusable, reality sets in.
And touchscreens Linus, touchscreens.
What is it about laptops that means it is ok to leave them in the stone age in terms of usability? Oh... Microsoft.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
And here's the photographic proof you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Blank until
In fact film formats were 1.5 to 1 (35mm and 6x9), 4:3 (15 on 120), 4:5 (plate formats) and square. I have used all of these and I feel that 4:5 is overall the best for static images. But it is inconvenient for laptops. 16 by 9 is tolerable, but then for actual work I stack two monitors vertically which gives 2160 by 1920 - a good compromise for development. For anybody over 40, monitor size is far more important than minute pixels.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Shrug, I have no problem playing on my laptop with 2880x1800, bf3 isn't exactly high end anymore.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Or don't.
Please tell me that was a troll. I don't want to think anyone so uninformed can actually type or turn on a computer.
I played Fallout 3 and am currently playing The Witcher at 2560x1600 on a 2.66Ghz first gen i7 and a GeForce 260 (3 generations old now, and not top of the line when it was new). Most of the eye candy is on, and the frame rate is smooth. Granted AA is off, but it doesn't seem so necessary at 2560x1600. I've never understood the complaint that you can't game at 2560x1600. I do plan on upgrading the video card when I find enough time to get to Skyrim.
Except that I bought the 2048x1536 iPad because I wanted a 2560x1536 screen, not because I wanted and iPad. Then 6 months later Apple discontinues the iPad model I bought (but still sells the one from over a year and a half ago) and google introduces a 2560x1600 tablet and now I don't have the money to buy the tablet I acutally want. I hate this notion of voting with your dollars.
Same difference. You're forgiven.
Wow. You are retarded.
Apple didn't develop shit. They contacted one of the display manufacturers, I believe LG Displays in this case, and said "We want a display with these specs. If you will make us one and guarantee us exclusivity for a period of time, we will guarantee a large minimum order."
That's all well and good but stop pretending like it was some amazing feat of R&D on Apple's part. They just had a display made for them, same as ever.
By a 2880x1800 or 2560x1600 Retina Macbook, when they sell in numbers, competitors will follow.
So you're suggesting that Mr Linux buy a laptop on which .... Linux barely runs, and has no idea how to handle the display resolution? And cannot switch between the integrated and discrete graphics? And which needs a binary blob to even use the b43 wifi?
How would that make him more productive?
Who can read anything at that resolution for fuck sake?
Those of us with 1) aging eyes and 2) desktop environments that draw text, GUI widgets, etc. at high resolution (i.e., they use ~4x the number of pixels to draw stuff at the same size, rather than drawing stuff at 1/2 the horizontal and vertical sizes).
One big reason is cost: not only are low-resolution screens cheaper to make, but the manufacturers can use the same line of panels for both HDTVs and monitors.
Another reason is that many users don't know how to properly set DPI scaling in Windows, and until Windows 7, it often didn't work properly even if you did. Some applications on XP would break DPI scaling and result in icons, text, etc. overflowing the window boundaries. Even on Windows 7, there are a few applications that lie to the system, saying that they're DPI-aware when they are not, and give broken results. (We ran into one of these at work – a library system front-end where the icons appeared all black if any DPI except the default was used. A bug fix for that was finally put through, but it took some time.)
Keypads on laptops are barbaric. The typing space should be centered with the display, buddhammit!
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Or, to quote some dude up in Oregon:
(+1 for Linus for "atomic wedgie" - but, really, "less-than-gifted" is kinda the default for tech pundits, given that a lot of them are paid to be adbait)
Apple doesnt have retina displays. Samsung, LG, and Sharp do.
But these companies don't sell high-DPI standalone displays (or laptops) under their own brand names. They produce these parts for the Apple market only (and in Samsung's case, for the new Nexus 10).
Jesus, split those hairs a little more. Did Samsung, LG, and Sharp bother producing these displays before Apple dumped cash into their laps? No.
Yes, they have been pushing 4k and higher dpi panels have been selling on aliexpress and ebay for some time.
Why the pissy attitude about "retina"? Is it just because Linus didn't snatch up the challenge first and now wants to redefine the terms that are already the standard? Sounds like Linus has a big of stick up his ass about others pushing the limits and defining terms that he can't lay any claim to. But what can he really lay claim to?
I don't expect much else from the guy who ripped off Unix and acts like he's somehow a revolutionary. I remember how much people moaned when Dennis Ritchie died a few days after Jobs and the media ignored Ritchie. Why doesn't anyone moan about how Ritchie's legacy is largely ignored by Linux fanbois?
If Linus Torvalds can't get together the necessary people to get Linux to run decently on the rMBP, there is something very wrong with the world.
It works much better on Windows 7 than it did on XP. Basically, on Windows 7, if an application doesn't specifically say in its manifest that it supports high-DPI scenarios, then the OS will fool it into thinking it's running at the standard DPI, render into an off-screen buffer, and scale the results. This may not be razor-sharp, but it prevents the scenarios seen under XP where some poorly-designed applications would have parts of the UI cut off when you increased the DPI setting. If your application tells the OS that it knows how to deal with DPI changes, the OS will trust it to do that right. Unfortunately, a few applications lie to the OS about this and still give corrupted results.
I've got a second screen plugged in because the 15" panel on my laptop is TOO DAMN SMALL! 1366x768 is ridiculous! I've still got a Dell Latitude Celeron that has 1280x1024 on a 14" - and a P4 with 1600x1200 on a 15"! Where the fuck is my pin sharp resolution display that I had on a single core laptop that I couldn't *give* away even if I wanted to?
