But you do need a good GPU to run it unless you only plan to run office software. Even slight dipping in gaming, video rendering and so on requires a high end GPU (or in some cases CPU) to work properly.
This is especially visible in phones, where lower end models with decent screens can't run certain games at all, or run them very badly. And where most games could have had graphical fidelity near modern PC game if it ran in resolution proper for the small screen, instead had to run in low fidelity because it's native in huge and unneeded resolution.
The fact is that shoving resolution that is too high is harmful to performance of the machine and to its battery life.
Are you seriously arguing that having resolution of 768p instead of say, 1080p on work laptops impacts work efficiency in meaningful and measurable way for someone outside tiny minority of "videophiles"? Please do site source for such a sweeping and insane-sound claim.
"Pixellated mess"? For who? Vast majority of people, including myself barely see the difference outside vector graphics. Vast majority of work is not vector graphics.
Also, do you know what's the definition for something that is cheap and good enough? Efficient
On the last note: no one except a few "hardcore audiophile" level of special people cares about resolution higher than 1080p/(1200p 16:10 for those who prefer more vertical space) on a laptop. The absolute screen size is not big enough to justify the cost, the battery burning from having to run the big screen and the huge gpu that needs to power it for anything beyond office work.
There is a reason why most people prefer to buy a 768p laptop today just like they did for last decade. Because it's the sweet spot between needed GPU performance, battery savings, and screen that is good enough for both work and gaming as needed.
So yes, please do keep up with the discussion instead of changing the topic onto display equivalent of "why you should burn in those headphones, because otherwise they don't sound as good!"
I'll repeat myself. I had a laptop bought during this exact time that you claim such laptops weren't for sale. And I distinctly recall picking between that and 1080p laptop, and ending up with the 1024p because I wanted 16:10 screen and didn't want to pay more than 1500€ for GPU powerful enough to run games on it at decent FPS.
You can try to lie about it all you want. It doesn't change the fact that at no point during this millenium did laptops with high resolutions go away. They just became much less popular because most people do not need or even want those resolutions. But if you did want it, you had a huge array of choices ranging from mid and high end business laptops to high end gaming laptops. You just had to be willing to pay extra that most people weren't because they didn't see the point. I don't see the point either now that I don't need a laptop that can run games more powerful than LoL and SC2.
The other option is that you're not lying - you're just either very bad at looking or you live in a remote country with very bad access to laptops or even sanctions that prevent sales of high end laptops. In which case your experience doesn't really correlate with much of the world.
I see what you did there. We're all talking about nvidia and intel and you decided that discussion doesn't really matter at all and went on to talk about powervr.
Since we're on the line of being pants on the hat stupid, let's talk about pants. I'm pretty sure they're worn on the legs!
Somewhere along 2006 or so you stopped being able to get laptops with high resolutions beyond that shitty 1366x768 or so. Until Apple came out with MacBook Retina, that was all that was available.
Is bullshit. 1080p laptops, 1024p (16:10 laptops) and so on where plentiful. I had 1024p laptop bought in 2006 or so. I was choosing between that and 1080p laptop as I had a need for larger resolution performance laptop back in university as my main machine while traveling.
Now that I need a battery power focused one with occasional gaming bout, I have a 768p laptop that can run games for about 3 hours off batteries. And was cheap to boot.
All of these were available regardless of actions of any single PC manufacturer for the entire duration of this millenium. In fact, my father's work dell had a 1600x1200 screen back in 2000 or so. It ran windows2000 and it was a pretty weird laptop, but durable as hell. Afaik it still works.
Market disagrees. Vast majority of PCs sold, both desktop and laptop run intel's intergrated graphics. Most of them are the older GMA chipsets, but quite a few desktops nowadays run on intel's HD GPUs that come with the CPU.
The fact that intel is about half a decade or more behind nvidia in GPU tech, and nvidia revealing its internals to this extent would allow competition to catch up much faster than it otherwise would.
You opened up with a rather strange lie about availability of laptops with screens with resolutions bigger than 768p (ten seconds on google will give you thousands of hits on laptops with higher resolution, for sale now), then proceeded to tell us how different you are from others because you have an apple laptop (oh everyone is so .
Do you even understand that this was in no way a personal attack? I simply pointed out the severe logical and factual problems in your post.
