Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

HDTV Has Ruined the LCD Market

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the but-it's-got-raisins-you-like-raisins dept.

Displays 952

alvin67 writes "Microsoft Evangelist Pete Brown rants about the lack of pixels available in today's LCD screens: 'OK, that's it. I've had it. I want my pixels, damn it! For a while, screen resolution has been going up on our desktop displays. The trend was good, as I've always wanted the largest monitor with the highest DPI that I could afford. I mean, I used to have one of the first hulking 17-inch CRTs on my desk. I later upgraded to a 21-inch job that was so huge, that if you didn't stick it in a corner, it took up the whole desk. It was flat-panel, though and full of pixels. It cost me around $1,100 at the time." After some years of improvements, we've regressed, in Brown's opinion: "At the rate we were going for a while, we should have had twice or three times the DPI on a 24- or 23-inch screen. But nooo."

cancel ×

952 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

30 inch HP LP3605 here @ 2560x1600 (1, Interesting)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31948738)

And it cost me an ass load 2 years ago.

Re:30 inch HP LP3605 here @ 2560x1600 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31948764)

2048x1152 24" $180 more than a year ago

It's Phillip / Sony that lead the let down ! (2, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949194)

Do you know what causes the regression?

Phillip and Sony !

Unlike the great job Phillip / Sony team did for the CD, they have led a big let down on the LCD.

Sony didn't even want to go LCD - they thought LCD TV is just a temporary fad !

And Phillips? They pulled out of the LCD business (production side) altogether and sold their 50% shares to LG of Korea.

Which resulted in the Koreans (Samsung and LG) became the de-facto leaders of LCD manufacturing business and there were no competition for couple of years.

With no competition there was no urge of improvement. All the Koreans were doing was building larger and larger plants to produce larger and larger panels, while still giving us UTTER CRAP in terms of resolutions.

It took them like 5 years before they even gave us the HD 720i resolution, 3 more years before the 1080i resolution and another 3 more years before HD 1080p became available !

And the Japanese aren't making progress either. Toshiba / Sharp / Panasonic were all very late into LCD. Instead of concentrating on LCD, the Japanese were exploring other options and they wasted almost half a decade before realize that LCD is the way to go.

Re:30 inch HP LP3605 here @ 2560x1600 (3, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31948872)

I think Mr 'Evangelist' Brown should accept the fact that cramming more and more pixels into displays will make them more and more expensive. Since LCD displays have become commodity items in the PC market people want them to be good quality and cheap, not super duper mega high quality & pixel count and very very expensive. The normal consumer doesn't have a need for a shit load of pixel so he needs to find an HDTV maker who will deliver on to his desk so he can stop whining about it.

BTW, if this is his biggest complaint about things then he's got it pretty easy and obviously doesn't have enough to worry about.

Re:30 inch HP LP3605 here @ 2560x1600 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31949178)

I think Mr 'Evangelist' Brown should accept the fact that cramming more and more pixels into displays will make them more and more expensive

Yes, you're absolutely right. Let's halt all forward progress right here and now because new technology tends to be more expensive. Why, oh why did we ever progress past 640x480? If we'd just stayed there, screens would be ten for a dollar by now.

Intel, AMD take note as well - those faster processors that come out, costing more because they're new and faster - we don't want them. NVidia, no one wants better graphics if it comes as a cost - stop right now with your stupid ideas of "progress".

In fact, why don't we just close Slashdot? There's no need to discuss new technologies, so we've probably said all we need to say, and no further discussion is necessary.

Nice knowing you all.

Bye bye.

Re:30 inch HP LP3605 here @ 2560x1600 (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31949254)

Whoosh.

I don't agree with GP but I understand that as things are moving to newer display technologies trying to wring more and more out of what is now a low cost and low profit-margin technology isn't the smartest move.

Invest heavily in trying to get the last drops out something that's going to be passé in short order? Nice knowing your company.

Bye bye.

Re:30 inch HP LP3605 here @ 2560x1600 (2, Interesting)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949002)

That's the problem; 2560x1600 is basically just 2x 1600x1200, which has been available for... I don't even know. Surely over a decade.

Re:30 inch HP LP3605 here @ 2560x1600 (1)

PIBM (588930) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949100)

I went 30 inch dell 2560x1600 over 3 years ago for less than 1K. I though it was a bargain. And now multiple of those is what I use :)

Wait.... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31948746)

what?

Higher DPI and Gamut, please! (4, Interesting)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 4 years ago | (#31948774)

When Windows Vista added better support for high DPI and scRGB for 16-bit-per-component color with higher gamuts, I was really looking forward to some awesome screens. Given that screens stopped being able to compete with response times and contrast, it seemed like the next thing for them to go for. Unfortunately, it's basically just been ignored.

Perhaps nobody else cares? (5, Insightful)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#31948778)

Seriously, I used to hunt for pixels too, but after about 1280x1024 I stopped caring.

I don't like my desktop at much higher resolution than that, it becomes uncomfortable. I know gamers and drafters really want giant screens at massive resolutions, but besides them who else really wants it? 2560x2048 resolution doesn't exactly help me see my web pages or documents any better - in fact it can make them downright hard to see, so why do I need it?