I'll tell you: flat panel televisions, that's where. 1440x900 for 720p and 1920x1200 for 1080p, while laptops get 1366x768 (yeah barely even 720p quality, forget HDTV!), and if you want 1080p standard on a market screen you're forced to fork out for a 22" Apple Cinema display or a Macbook Pro! Fucking joke...
By the way, it is possible to upgrade *most* laptop panels. Example: my Toshiba has a 15" panel which has 1366x768, so I'd need to find one which has the same frame size (15" diagonal at 16:9 aspect). The highest resolution panel I can find that meets those criteria is the Samsung Retina (for the Macbook Pro) at 2880x1800 which goes for around £90 a pop ($45 to produce, which is exactly the same unit production cost as a 720p panel the same size!). The GPU in the laptop would be able to drive that, also consider that the clock hardware is already on the panel so all I'd need to do is marry the connectors. Usually all that involves is inserting the loose end of a ribbon into an edge connector...
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Yip that is how Apple solved this problem, they have warned application developers for like 5 years that they will introduce high resolution displays and that you better use the correct API to draw it, or else your application would look ugly.
They also gave you development tools to scale up your application to see if all the drawing is done correctly; because of antialiasing a line should be drawn through the centre of the screen pixels no matter the DPI.
Eventually Apple opted for just doing a x2 to solve a lot of problems, although you can set the scale factor differently in the OS X Preferences, and I guess that will only work well if the applications do the right thing.
Quad HD is dead in the water, 4K is it now!
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
So 720p is 768 rows, 1080p is 1080 rows and 4k is 2160 rows, and not even 4k columns? Who named it so? In Best Buy: "See how much better this 4k screen is, compared to that 1080"
Most of the drawing in your application should be done with vector graphics. The OS X API for vector graphics automatically scales your widgets to a readable size and draws them at full resolution.
Basically the only issues are when you use bitmap graphics for icons and widgets, these are scaled and you will notice the difference in resolution between the icons and your high quality rendered vector graphics.
Interestingly enough you cannot actually draw pixels in a window on OS X, you never could. You could make an image, that you would display in the window, which you could make the same size of the window, and then draw in that image. That is why scaling of everything works, because the image is just scaled up together with the window (The window lie about their physical size, it gives it size in points instead of pixels).
Is the Samsung P10 anywhere near market yet??
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Putting your money where your mouth is, trumps whining on a blog every time.
Except there is NOWHERE for my money to go. I can't vote with my wallet, because every vendor makes the exact same fucking thing, without the slightest variation. This a total failure of the free market.
Sure, finally, after years of stagnation, Apple made a single laptop model that has a screen resolution higher than 1920x1200.
Fine.
Now find me a 17" laptop that has a keyboard that drops the numeric keypad so that it can have standard 101-key spacing for the rest of the keyboard.
There is no such thing. It does not exist. There is no laptop manufacturer on the whole planet that will sell me a 17" laptop that has a keyboard designed with keys like a traditional keyboard. Without exception, they all squeeze in a numeric keypad I never use, and re-use keyboards designed for 15" laptops in their 17" models. None of the usual extra-wide gaps are present, so I can't touch-type properly. I have trouble hitting the ESC key, the function keys, the arrow keys, and ins/del/pg-up/pg-dn, none of which are EVER in the standard positions. Often those keys are half-sized too, for extra frustration.
I've said this before on Slashdot in the vain hope that that somebody from a laptop hardware vendor still frequents this Internet backwater: I will pay a $500 price premium for a laptop with a proper keyboard. However, I'm certain that this won't ever happen. We're all just consumers watching 1080p "content". Not a single programmer has ever had to use a laptop. Fuck them, and their money. That's the attitude I've been sensing from the OEMs. I don't expect it to change any time soon.
If it was at all possible, I'd start my own laptop company, and make a line of "Pro" laptops for the type of people who type with more than one finger at a time. It would have clicky keys, a 4K display, a water-resistant chassis, an externally accessible hot-swap SATA drive bay, and an 10Gbps SFP port on the back. In certain industries, it would be the only model anybody would want to buy, irrespective of cost.
I concur.
If you really need a number pad on a laptop, just get one of these.
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
It's not a troll, it's the fundamental concept of Internet Libertarianism: any time the free market has decided that your preferences aren't widespread enough to be worth catering to, it was actually a secret cabal of statists.
Never mind that CRT monitors take up eight times the store shelf space of LCDs, or that the overwhelming majority of consumers genuinely prefer an LCD flat panel over a CRT, regardless if the CRT has better picture quality, or that every laptop manufacturer other than Apple has been on a cost-cutting race to the bottom for a decade now and that naturally includes the cheapest screens that will fit the size envelope. Oh, no, it's the environmentalists' fault that you can't buy CRT monitors at WalMart anymore, with their dastardly voluntary EnergyStar conspiracy.
Wow. Didn't think I would have to point out I was referring to the AC talking about it being the same on the iPad, but apparently I do.
For the other dense readers, yes, the iPad runs iOS. Just to be on the safe side.
Frankly, this is something I've never understood. I mean, I've got a bloody netbook (a Dell Latitude 2110) with a mostly-normal keyboard, yet even 15" or bigger consumer laptops have absolutely crazy keyboard layouts with the keys all over the place, or, as you say, even missing.
It's almost as if they try to make them as user-hostile as possible.
VPS-like shared hosting, on under-crowded servers.
I have a 14.1" display with 1400x1050 and I can't see adding more pixels would help me any unless it includes an eyeball upgrade.
I wouldn't even opt for an upgraded display if it were free as it would just suck more CPU/GPU resources and power for nothing when using 3d apps.
Mobile devices may be a little different in limited size and reasonable expectation they could at times be held much closer to the face higher pixel density could make more sense.
