If resolutions go up, the bpp could actually be brought down. Dithering won't be visually distinguishable even at let's say 4bpp @ 600ppi. At 100ppi it's definitely distinguishable, of course, because you can distinguish each pixel.
They can still inflate screen sizes even if they go with higher resolutions. The limit will still be basically what people are willing to pay. It'll take a while before wall-sized 1200ppi displays are a commodity.
I do. Photographic images are antialiased by default. Try switching off line-drawing images and suddenly you'll require at least 400-600ppi at regular viewing distances to make the pixels "barely visible". Same for text, which is technically a bunch of line-drawn glyphs. I'm using a 200ppi monitor here and I still need anti-aliasing to make pixels "barely visible".
Not any resolution at any refresh rate. VGA is limited by the display adapter's DAC's speed, which varies from one display adapter to another. Likewise, there are no limits on resolution on DVI, HDMI or DisplayPort either, the limit is in the bandwidth, and there are variation there too. Also, to nitpick, VGA is strictly speaking just 640x480@60Hz. What you are speaking of are nonstandard, hot-rodded VGA signals, something the spec was never intended to drive and the signal is transferred lossy, whereas the digital interfaces are lossless.
It's not bad for video. You can go down to 30Hz, 24Hz or 25Hz to match the video frame rate exactly, if you must. Nothing prevents you from attaching lower res, higher refresh displays and TV's for some games and movies, however. I love playing games in high-res, even if they are limited by the display refresh rate. The monitors are also overclockable up to 60Hz refresh rates (I haven't tried it myself yet). The overclockable parts are the huge FPGA chips driving the panel circuits. To give enough bandwidth to drive them at those refresh rates, you need a pair of HDMI 1.3 outputs with HDMI-DVI adapters or a DisplayPort output with a dual DVI adapter.
You don't know what you are talking about. TFT displays don't flicker even at 1Hz. The contrast is great, so is the colours (8bpp), it has more brightness than I need, I commonly use the range between minimum and half brightness. Low refresh rates on TFT's just translates to a bit more perceived lag for content, but 43Hz isn't bad and I run mine off two DVI outputs resulting in 34Hz, which is good enough even for movies, which are 24Hz to 30Hz anyway.
I tried it when I installed OS X 10.7 Lion, but went back to the regular mode. I don't want big-ass widgets, I want more workspace. All apps don't support the HiDPI modes, but it doesn't matter, because what they draw is just simply scaled up. Here are two screenshots I took from my setup to illustrate what it looks like and how ready the support was at 10.7.0: http://sorsacode.com/3840x2400_HiDPI.png Also nicely illustrates the difference between 1920x1200, which is what Safari thinks the resolution is, and 3840x2400 HiDPI, which the other apps on screen supports. However, I just like smaller widgets better, which looks like this: http://sorsacode.com/3840x2400_regular.png The screen shots are taken on a 22" 3840x2400 VP2290b (rebadged IBM T221) display driven by two single-link heads, hence the menubar split in the middle.
Correct. Typical speckles of dust are a bigger than pixels at 200ppi. Not really an issue and I bet most complainers have large enough dust particles on even their low-res displays covering several pixels at the moment.
Those lines weren't really much thicker than the lines between each sub-pixel on current low-res TFT's. It would take a long time to find them, if you weren't looking, and when you found them, they'd be just as obvious as a stuck or dead pixel on a TFT, even if you hadn't noticed it before.
I have one of those also and it works with most single-link DVI outputs. I have had just one case, with an Intel GMA 950, which couldn't supply the bandwidth, so I had to cut down the size to 2040x1152. Those 8 rows made all the difference in bandwidth and I suspect it's a flaw in the display adapter. Maximum resolutions are in any case just a function of bandwidth. You can go higher, if you drop the refresh rate. The formula is quite easy; required bandwidth in bytes = width * height * bytes per pixel * frames per second. So, for instance the 2048x1152x3x60 requires 405MB/sec (or 3.24Gbps), which is still within the limits of what a single-link DVI should provide: 3.96Gbps / 495GB/sec.