As noted, "approximately". And the problem is, that unlike with pixels, color banding is an on/off kind of thing. Either you have enough of it or you don't.
That's why even basic CRTs are excellent for professional work, so long as you adjust convergence and geometry, while even IPS panels are not good enough, no matter how much you calibrate the color space.
You can. It requires some hacking. Specifically you need a custom ROM. The advantage is that hardware is still the basic intel x86/amd64 so windows will run. The main issue is finding windows drivers for some of the hardware. This came as my first google search result: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5crPfEAhvs
This is one place where "think of the children" is actually appropriate, because it's usually the children that suffer the consequences rather than adults.
I keep being reminded of the fairly recent case where a British newspaper dared to run an article on vegan parents that put their children on vegan diet with same supplements they were taking themselves.
Result was stunted growth, rotting teeth and other fun stuff that comes from severe deficiency of certain minerals. And their case is far from unique.
Frankly, I think that for all the evil that "think of the children" approach has done to the world, making children pay for obvious mistakes done by their adults should be minimized by society whenever possible. Especially when education would solve the problem easily.
You can get 1080p laptops just fine. You just need to pay a reasonable premium. It's not even much, 1080p screens on laptops are well below 1000EUR and those come with much better specs to boot.
Fact is, people find 768p good enough. That's why they sell. And I have no idea why you think people are "driven nuts" by your apple PC. Far more likely scenario is that they are driven nuts by your annoying need to point it out and show how much better than others you are for owning an apple product.
Except that you need approximately true 24bit to go over our eye's ability to differentiate between colors. If you recall, the main reason why company behind the consumer 3D graphics accelerators, 3dfx tanked specifically because it could only offer cards that could output 16bit (visible banding) vs nvidia who's TNT series could output 32bit.
Of course, back then we had CRT monitors that could display that color space, making difference between two visible to the naked eye immediately. After we switched to LCD panels, which offered better color geometry (no need for convergence) but massive collapse in the color space that monitors and television are able to output.
Win8 is climbing because it's almost impossible to buy a gaming PC with 7 today. And gamers, unlike most people, actually need new hardware to play new games.
And you can use a mouse and keyboard on android tablets too. It works almost as well as mouse and keyboard on win8. That is, terribly badly because interface is in no way designed for it.
Indeed. And vast majority of people cannot tell. At all. Almost entire thing can be summed by two words: "placebo effect".
Some tiny minority can tell the difference at normal viewing distances. Most of those that claim that can actually cannot. You require perfect eyesight AND on top of it a trained eye to see it. Brutal medical statistics suggest that there are simply not enough people that meet the criteria. Our eyes are simply not durable enough nor good enough.
On the other hand, a much bigger problem seen by almost everyone in terms of graphical fidelity is color banding. And yet, even apple, the supposed darling of "making stuff look as natural as possible" keeps shoving IPS panels into its phones. These panels cannot display enough colors to avoid banding.
Reality is, neither is all that important. Our eyes get used to whatever image we see very quickly. It's an evolved trait that is possessed by essentially everyone, both those with good vision and bad, those fully color blind or not. What's important is that it's good enough so that your eyes can adapt to it within a few minutes of usage.
As a result, 1366x768 is good enough. Because outside the hipster talk, people choose functionality over pricey hipster cred. That's why these cheap laptops sell truckloads while expensive stuff can't match its volume. Just like they do with audio and audiophiles. It has to be functional, and good enough. Rest is for the tiny minority that demand the absolute best to the point of hallucinating about potential advantages when there are none.
Not going to be enough. They'd have to axe all of the touch centric solutions like the sliding bars, hot corners and so on. Desktop functions well as a mouse driven interface, and mouse and touch interfaces are mutually exclusive in many of their requirements.
The main reason for 8's catastrophic failure is the fact that it pushed for touch centric desktop, leaving everyone using mouse/keyboard or mouse only with a crippled interface that simply didn't work properly. Start menu is just one of the most obvious examples of this design paradigm, but there are many others.
Slashdot Mirror
But you do need a good GPU to run it unless you only plan to run office software. Even slight dipping in gaming, video rendering and so on requires a high end GPU (or in some cases CPU) to work properly.
This is especially visible in phones, where lower end models with decent screens can't run certain games at all, or run them very badly. And where most games could have had graphical fidelity near modern PC game if it ran in resolution proper for the small screen, instead had to run in low fidelity because it's native in huge and unneeded resolution.