After a certain point I believe has already been reached with my 1400x1050 display increasing resolution is like increasing spring counts in mattresses it is only seen as worthwhile to the marketing departments.
I think the real issue behind Torvalds request may actually be an artifact in the way linux handles fonts, font scaling and lack of availability of quality fonts for linux. Without aliasing the output looks unecessarily horrible and the result has always been to increase font size to brush over the underlying problem..this effectivly effectivly reduces information density of the display compared with windows.
If you had a 2560x1600 display on a portable computer and there is still any font aliasing going on then something is very wrong and it aint the hardware.
How do I check my display resolution in Linux?
work in progress
"1366x768 is so last century" ?
Heck, I totally agree but come on, even pre/post-grub to me by default on many distros is still something really low as 640x480 or 800x600... I hope they work on that too.
+1 for the article.
As a graphics rogrammer I wil tell you that there a lot of shortcuts that the GPUs take to do MSAA. If you had been using super sampling instead of multi-sampling AA then I would agree with you.
Then maybe it's time Linus went into the desktop environment market, the same way he went into the version control market.
Hi! I'm facts. We haven't talked in a while, thought I'd drop by and see how you're doing. Looks like you've missed me a lot, why didn't you make any effort at all to check your statements?
Upscaling is what you describe. The Retina Macbook doesn't do that unless you ask it to. Decent PC monitors don't do that unless you set a lower resolution, or lack the hardware to run native resolution (single link DVI on monitors over 1920x1200, for example). Assuming everyone does that is just misinformed. iPads do that, when you run older apps that haven't been updated to understand newer screen resolutions. Not so much on Android, Windows, Linux, or OSX proper.
The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
Hi! Smee again!
Laptop with Intel HD 3000 graphics (pretty low end). I don't game with it, but it does do full screen video and 2D just flawlessly at 1920x1200 *2 (dual monitors are wonderful), and I've had it hooked up to dual 2560*1600 displays, where 2D and video were also excellent. Thanks for playing!
The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
... on my 19" 5:4 LCD monitor at home with desktop PCs. :/
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
The big problem is Windows. If you look at the driving force behind all PC/Laptop sales for the last decade or more, it has been the Windows OS, and since it can't handle high-res screens well (with regards to scaling what is displayed), there have not been any high-res screens that do not natively display something that is readable to the average person. Look at the surface with Windows 8 and what resolution they chose. When Windows catches up, so will laptop resolutions.
I was kind of hoping Windows 8 was going to address the issue, but looks like yet another F$%^# up by redmond. They also need to compete on screen resolution if they want to beat Apple. Apple has highlighted that people want something that looks nice, provides a great user experience, and feels solid (ie not cheap). Build quality sounds like it is a pass and arguably Windows have worked on the user experience (epic fail from what I have tried of the pre releases of Win8), it also looks ok but they failed to provide the finishing touches of a nice high-res screen to make everything look like you can reach out and grab it.
I have wanted to have a 2560x1600 laptop display on my 15inch for a long time, since before the "Retina Display", but everyone I work with think I am crazy for wanting it. The screen real estate is precious to a developer. Yes the text is small, but I have the screen reasonable close to my face and could easily work on a smaller font if it was crisp enough for reading. I also want a 16 core processor and 64GB RAM in my laptop, at least until the broadband speeds allow me to run a private cloud at home that I can access from anywhere. I use virtual machines a lot and regularly exhaust my 16GB RAM and 8 cores on my laptop anytime I want to run end-to-end testing.
I hope Linus can push for something to happen before Windows catches up, but I have my doubts.
Yeah, thanks for making me feel bad for breaking not one but two of my nice 1920x1200 LCDs.
OTOH, 1920x1080 is getting cheap enough that you could grab 2 or even 3 for the price of one WUXGA display. Which makes me want to work and/or play three screens...
http://techreport.com/review/23217/triple-screen-gaming-on-today-graphics-cards
But since I'm a cheapskate, I just picked up a handful of cheap 19" - 21" CRTs from craigslist for between $5 - $20 each.
For laptops, I would just as soon try to set up compiz-fusion to scale (with full anti-aliasing) a large VNC session or something, so I can zoom in and out of a large X server session. I'm kinda wondering why more UIs aren't really going this route (other than maybe being slightly nauseating.)
Apple doesnt have retina displays.
Samsung, LG, and Sharp do.
Actually, neither do. Apple sells LG, Samsung and Sharp displays (Samsung, LG and Sharp also sell their own displays).
Apple brands other manufacturers displays as "retina" which is why they aren't all the same display. They could make a 300x400 20" display and call it "retina" because "retina" is not a measure of resolution, it's a marketing buzzword.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I love high pixel density, but I think better viewing angles are even more needed. I'd like to see IPS become the standard like it has for LCD smartphones and tablets.
Sometimes innovation really is simply recognizing what is available. Sony, HP, Dell, etc. don't do that as often as they should.
Amazing feat? No.
Nothing? Just as much no.
Dafuq?
A dual-GTX680 beast is trivial to do <$2k if you stick with a i5@4.8 or so as CPU.
The iPod previous generation iPod Touch is labled as having a Retina display, yet it has poor color gamut and viewing angles (it isn't IPS)
The iPhone 4 had a fairly low gamut display. (And I think the 4s was the same)
Human eyes either can't see that many pixels crammed onto such a tiny screen, or will eventually ruin their eyesight trying. A smart vendor avoids the inevitable lawsuits.
I used a 1920x1200 15" laptop for a while, and found it unusable long term, especially with Windows. X-windows was doable. Apple has a long history of deciding what the ergonomically correct resolution is for a display size and sticking with it. 13" was 640x480. 16" was 832x624, etc. All of Apple's CRT monitors were fixed resolution with the same display DPI. Even retina displays are only used to make the ergonomic resolution "look better".