You are just nitpicking here. Manufacturing displays is much like manufacturing integrated circuits. You can use the density of the manufacturing process to either make many smaller area devices per silicon wafer or glass substrate or fewer larger devices with the same density. Same goes for paper. For an A3-sized printer, you could print one A3-sized image, two A4-sized images, four A5-sized images, sixteen A6-sized images etc.
Like, I'd much rather use all those extra pixels to increase my work area since I don't need all that many of them to resolve text.
It's actually both. I get increased work area as well as high-enough resolution for reading print media like PDF's with fullscreen scaling, without having to zoom and pan on the detailed parts.
There simply isn't enough oopmh on current display adapters to drive a extra-high res display at >60FPS in bleeding-edge games.
Gamers were happy with 320x200 resolutions back when 800x600 and 1024x768 were considered a regular productivity resolutions. Anyway, current display adapters aren't an issue. The lowend, decade-old equivalent low-end display adapters are, but who in their right mind would play high-res modern games on those?
Printer resolution has nothing to do with pixel (dot) size.
It has everything to do with pixel (dot) size. The only difference is for halftone vs blended shades per dot/pixel. Some printers (dye-sublimation and such) mix the color dots instead of rasterizing. PPI and DPI are equivalent, when viewing high-contrast shapes, like text.
I got one of those a few years ago and I agree with you fully; nothing replaces one productivity-wise, except maybe another. Allows editing end viewing up to around 1500 lines of code without scrolling per monitor at once, when using eight 80-char columns (or five columns in portrait mode). The 200ppi of it is easily viewable even with the smallest font sizes (9pt monaco is my favourite terminal/code font) from 1m or so, while wearing glasses (or having naturally good vision). I'd actually welcome a 400ppi display of equivalent (or larger) physical size, would allow getting rid of most of the anti-aliasing. 200ppi isn't enough to obscure the jagginess of aliased lines. I also love the smaller widgets not taking up a major share of the workspace, like they do on low-definition displays. One issue they had a decade ago, while these monitors were still produced, was inadequate display connector bandwidth, that's why early models required four DVI heads to drive the monitor at full refresh rates (or lower refresh rates with fewer heads). Later models added dual-link DVI support (two dual-link heads with the same effect as four single-links). Nowadays, however, we have things like DisplayPort 1.2, which can easily deliver the bandwidth required, so connectivity is no longer an excuse. As for games, you can drop anti-aliasing and details for higher framerates (without making the graphics look awful) in cases where your GPU isn't powerful enough or the game is too demanding for your GPU. Most of the current games run fine at full res and details using a few years old GPU (ATI 4870 in my case). People complaining about blurriness should have their vision checked and get some glasses or contact lenses. Those people are a traffic hazard anyway if they can't see properly, whether they admit it or not. 200ppi and higher from normal viewing distances and normal vision is perfectly usable. 3840x2400 to 1920x1200 is like 1600x1200 is to 800x600. Once you up the resolution, you are not going back.
Amiga actually had a lot of viruses. It was the #1 virus platform before Windows 95 (and its successors). Almost all of them were boot block viruses, which spread via bootable copied game floppies from one machine to the next, not the remote-installed stuff.
Slashdot wasn't about the breaking news even back then. The Slashdot effect was mostly about underpowered servers, bandwidth limitations and slow http daemons running even slower html generator scripts. Slashdot was and is mostly about the flame wars in comments.
Slashdot Mirror
If resolutions go up, the bpp could actually be brought down. Dithering won't be visually distinguishable even at let's say 4bpp @ 600ppi. At 100ppi it's definitely distinguishable, of course, because you can distinguish each pixel.
Laptop displays aren't more expensive than desktop displays. They are the same kind of panels, just in a different package.
They can still inflate screen sizes even if they go with higher resolutions. The limit will still be basically what people are willing to pay. It'll take a while before wall-sized 1200ppi displays are a commodity.