The fact is that shoving resolution that is too high is harmful to performance of the machine and to its battery life.
Are you seriously arguing that having resolution of 768p instead of say, 1080p on work laptops impacts work efficiency in meaningful and measurable way for someone outside tiny minority of "videophiles"? Please do site source for such a sweeping and insane-sound claim.
"Pixellated mess"? For who? Vast majority of people, including myself barely see the difference outside vector graphics. Vast majority of work is not vector graphics.
Also, do you know what's the definition for something that is cheap and good enough? Efficient
On the last note: no one except a few "hardcore audiophile" level of special people cares about resolution higher than 1080p/(1200p 16:10 for those who prefer more vertical space) on a laptop. The absolute screen size is not big enough to justify the cost, the battery burning from having to run the big screen and the huge gpu that needs to power it for anything beyond office work.
There is a reason why most people prefer to buy a 768p laptop today just like they did for last decade. Because it's the sweet spot between needed GPU performance, battery savings, and screen that is good enough for both work and gaming as needed.
So yes, please do keep up with the discussion instead of changing the topic onto display equivalent of "why you should burn in those headphones, because otherwise they don't sound as good!"
I'll repeat myself. I had a laptop bought during this exact time that you claim such laptops weren't for sale. And I distinctly recall picking between that and 1080p laptop, and ending up with the 1024p because I wanted 16:10 screen and didn't want to pay more than 1500€ for GPU powerful enough to run games on it at decent FPS.
You can try to lie about it all you want. It doesn't change the fact that at no point during this millenium did laptops with high resolutions go away. They just became much less popular because most people do not need or even want those resolutions. But if you did want it, you had a huge array of choices ranging from mid and high end business laptops to high end gaming laptops. You just had to be willing to pay extra that most people weren't because they didn't see the point. I don't see the point either now that I don't need a laptop that can run games more powerful than LoL and SC2.
The other option is that you're not lying - you're just either very bad at looking or you live in a remote country with very bad access to laptops or even sanctions that prevent sales of high end laptops. In which case your experience doesn't really correlate with much of the world.
This is the problem with extreme right. They think there is a major left winged media left in existence in modern West.
I see what you did there. We're all talking about nvidia and intel and you decided that discussion doesn't really matter at all and went on to talk about powervr.
Since we're on the line of being pants on the hat stupid, let's talk about pants. I'm pretty sure they're worn on the legs!
Color depth set in the OS is largely irrelevant, as display will only display what it can.
That's nice.
We're still talking about huge market of gaming GPUs, not the tiny market of compute GPUs.
Considering the lethality of low level radiation, this is quite possibly the most inefficient way to slaughter the entire class of people ever.
What exactly do you call "real work"? Are myriad of people keeping the companies rolling, that mostly use office not doing real work?
GMA comes on a mobo. More modern HD comes on CPU.
Somewhere along 2006 or so you stopped being able to get laptops with high resolutions beyond that shitty 1366x768 or so. Until Apple came out with MacBook Retina, that was all that was available.
Is bullshit. 1080p laptops, 1024p (16:10 laptops) and so on where plentiful. I had 1024p laptop bought in 2006 or so. I was choosing between that and 1080p laptop as I had a need for larger resolution performance laptop back in university as my main machine while traveling.
Now that I need a battery power focused one with occasional gaming bout, I have a 768p laptop that can run games for about 3 hours off batteries. And was cheap to boot.
All of these were available regardless of actions of any single PC manufacturer for the entire duration of this millenium. In fact, my father's work dell had a 1600x1200 screen back in 2000 or so. It ran windows2000 and it was a pretty weird laptop, but durable as hell. Afaik it still works.
Market disagrees. Vast majority of PCs sold, both desktop and laptop run intel's intergrated graphics. Most of them are the older GMA chipsets, but quite a few desktops nowadays run on intel's HD GPUs that come with the CPU.
The fact that intel is about half a decade or more behind nvidia in GPU tech, and nvidia revealing its internals to this extent would allow competition to catch up much faster than it otherwise would.
Let's see:
You opened up with a rather strange lie about availability of laptops with screens with resolutions bigger than 768p (ten seconds on google will give you thousands of hits on laptops with higher resolution, for sale now), then proceeded to tell us how different you are from others because you have an apple laptop (oh everyone is so .