>> Apple don't make display's, So no they have NOT produced displays better than anyone elses, they have simply rebadged displays made by the big manufacturers. There are only 3 or 4 large display manufacturers in the world that supply everyone.
You mean aside from investing the money to actually get the display manufacturers to make these things. It's not like those manufacturers had these high res panels just sitting around on the shelf and Apple picked them up. You're are seriously deluded.
If Linus Torvalds can't get together the necessary people to get Linux to run decently on the rMBP, there is something very wrong with the world.
Yes, hardware resellers like Apple are making it very, very hard for Linux to run on their laptops.
It's hard to reverse engineer things from scratch, getting Linux to run on an Intel IGM is a dream because Intel released the source code for the IGM drivers. Broadcom didn't do this for their wireless chipsets IIRC, which is why it's a pain to get Broadcom wireless working with Linux.
I dont expect a manufacturer to actively support Linux but I expect them to not actively hinder Linux.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Wow. Didn't think I would have to point out I was referring to the AC talking about it being the same on the iPad, but apparently I do.
For the other dense readers, yes, the iPad runs iOS. Just to be on the safe side.
...and the first part of what you said, "The only things that MAGICALLY get blown up is older software that doesn't understand the new resolutions.", also applies, mutatis mutandis, to OS X, as per my response to Anonymous Howard, and this bit of Apple documentation that apparently didn't get linked in my post (sorry about that).
ThinkPenguin WOULD release a 1920x1080 model if enough people bought one. You just got to get 499 of your friends to go in on one as well. Right now there aren't even that many comments on this article. Good luck.
"Apple Retina displays have the best color accuracy out there in tablet and laptop formats".
Easily disproven bullshit.
There's plenty notebooks targeted at the professional market offering *real* color accuracy.
Hint: North of 5 Delta-E out of the box is *atrocious*
Seriously, I have a 14" laptop with a 1600x900 screen and the resolution is more than enough for the size. 1920x1080 is enough for computer monitors less than 23" IMO. What I really want is a high refresh rate (100Hz +) IPS monitor. Good viewing angles, good colors and smooth motion.
Apple's are a joke; little different from others
Apple's hardware is NOT better, faster, or anything else. There reliant on the SAME set of companies as every other “manufacturer” (brand you might recognize).
This is not to say that Apple's designs don't use the 'higher end' stuff... but it's not stuff that is different form what others can 'manufacture'.
Everybody already knows that Apple doesn't make the displays. This doesn't change the fact that Apple has created the high-rez tablet and laptop markets single-handedly.
If Apple hadn't placed orders for millions and millions of these displays, and even gone to the extent of partnering with companies in constructing the factory processes that enable their manufacture, would these displays even be on offer now, in 2012?
It's highly doubtful.
Apple also created the large-scale tablet market with the iPad, and the current archetype for a smartphone is the Apple iPhone.
Yes, you have Apple to thank for your whizzy Samsung or Motorola multitouch phone. Have you seen photographs of the pre-iPhone era Android phones? Fuckin' garbage, and they would have stayed in the trash bin had Google not had a spy on Apple's board.
The problem is the the dumb customer doesn't know what 1366x768 means, it's all gibberish random numbers to them. Digital cameras had that same issue also a long time ago, people just couldn't grasp the difference between 320x240 digital cameras and 640x480 cameras (or higher) - they kept asking dumb questions and the explanation resulted in the person getting even more confused - "what do you mean the picture is made of little dots?"
We all know what happened next: the word "megapixel" revolutionized the industry, and the more megapixel meant better camera (higher megapixel doesn't make better camera! but that's beside the point). The dumb masses had a variable to look for, and they associated higher value with more advanced. Even if they didn't know what a pixel was, they stuck with it and that's probably why you see 8 megapixel cameras on things like phones that really would be just fine with 3.
Computer monitors and TV's should start using the word "megapixel" also, like cameras do. Right now they're using the word "HD" - which makes the monitor either HD or Not HD. If you start using megapixel to refer to monitors, things will start to become clearer to consumers.
Here's a list:
0.3 megapixels: regular VGA mode (640x480)
0.5 megapixels: iPod "retina" (960x480)
1.0 megapixels: a 1366x768 monitor (standard laptop display)
2.1 megapixels: a "high definition" television/monitor (1920x1080)
3.7 megapixels: the monitor I am using right now (2560x1440)
4.1 megapixels: the Nexus 10 (2650x1600)
Then there's the IPS vs. crappy TN. That's a whole other can of worms.
You wouldnt be able to see your wesnoth soldiers at that kind of resolution.
I avocate ALL computer monitors going back to a 4:3 width to height aspect ratio. A lot of research was done that showed the 4:3 aspect ratio was the most comfortable for viewing. That has not changed.
you're holding it wrong!
This is very insightful. Clearly, the problem here is the Linux devs simply aren't working hard enough. And it has nothing to do with whether hardware manufacturers are willing to volunteer the necessary specs for their implementation. This clearly explains the situation with nvidia and AMD as well.
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
Apple designed them and had them manufactured. I love the anti-Apple people trying to play down Apple's role in this, ignoring that if not for Apple these displays would not exist. By your definition Apple isn't the maker of the iPhone, since they don't own the manufacturing facilities and instead hire out the work. Your point is idiotic.
everything going on right now (certainly in the desktop monitor space) is being driven by TV manufacturers who want "Full HD" and aren't interested in anything else.
So things like viewing angle, resolution and everything else (at least for low-end and mid-range LCDs) is largely dictated by the TV manufacturers.