I do. Photographic images are antialiased by default. Try switching off line-drawing images and suddenly you'll require at least 400-600ppi at regular viewing distances to make the pixels "barely visible". Same for text, which is technically a bunch of line-drawn glyphs. I'm using a 200ppi monitor here and I still need anti-aliasing to make pixels "barely visible".
Not any resolution at any refresh rate. VGA is limited by the display adapter's DAC's speed, which varies from one display adapter to another. Likewise, there are no limits on resolution on DVI, HDMI or DisplayPort either, the limit is in the bandwidth, and there are variation there too. Also, to nitpick, VGA is strictly speaking just 640x480@60Hz. What you are speaking of are nonstandard, hot-rodded VGA signals, something the spec was never intended to drive and the signal is transferred lossy, whereas the digital interfaces are lossless.
It's not bad for video. You can go down to 30Hz, 24Hz or 25Hz to match the video frame rate exactly, if you must. Nothing prevents you from attaching lower res, higher refresh displays and TV's for some games and movies, however. I love playing games in high-res, even if they are limited by the display refresh rate. The monitors are also overclockable up to 60Hz refresh rates (I haven't tried it myself yet). The overclockable parts are the huge FPGA chips driving the panel circuits. To give enough bandwidth to drive them at those refresh rates, you need a pair of HDMI 1.3 outputs with HDMI-DVI adapters or a DisplayPort output with a dual DVI adapter.
You don't know what you are talking about. TFT displays don't flicker even at 1Hz. The contrast is great, so is the colours (8bpp), it has more brightness than I need, I commonly use the range between minimum and half brightness. Low refresh rates on TFT's just translates to a bit more perceived lag for content, but 43Hz isn't bad and I run mine off two DVI outputs resulting in 34Hz, which is good enough even for movies, which are 24Hz to 30Hz anyway.
I tried it when I installed OS X 10.7 Lion, but went back to the regular mode. I don't want big-ass widgets, I want more workspace. All apps don't support the HiDPI modes, but it doesn't matter, because what they draw is just simply scaled up. Here are two screenshots I took from my setup to illustrate what it looks like and how ready the support was at 10.7.0: http://sorsacode.com/3840x2400_HiDPI.png
Also nicely illustrates the difference between 1920x1200, which is what Safari thinks the resolution is, and 3840x2400 HiDPI, which the other apps on screen supports. However, I just like smaller widgets better, which looks like this: http://sorsacode.com/3840x2400_regular.png
The screen shots are taken on a 22" 3840x2400 VP2290b (rebadged IBM T221) display driven by two single-link heads, hence the menubar split in the middle.
Correct. Typical speckles of dust are a bigger than pixels at 200ppi. Not really an issue and I bet most complainers have large enough dust particles on even their low-res displays covering several pixels at the moment.
Those lines weren't really much thicker than the lines between each sub-pixel on current low-res TFT's. It would take a long time to find them, if you weren't looking, and when you found them, they'd be just as obvious as a stuck or dead pixel on a TFT, even if you hadn't noticed it before.
Sorry, 495MB/sec for the latter.
I have one of those also and it works with most single-link DVI outputs. I have had just one case, with an Intel GMA 950, which couldn't supply the bandwidth, so I had to cut down the size to 2040x1152. Those 8 rows made all the difference in bandwidth and I suspect it's a flaw in the display adapter.
Maximum resolutions are in any case just a function of bandwidth. You can go higher, if you drop the refresh rate. The formula is quite easy; required bandwidth in bytes = width * height * bytes per pixel * frames per second. So, for instance the 2048x1152x3x60 requires 405MB/sec (or 3.24Gbps), which is still within the limits of what a single-link DVI should provide: 3.96Gbps / 495GB/sec.