Do you even understand that this was in no way a personal attack? I simply pointed out the severe logical and factual problems in your post.
As noted, "approximately". And the problem is, that unlike with pixels, color banding is an on/off kind of thing. Either you have enough of it or you don't.
That's why even basic CRTs are excellent for professional work, so long as you adjust convergence and geometry, while even IPS panels are not good enough, no matter how much you calibrate the color space.
You can. It requires some hacking. Specifically you need a custom ROM. The advantage is that hardware is still the basic intel x86/amd64 so windows will run. The main issue is finding windows drivers for some of the hardware.
This came as my first google search result:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5crPfEAhvs
This is one place where "think of the children" is actually appropriate, because it's usually the children that suffer the consequences rather than adults.
I keep being reminded of the fairly recent case where a British newspaper dared to run an article on vegan parents that put their children on vegan diet with same supplements they were taking themselves.
Result was stunted growth, rotting teeth and other fun stuff that comes from severe deficiency of certain minerals. And their case is far from unique.
Frankly, I think that for all the evil that "think of the children" approach has done to the world, making children pay for obvious mistakes done by their adults should be minimized by society whenever possible. Especially when education would solve the problem easily.
You can get 1080p laptops just fine. You just need to pay a reasonable premium. It's not even much, 1080p screens on laptops are well below 1000EUR and those come with much better specs to boot.
Fact is, people find 768p good enough. That's why they sell. And I have no idea why you think people are "driven nuts" by your apple PC. Far more likely scenario is that they are driven nuts by your annoying need to point it out and show how much better than others you are for owning an apple product.
Except that you need approximately true 24bit to go over our eye's ability to differentiate between colors. If you recall, the main reason why company behind the consumer 3D graphics accelerators, 3dfx tanked specifically because it could only offer cards that could output 16bit (visible banding) vs nvidia who's TNT series could output 32bit.
Of course, back then we had CRT monitors that could display that color space, making difference between two visible to the naked eye immediately. After we switched to LCD panels, which offered better color geometry (no need for convergence) but massive collapse in the color space that monitors and television are able to output.
Win8 is climbing because it's almost impossible to buy a gaming PC with 7 today. And gamers, unlike most people, actually need new hardware to play new games.
And you can use a mouse and keyboard on android tablets too. It works almost as well as mouse and keyboard on win8. That is, terribly badly because interface is in no way designed for it.
Imagine when parents do find out and attempt to ban potassium intake, with all the severe health problems such ban would cause.
Now that would be nasty.
Indeed. And vast majority of people cannot tell. At all. Almost entire thing can be summed by two words: "placebo effect".
Some tiny minority can tell the difference at normal viewing distances. Most of those that claim that can actually cannot. You require perfect eyesight AND on top of it a trained eye to see it. Brutal medical statistics suggest that there are simply not enough people that meet the criteria. Our eyes are simply not durable enough nor good enough.
On the other hand, a much bigger problem seen by almost everyone in terms of graphical fidelity is color banding. And yet, even apple, the supposed darling of "making stuff look as natural as possible" keeps shoving IPS panels into its phones. These panels cannot display enough colors to avoid banding.
Reality is, neither is all that important. Our eyes get used to whatever image we see very quickly. It's an evolved trait that is possessed by essentially everyone, both those with good vision and bad, those fully color blind or not. What's important is that it's good enough so that your eyes can adapt to it within a few minutes of usage.
As a result, 1366x768 is good enough. Because outside the hipster talk, people choose functionality over pricey hipster cred. That's why these cheap laptops sell truckloads while expensive stuff can't match its volume. Just like they do with audio and audiophiles. It has to be functional, and good enough. Rest is for the tiny minority that demand the absolute best to the point of hallucinating about potential advantages when there are none.
Not going to be enough. They'd have to axe all of the touch centric solutions like the sliding bars, hot corners and so on. Desktop functions well as a mouse driven interface, and mouse and touch interfaces are mutually exclusive in many of their requirements.
The main reason for 8's catastrophic failure is the fact that it pushed for touch centric desktop, leaving everyone using mouse/keyboard or mouse only with a crippled interface that simply didn't work properly. Start menu is just one of the most obvious examples of this design paradigm, but there are many others.