I would never actually suggest a Sony, but they have at least recently had 17" laptops with centered keyboard and maybe even centered touchpad. They are flimsy and expensive and if you buy one you're a tool, but anyway.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
he can give them to me!
In 1998 I had an IBM Thinkpad 15" laptop with 1600x1200 display, 2GB RAM, 120GB HD - but only a single core 32-bit CPU... However, it ran at almost 3GHz! So, we have a bit more RAM, more cores, slower CPUs, and somewhat bigger hard drives, but until you go top-of-the-line the displays suck, resolution-wise! My current top-of-the-line Lenovo Thinkpad has a 17" 1920x1080 HD display, dual 3GHz cores, 8GB RAM, and 320GB disc. The main improvement? A 64-bit CPU so I can use all of that RAM, and CPU enhancements that allow good virtualization since I have to run multiple operating systems on the sucker. Interesting that the pixels/inch of the one from almost 15 years ago and current system (it is less than 1 yr old) is almost the same - extend that 15" 4x3 display to a 17" 16x9 one, and you get that extra 300 horizontal pixels - but you give away 120 in the vertical scale! So, old system: 1920000 pixels. New system: 2073600 - 153600 pixels in 15 years == ~10000 pixels / year improvement. So much for Moore's law!
I am getting older and finding harder to read small fonts. 2560x1600 pixel displays will only make this worse. Yes, I know I can adjust my fonts but there is no single setting in Linux that adjusts *all* the fonts. In many cases I have to go to the individual app and change a setting. Many times this does not cover all the fonts. Icons, dialog boxes, menus still use the default font. A lot of web pages over ride the font settings to use a small font.
I have thought about using a 40 inch 1080p TV as a display. It would give me big fat pixels for my tired eyes. Has anyone tried this?
Why would you want 4:3? 16:10 is the best. You can fit your movies nicely, and you can have two documents open side by side. If you tried opening two documents side by side on 4:3 it would be way too skinny. You can't see the whole line of code.
This is my favorite solution, but only you have certain models of Thinkpads and you are willing to give up your optical drive.
I would love an inexpensive netbook with 1080p resolution.
1920x1200, $369 regular price (but it goes on sale periodically)
If Linus Torvalds can't get together the necessary people to get Linux to run decently on the rMBP, there is something very wrong with the world.
He can't? I thought that was part of what he was doing with the comment?
Some Thinkpads have the QWERTY section full-sized (e.g. my T420). Arrow keys are below right shift, and Home, End, etc., are above Backspace, so it's not perfect, but it's better than most...
Most people who develop drivers for linux, are starving student types who can not afford to get new hardware. If you want something to work with linux, make sure it has its own controller, and is dirt cheap.
Otherwise, the people who develop drivers and such, won't be able to afford the hardware in question.
Those MacBooks have great pixel densities but are totally lame on the amount of video ramm behind the display. I want to replace my MacBook pro with the Retina one, I'd gain a large number of pixels for no increase in video ram and go backwards as I can't get a matte display for Retina. Apple dropped the ball here. They're not actually making what high-end users want. I don't care about the price I care about the specs, and apart from pixel density Apple are far far behind Compaq on desktop replacement laptops :( This is a shame as I rather like OS X.
Did love this argument.
"it's all the same hardware, Apple is no different." Yet Apple devices tend to be higher res, thinner, lighter, etc.
iPad Vs Surface is a good example. If everyone has access to the same technology then why is the Surface thicker, heavier, no 3G/4G, lower battery life, and a much lower resolution screen (MS specifically said a retina quality display would be too difficult to do due to memory bandwidth issues - tell that one to Apple).
That's just one example but it holds true when comparing MacBook Pros, iMacs, whatever.
You can keep saying its all the same, but it's just not.
- "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
The surface is THINNER not thicket, seems to have better build quality and weighs approximately the same as an Ipad, the ipad does have a better screen though. It also comes with a keyboard and useful ports
bullshit, their were high res laptops long before apple was making them. I have no idea why most have stopped making them, but it certainly isn't something apple created, more something that seems to have gone out of fashion with the others, probably with the constant race for lowest cost rather than best quality.
1080p isn't as cool as 4k or 2500xwhatever, but it's a huge leap over 1380x768. Let's get all laptops to 1080p first, since it's less tech- and $- intensive
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Yes, this is an absolute pain for games. Then again, laptops shouldn't be used for games ;). The problem is that in my case the laptop was the main computer for several years.
Like someone said about leaking tablet resolution "improvements" back into the PC world, fullsize keyboards have been playing with stupid layout ideas and removing keys for a decade. Geeky Mac switchers must have a rite of passage with a google search when first trying to printscreen, especially while running Windows. HP keyboards move Insert / Home / End / Page up and Page down. Laptop or not, playing with our non-querty row is a problem for flight simulators MMO's and simple emulators. My laptop vertically lists Delete / Home / Pg-up / Pg-dn/ End in the last row, which is a pain for web browsing without some head lamp on.
The industry ran out of new cool things to design to differentiate product. They can't reinvent the modern equivalent of "they're all plain ol' beige, so let's ship it in black!". Now they bring chiclet keyboards and tons of incompatible layouts.
Someone here yesterday wanted death on whoever decided that for Android's software keyboards (virtually non-optional) ENTER should sit right above BACKSPACE... presumably from logins or webforms getting posted "early" EXACTLY as we've located an error that needs backspacing to fix.
ENTER should sit right above BACKSPACE
Oops. Said that backwards.
-vlueboy
hate to break it to ya man but, the surface is slightly thinner, has same battery life, weight the surface is ever so slightly heavier (not an amount you could notice). yes it has lower res screen and no 3g/4g (not that apple has 4g anywhere much either) but they more than make up for that with features that the ipad doesn't have, like office, a proper keyboard, ports that are actually usable and better hardware quality.