You are just nitpicking here. Manufacturing displays is much like manufacturing integrated circuits. You can use the density of the manufacturing process to either make many smaller area devices per silicon wafer or glass substrate or fewer larger devices with the same density. Same goes for paper. For an A3-sized printer, you could print one A3-sized image, two A4-sized images, four A5-sized images, sixteen A6-sized images etc.
Like, I'd much rather use all those extra pixels to increase my work area since I don't need all that many of them to resolve text.
It's actually both. I get increased work area as well as high-enough resolution for reading print media like PDF's with fullscreen scaling, without having to zoom and pan on the detailed parts.
Or for an equivalent price, an second-hand 200ppi, 22" 3840x2400 IBM T221 IPS display (or one of its rebranded clones, like ViewSonic VP2290b).
There simply isn't enough oopmh on current display adapters to drive a extra-high res display at >60FPS in bleeding-edge games.
Gamers were happy with 320x200 resolutions back when 800x600 and 1024x768 were considered a regular productivity resolutions. Anyway, current display adapters aren't an issue. The lowend, decade-old equivalent low-end display adapters are, but who in their right mind would play high-res modern games on those?
Printer resolution has nothing to do with pixel (dot) size.
It has everything to do with pixel (dot) size. The only difference is for halftone vs blended shades per dot/pixel. Some printers (dye-sublimation and such) mix the color dots instead of rasterizing.
PPI and DPI are equivalent, when viewing high-contrast shapes, like text.
I got one of those a few years ago and I agree with you fully; nothing replaces one productivity-wise, except maybe another. Allows editing end viewing up to around 1500 lines of code without scrolling per monitor at once, when using eight 80-char columns (or five columns in portrait mode). The 200ppi of it is easily viewable even with the smallest font sizes (9pt monaco is my favourite terminal/code font) from 1m or so, while wearing glasses (or having naturally good vision). I'd actually welcome a 400ppi display of equivalent (or larger) physical size, would allow getting rid of most of the anti-aliasing. 200ppi isn't enough to obscure the jagginess of aliased lines. I also love the smaller widgets not taking up a major share of the workspace, like they do on low-definition displays.
One issue they had a decade ago, while these monitors were still produced, was inadequate display connector bandwidth, that's why early models required four DVI heads to drive the monitor at full refresh rates (or lower refresh rates with fewer heads). Later models added dual-link DVI support (two dual-link heads with the same effect as four single-links). Nowadays, however, we have things like DisplayPort 1.2, which can easily deliver the bandwidth required, so connectivity is no longer an excuse. As for games, you can drop anti-aliasing and details for higher framerates (without making the graphics look awful) in cases where your GPU isn't powerful enough or the game is too demanding for your GPU. Most of the current games run fine at full res and details using a few years old GPU (ATI 4870 in my case).
People complaining about blurriness should have their vision checked and get some glasses or contact lenses. Those people are a traffic hazard anyway if they can't see properly, whether they admit it or not. 200ppi and higher from normal viewing distances and normal vision is perfectly usable.
3840x2400 to 1920x1200 is like 1600x1200 is to 800x600. Once you up the resolution, you are not going back.
Well, there could literally be astrounaut shit there. They probably didn't bring all their excrement back to earth.
Apple is actually sandboxing all apps by default in 10.8 "Mountain Lion"
Amiga actually had a lot of viruses. It was the #1 virus platform before Windows 95 (and its successors). Almost all of them were boot block viruses, which spread via bootable copied game floppies from one machine to the next, not the remote-installed stuff.
According to the first link in your linked article, the iPad2 beat the Tegra 3 by a very good margin: http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Asus-Eee-Pad-Transformer-Prime-Preview/?page=7
That's entirely true. Almost no-one is on such slow connections. To transfer an entire byte on a 30mbit/sec connection, you'd need over 4 seconds.
Am I the only one this reminded of the self-destructing media devices in Mission:Impossible?
Slashdot wasn't about the breaking news even back then. The Slashdot effect was mostly about underpowered servers, bandwidth limitations and slow http daemons running even slower html generator scripts. Slashdot was and is mostly about the flame wars in comments.