DPI scaling doesn't work on everything. I was running Faronics Insight on a computer and couldn't figure out why all the icons in the program were fuzzy. I noticed the same fuzziness in Libreoffice. When I checked the resolution set in Windows 7 it was set at the native resolution of the monitor, but the programs still looked fuzzy like they were set to 800x600. I don't remember why I did it, but I opened my power point presentation in office and all of the fuzziness was gone. At that point I realized that the DPI setting I had changed a week ago was probably affecting those programs. I tried toggling the windows xp style scaling with no luck. But putting the DPI scaling back to none cleared up all of the fuzziness. The issue is documented here but unfortunately I couldn't get the XP mode to fix the issue.
I don't have any evidence, but I highly doubt that.
After iPhone 4 came out in 2010, it no longer took a genius to guess that the iPad would also get the Retina treatment sooner or later--I remember voices of disappointment when iPad 2 showed up without one in 2011. Besides, the Retina iPad only went on sale in March of this year. I very much doubt that Google could have started planning the Nexus 10 after March and have it in mass manufacturing in November. Product development using new parts (like the 2560x1600 panel) takes time.
So because Linux is such a success on laptops we should listen to someone who's sole claim to fame is he bundled 3 lines of his own code with 300,000 lines of other people's code and named the whole lot after himself?
I don't think so.
hey, nice sig, I missed it before. seems a bit apropos here, actually.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
While we're at it, can we also have our screens matte instead of the glossy crap?
Retina is a rating of pixel density, it's not just a marketing buzzword. If you bother to look, there's info on how it is measured.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
At the point you're displaying 2 A4 pages side by side, in order to be equivalent to the portrait monitor you're going to need twice as many pixals.
Using a 1920x1200 monitor, in portrait you get 1920 pixels of height, allowing a good deal of resolution for the page. 2.3M total pixels.
Rotate it back, and you only have 63% of the vertical resolution, and half the resolution. Oh well, in either case you're probably going to have to sacrifice some pixels in order to maintain correct proportions if that's important. Even if you have a 2560x1600 monitor, you're still only going to have 2M pixels if you're displaying 2 pages.
If you're into serious graphics design where you're looking to spend a few thousand on a ultra-color correct high resolution monitor, odds are you're going to be spending a lot of time wanting to have more resolution on a single page in order to get the final printed product 'just right'.
I don't read AC A human right
There is already machines like the ASUS UX21A, which is an ultrabook that packs 1920x1080 in 11.6". However using today's OSes and apps (DPI scaling problems) I would imagine using something like that could be still quite painful.
I think you're missing his point. He's not quite satisfied with 0-9, he wants a 10 key as well... ;)
Screw that! I want one that goes up to 11!
And that has a "more cowbell" key as well!
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
"Except there is NOWHERE for my money to go. I can't vote with my wallet, because every vendor makes the exact same fucking thing, without the slightest variation. This a total failure of the free market."
In other words, it's just like nowadays everybody has been forced into carrying the same stuff as Wal-Mart does, but you've a slightly lower chance of getting trapped behind a herd of fat families blocking the aisles in Target or K-Mart.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Widescreen is definitely better when you have a single display since you can have side-by-side documents. It also helps make the task bar wider when you have lots of windows open, or more tabs in your browser etc. All TV and movies are widescreen now too.
Widescreen is also handy on airplanes where the guy in front reclines his seat, leaving you with little vertical space above your tray to put the screen upright. I have a 1680x1200 13" Panasonic Let's Note that is 4:3 and quickly discovered this when the guy sat next to me opened his widescreen 13" MacBook easily in a way I couldn't.
I'd rather have good sized keys than a full layout on a laptop.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Well, since 17" laptops no longer have higher resolutions than 1080p, why not just go with a 15.6" device with a 1080p screen? I'm typing this on a Thinkpad T520 right now, which is more or less what you describe, and has a very standard keyboard as far as laptop keyboards go. Separately grouped F1-F12 keys, grouped Home/End/PgUp/PgDn block and most important: Fully centered due to the lack of a num-block.
https://www.google.com/search?q=thinkpad+t520&hl=de&safe=off&client=firefox-beta&hs=hus&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=0kiSUKjiDsbLhAeltIHYDw&ved=0CGUQsAQ&biw=1002&bih=1025&sei=1kiSUP6eOM7Iswbm2YCYBA
The only thing that's missing is the higher-res screen - 2560x1600 on 15.6" at 100% (96DPI) scaling would be AWESOME...
there is something very wrong with the world.
No shit, Sherlock!
Wrong. They actually do have the advertised number of pixels.
The ipad display was increased exactly by a factor of two to make the scaling of applications easier.
I for one am waiting for the day that Linus and all kernel lieutenants get an MBPro, and suddenly support for those laptops gets decent. Heck, event with the latest Ubuntu, the experience is so far from smooth that it takes me back to the nineties. Except that now I'm older and fiddling around with kernel boot options and config scripts I no more call "fun".
Thank you, this is about the best idea I've heard in the past 10 years...
I just hope somebody picks it up...
Bullshit.
Go fuck yourself you ignorant apple fanboy.
http://www.microcenter.com/product/384780/EQ276W_27_IPS_LED_Monitor Only $399. If you are worried about the brand, get a 3 year warranty for ~$60, or buy the HP for $699. I have certainly enjoyed the upgrade.
DEY TUK ERR SCREENS!!!
You know what drives changes like this. People showing they will pay a premium to have it.
The product has to exist first. I'd gladly pay the price of a standard laptop plus the price of one of these high-res tablets to get the two pieces of hardwaree married (assuming there's linux driver support), and that's a price premium in itself. Except it has to be made by anybody other than Apple - I can't support company that's aggressively using the courts to make my industry worse. OK, not HP either, they have a 24% failure rate, but that leaves a dozen other manufacturers.
But ... so far as I can tell it doesn't exist. My laptop just crapped out so I'll probably get a $500 refurb with a crummy screen, hoping that when that one dies this product will exist. Maybe the tablet market can drive it into being a commodity part, the way HDTV ruined computer displays.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The product has to exist first. I'd gladly pay the price of a standard laptop plus the price of one of these high-res tablets to get the two pieces of hardwaree married (assuming there's linux driver support), and that's a price premium in itself. Except it has to be made by anybody other than Apple - I can't support company that's aggressively using the courts to make my industry worse. OK, not HP either, they have a 24% failure rate, but that leaves a dozen other manufacturers.
But ... so far as I can tell it doesn't exist. My laptop just crapped out so I'll probably get a $500 refurb with a crummy screen, hoping that when that one dies this product will exist. Maybe the tablet market can drive it into being a commodity part, the way HDTV ruined computer displays.
Yes. I am sure there are companies that just can't wait to service it Anti-Apple, Anti-HP, Linux Users, who buy cheap refurbs, but assure us they are willing to spend big bucks if only someone that isn't one of the above companies would ship such a product complete with proper Linux drivers. That market must contain literally Dozens of potential sales.
Keep waiting, I am sure they can't resist that market potential much longer.
You are completely nuts, and uninformed. 2560x1600 is the true pixel resolution of the iPad.
The resolution is 2048x1536 (double of 1024x768 in each dimension). Who is uninformed here?
Except there is NOWHERE for my money to go. I can't vote with my wallet, because every vendor makes the exact same fucking thing, without the slightest variation. This a total failure of the free market.
Uh... this isn't a failure of the free market, this is more that the free market doesn't find serving your demands to be worthwhile. Sorry.
No, 720p is 720 rows with a 16:9 aspect ratio. A common aspect ratio for laptops is 16:10, which gives you 1280x768.
Sounds like the hardware support issues Linux has faced from the beginning, and somehow it happened.
i'd be happy with just WUXGA at 15", like they had back in '05.
[citation needed]
Don't get me wrong, I like high resolutions, but to be honest for my laptop I would much rather an EInk display. I know it won't be able to do video, but at least I could then use my laptop outdoors, by the beach, on my hammock... Talk about programmer job satisfaction going up... Longer battery life to boot, woot!
Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
what i don't understand is why video games running at 1080p
don't look the same like movies running on 1080p?
MOAR pixels will solve that problem?
Linux doesn't play nicely with the Retina display :)
Hey everyone, the reason for this is real simple. LVDS (Low Voltage Differential Signaling) is limited to a maximum resolution of 1400 × 1050 @ 60Hz. Almost all of the laptop panels today interface with the chipset (i.g. Intel 4500MHD) using LVDS. It saves cost, the fact of the matter is that basically all LCD panels made today are driven using LVDS circuitry. HDMI, DVI, RGB, Component , S-Video, RCA, or whatever are merely device to device interconnects. Even TV's are driven internally using LVDS, it's just that they only need to run at 1080p @ 30 Hz; Linus is effectively asking for 1600p @ 60 Hz. That's well beyond the capabilities of an off the shelf commodity LVDS panel.
Manufactures are listening Linus, and have created a new standard called Embedded DisplayPort (eDB). This is what's driving the panel in the new MacBook Pro actually, and now that Intel's new chipset lines support this technology we simply have to wait for economies of scale to bring the prices down on eDB panels. I'll bet at least half the new laptops sold with have eDB panels in them by this time next year... This would really make retailers happy for Christmas shopping.
Linus, I cannot disagree with you at all. Standards should improve, not regress. However I have to put forward the suggestion that this is driven by the interests of computer makers, and not whats best for software makers such as yourself, nor anything to do with what consumers of such a market want. So, like the reasons to create an open-sourced operating system, the reasons for the consumer base to design and build its own hardware has never been stronger. I would encourage anyone reading this, and anyone in the linux environment of organizations, to get to work on making what has been discussed here a reality. Looking up at the discussions of data rates for resolutions such as this, can I suggest small microprocessors at either end of the links to give compression and decompression support to the display links? It can help, and latency shouldn't be a huge issue.
Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
Indeed, it does seem silly that the laptop has enough ram and cpu to work on photographic pieces but here's no chance of appreciating them properly. On the other hand, my laptop was given to me so can't complain too much...
And yet the iPhone 4 was best in its day and better than any OLED produced by Samsung.
So what's your point?
(Note to moderators: feel free to score -1 because this post runs contrary to everything you'd like to believe about Apple.)
Linus already uses a MacBook Air as his laptop. A Retina MBP 13" isn't much different in terms of the hardware except that it has a 2560x1600 display.
There were no such things. There were HD+ (1920x1200) display laptops, but nothing approaching the Retina displays that exist now.
It's painfully obvious that other manufacturers are racing each other to the bottom, which I think is why Apple had to be the company to put a really high-rez display in a really nice laptop.
I'm old enough that I can't even do hipster fashion ironically
But now you're old enough you can do ironic ironically.
Please list the LCD panels that meet or exceed Apple's resolution, that are not bespoke $5000+ models. I can wait until 2014 if you want. I'm sure I'll be waiting long than that for you to come up with your imaginary wheezings.
It's not my fault that Google had to copy every single thing they ever did, including their "premiere" shitware OS for cheap Chinese phones. Please don't be offended by the fact that Apple is the only company making a laptop sturdy enough to actually last, and certainly the only laptop with a decent trackpad.
If you have anything useful to say, please come back and try again once you douche the rat-feces out of your stretched out cunt. Loser.
The real problem is these displays he wants at 11" or 13" just don't exist. Apple are using them, sure, but Apple has been paying for their development and get first dibs on these kinds of displays. Asus and other EMS/CMS have access to them because they build things for Apple (and have a line to the original supplier), but that doesn't mean they can order them in quantity.
If we want to see these displays in products they need to be easily available without pulling a favor or being a large contract manufacturer, and without playing a waiting game or price war with Apple.
And then, we have to deal with Linux being a world full of geeks who love to love black-on-charcoal stereo-equipment themes (because having big, bright buttons and text is "Fisher Price" and not mature enough for them..) and 8 pixel high fonts to fit as much text on their displays as possible. Actually having a Linux desktop that reacts to high DPI displays properly and uses the correct font scaling and application scaling is far, far off and would require significant numbers of developers putting Linux on those devices to test it before anyone sees the benefits..
I agree with Linus, high DPI displays SHOULD be standard, but we're going to have to wait a bit..
Matt Sealey
Product Development Analyst
Genesi USA, Inc.
...and freely distributed like Linux. Monitors for the world!!
Which.. 3 or 4? Sounds like you don't actually know much about what you are saying.
all laptops should have touch screen as well !
Don't you mean "manufacturer's"?
Social Credit would solve everything...
I agree, and the fact that I'm an AC myself means that Obfuscant will probably see this as a conspiracy too, rather than actually get his head out of his rear end.
But maybe we are the same people. Gotta be.
I wouldn't agree that 2560x1600 should be the standard. Ok maybe a high end standard. and I would sure agree that this and similar resolutions should be much more easily available. For example mid/high end pc's should have similiar resolutions at least as an option. But OS's should improve a lot to use all the resolution without making things too small and so do applications which is not truth with many applications as someone pointed out that even Photoshop isn't. And with bigger resolutions thare's an increase of power consumption when rendering 2d/3d efffects as the graphics cards will need to have more memory and use more resources.wich is not desireable in a laptop either (and mobile graphics are still far from desktop graphics not to mention they consume lots of power).The truth is that many people buy notebooks thinking on being able to run 3d games and on a higher resolution screen they have to lower resolution which will be worse than having a lower res 1366x768 screen running at full resolution. And of course 720p and 1080p resolution is better for movies because everything is allways better without upscaling. In the case of windows pc's more sometimes is less. It all depends on what you use the pc for. But again for some types of working it's much more interesting to have a high resolution display but even there it makes a lot of sense to be able to plug a external monitor.I think video cards should allow for bigger resolution external displays. I think the big limitation in here are the graphics cards of notebooks.
They haven't "caught up" with the bandwidth requirements because they've been too busy pushing DRM and "customer frustration" down your throat.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Hint: it's not north of 5 Delta-E out of the box any more. They calibrate retina MacBook Pros at the factory.
(Non-"retina" MBPs, not so much, but then those are traditional 6-bit per channel TN displays. Nicer ones than average notebook TN displays, but still kinda crap for accurate color work no matter how well calibrated they may be.)
its a pitty LCDs arent a standard connector, or are they, can you swap a good old lcd into a new laptop?
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Don't forget portrait mode with a geometrically central mounting point for the display on a telescopic holder, flipback convertible into a tablet with acoustic standing wave Gorilla glass touchscreen, firewire or PoE charging, I don't know what SFP is, but Thunderbolt is more general. 4k display is overkill, be sure to use sequential colour generation LCoS with a fresnel lens - it's easy to construct a transflective configuration with complete internal reflection. Oh, and a big fucking antenna, fit for capturing satelite transmissions, just use half he screen case for a microsrip array. *fap* *fap*
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
Don't look now, but your ignorance is showing.
I used to regularly spend $3K on Macbook Pros before Apple went corporately insane (and ran linux on them). If you knew what you were talking about you'd be familiar with the formerly large effort to support linux on Apple laptops. It was even a Fedora priority at one point.
Now I'm hard-pressed to find a machine that offers reasonable specs, so the desire to spend much money is lacking. You'll see people here posting about the old Dells with high-res screens that they paid just as much for, and all that was when the market was 1/10th its current size. Lenovo for one makes Linux support available on at least most of its models. That's just because they like to waste money, I'm sure.
And maybe Linus is just out of touch with the linux userbase. That could be ... nah, he's not.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I think the problem is that to the average consumer, technical specs like "1920x1200 resolution" are meaningless. Other products have been dumbed down too. Instead of being impressed that a pair of speakers has flat frequency response up to 22kHz, the dumbed-down consumer looks for "ooh, that thingie looks kewl and it has a dock so i think it'll play music from my ipod." And instead of being impressed by a politician who actually grasps the implications of our entitlement programs having $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, they vote for... you get the idea.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Wouldn't it be nice if pivoting displays had caught on more? Landscape orientation is perfect for watching videos, then rotate it 90 degrees and it's the perfect aspect ratio for word processing/coding.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
...because some windows user starts complaining that he can't read the text on the display anymore.
Got a 27" 2560x1440 myself a few months ago. Initially planned to buy a 24", but there's not a single one with a higher resolution than this for any real work unsuitable FullHD. 1080 pixels height is simply not enough (At least for the 21st century), would even be a downgrade from my previous 20" 1600x1200 screen. Usable screens start at 27" again, still shitty 16:9 but at least enough vertical resolution to work with. And the reviews for this display, a Samsung SyncMaster SA850, were filled with comments of windows users that have never heard of increasing their font size (Wouldn't care about them if they wouldn't tend to be that f***ing stupid and the majority at the same time).
Damnit. I have mod points, but I've already posted in this thread.
+1 Bouhahahahaha