Unfortunately for Pete Brown, I think more people fall into my category than do his, or he wouldn't have anything to complain about.

Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (3, Insightful)

dotgain (630123) | more than 4 years ago | (#31948826)

I know gamers and drafters really want giant screens at massive resolutions, but besides them who else really wants it?

People with good eyesight who use complicated applications or requirements.

Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (1, Insightful)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#31948922)

Most would just get another display, or several - particularly if it's multiple applications. I could see it for a single complicated app though.

Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (2, Interesting)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949082)

Another display will not increase the resolution (dpi) on the one display you have. I rarely wish more physical space on my display. What I'd like is higher resolution.

Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (-1, Troll)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949318)

Yeah, that's what I want-- to read 4pt type. Pages of it. For hours. Days, maybe. With binoculars. Yeah, big binoculars.

Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (4, Funny)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31948942)

People with good eyesight who use complicated applications or requirements.

How does one use a requirement?

Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (4, Funny)

Neil Hodges (960909) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949004)

How does one use a requirement?

Well, some people often abuse requirements, so using a requirement is probably similar to that.

Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (5, Insightful)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#31948838)

I know gamers and drafters really want giant screens at massive resolutions, but besides them who else really wants it? 2560x2048 resolution doesn't exactly help me see my web pages or documents any better - in fact it can make them downright hard to see, so why do I need it?

This is a combination of bad UI in operating systems and programs, and user cluelessness about how to make use of high resolution displays. What you want to do is configure your system to display things larger. The OS and programs should make sure they either default to that on a high res display, or at least make it really apparent that you should with popup boxes when you first set up the machine/program.

Some OSes and programs also don't always work well with very large size fonts, though modern ones should.

You really WANT super-high res displays with 'normal' size letters - your text will be far crisper that way than even font smudging, err, anti-aliasing, at lower resolutions.

Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (3, Insightful)

Jazz-Masta (240659) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949000)

This is a combination of bad UI in operating systems and programs, and user cluelessness about how to make use of high resolution displays.

It is mostly bad UI.

Changing the font size or DPI settings in Windows wreaks havoc on many programs. Some mainstream applications handle it nicely, but a change to either setting destroys a number of industry applications that my clients use.

Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (5, Insightful)

tsotha (720379) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949070)

This is a combination of bad UI in operating systems and programs, and user cluelessness about how to make use of high resolution displays.

This is something that drives me crazy. I bought a screen with a relatively high DPI, and on half the websites I visit now the content is provided on some kind of fixed size (in pixels) flash thingee. It sits in the upper left corner of my monitor and I need a magnifying glass to read it. A higher DPI makes for some ultra-smooth fonts and allows for detailed images, but only if the moron creating content didn't decide to do everything in pixels.

Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (1)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949266)

A higher DPI makes for some ultra-smooth fonts and allows for detailed images, but only if the moron creating content didn't decide to do everything in pixels.

There are these things called "pictures", "images" or "photos" that some "morons" creating content like to use... they tend to be measured in pixels, and you know what, the "morons" decide they need to link their content to these "picture" things for something called "aesthetics".

Practically speaking, DPI independence is hard as soon as you leave the world of text and generated graphical elements; making a case for designing to support both average and high res displays is a difficult one given effort vs expected return/utility.

Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31949304)

May I also add my support to the "Know what DPI means" comments. Generally I do not take a pro-Apple stance on many issues, but tying what the end-user sees to physical lengths (so-called "resolution independence") is only being done by Apple ATM. AFAIK GTK or QT or something else is also moving in that direction thanks to Nokia and mobile phones.

DPI essentially only needs two bits of information: monitor's physical size and how fine or coarsely it displays images. More pixels = a greater number of pixels can draw an image in the same physical size (i.e. the millimetres do not change). More pixels = good, since 10pt Times New Roman will begin to look less like a bitmap font.

It is only because UI designers have assumed since the beginning that a pixel must represent a certain number of millimetres, which obviously is a fallacious assumption. Again that is Apple's fault too (I think originally 72 pixels per inch).

Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 4 years ago | (#31948868)

Just wait until the day comes you just *need* to have those 26 pornvideo's eh, marketingpresentations side by side on your screen... (but on a more serious note, it's easy to set up a lower resolution on your screen, I do it all the time for the same reasons you say, but it is very nice to switch to a much higher res when I work on real high-res photographs etc.

Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (4, Informative)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 4 years ago | (#31948880)

You're doing it wrong. You should be increasing the DPI setting in your operating system, which will let you increase the size of things but will let them have far more detail. This should lead to a better browsing experience because the text will be more legible.

Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (4, Informative)

Bourdain (683477) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949186)

This only works, to varying extents, in the more modern OS's.

For example, the relevant application(s) has to be DPI aware as well as either have additional higher resolution raster based graphics or use something like SVG [slashdot.org]

Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31948894)

this is where adjustable dpi and deep color support comes in. I'd prefer wider gamuts and 120hz updates first though. ..not just in the panel but in the control circuitry too.. no use having a panel that updates at 8ms when the control circuitry is locked at 16ms.

Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31948906)

That's only because application and web-developers still use absolute pixel positioning.

In theory you can have 80x25 text on a 1600x1200 pixel screen with much higher resolution than the standard 640x480 text mode. It would require 200 dpi fonts, but that is only high quality fax resolution. Laser printers have used 600dpi and higher resolution fonts for years.

Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#31948918)

2560x2048 resolution doesn't exactly help me see my web pages or documents any better - in fact it can make them downright hard to see, so why do I need it?

If your web sites are harder to see with higher resolutions, that's a sure sign of broken software. In the times of very low resolutions, it made sense to measure in pixels, because pixels were huge. However with high resolution it's the wrong thing to do. Your text and images shouldn't get half the size on a double-resolution monitor, just as they don't get half the size if you print them on a 600dpi laser printer instead of a 300dpi laser printer. Especially the fonts should not get smaller, but get smoother (without antialiasing) or sharper (with antialiasing) outlines.

With high resolution screens, screen pixels should be an implementation detail, not exposed to the software.

Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#31948940)

Some of us take pictures. Big pictures. 96 dpi doesn't cut it.

Of course, the irony of the article is that the guys headline graphic '10REM.NET' is in pixelated letters from 1995.

Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949086)

We're not at the point of diminishing returns yet. The point in human vision where you can no longer distinguish individual pixels while viewing the entire screen is at about 4096x4096 pixels. Anything past that is useless to humans (just magnify the section of the picture you are looking at if you don't want to see the entire picture at once.) So we're not there yet, and I would still like a 2560x2048 screen.

Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (2, Informative)

TopSpin (753) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949090)

People do care. Just not about resolution. People care about price.

How many 1080i/p TVs are sold for every WUXGA (1920x1200) display? 10-1? 50-1? I don't know but I'm betting there are a lot more TVs being shifted. The LCD manufacturers have most of their capacity allocated to HDTV panels. This makes for low, low prices.

So when Joe Blow waddles his 290lbs ass into Best Buy to pick up a display he has a choice; he can get the super-cheap on-sale rebated HDTV that works just fine with his 'puter due to HDMI, or he can pay a $100 premium for a *real* monitor with the extra 120 pixels. Which one do you think gets added to the $20,000 card balance?

Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (2, Insightful)

Freedom Bug (86180) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949180)

30" screens are great for developers, too. Everybody knows how useful multiple displays are, but nobody seems to realize just how much better a 30" 2560x1600 screen is than a couple of 21" screens, even though you're pushing about the same number of pixels and display area.

Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (1)

Seriousity (1441391) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949218)

I'm a digital designer and artist, and I use a beastly 19" CRT - it's a relic of IBM in the early 90's (I have to move my computer desk about a foot out from the wall for it to sit on it)... I only ever sit up close to the screen when I'm designing in photoshop, which is also the only reason I have windows. For anything else I'm kicking back in my Lazyboy chair with my trusty MS wireless mouse and keyboard, running Ubuntu and zooming in on everything with Compiz!

This makes high resolution absolute bliss, because you can zoom right in and it looks freaking great. Theres a bicubic filter plugin hidden in Compiz-Config-Settings-Manager that makes things look so freaking schweet when you're zoomed in, it's unbelievable - then you introduce motion blurs and water effects and all that crazy crap and it's better than drugs.

I design all my own desktop wallpapers for exactly this reason, if anyone's interested most of my art can be found here [slashdot.org] . But I digress...

I recently had to stop gaming due to carpal tunnel / tendonitis / RSI / tennis elbow joy (pretty dumb to be a crazy digital artist AND a drummer!), but I can tell you theres a world of virtue in high resolution outside the realm of games.

Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (2, Insightful)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949248)

2560x2048 resolution doesn't exactly help me see my web pages or documents any better

I think for people who are mostly a "consumer" of information (and that is most people) you are pretty much spot on, there are diminishing returns.

On the other hand if you are in some way producer, especially of something remotely complex, then the increased resolution is definately useful as it provides room to both see what you are producing and have the relevant tools available (eg an IDE or photoshop) and possibly some additional reference material.

Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949294)

I went from an 1152x768 19" CRT to a 1920x1080 21.5" LCD and I've never looked back. It's amazing how much of a difference it makes to have room to open several source code windows or documents at once. I was concerned that the ~110 dpi would be a problem, but I've had no problem reading things. Compared to my CRT, everything is so much clearer. I've been in heaven for the past several months.

Re:Perhaps nobody else cares? (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949298)

Seriously, I used to hunt for pixels too, but after about 1280x1024 I stopped caring.

I don't like my desktop at much higher resolution than that, it becomes uncomfortable. I know gamers and drafters really want giant screens at massive resolutions, but besides them who else really wants it? 2560x2048 resolution doesn't exactly help me see my web pages or documents any better - in fact it can make them downright hard to see, so why do I need it?

Unfortunately for Pete Brown, I think more people fall into my category than do his, or he wouldn't have anything to complain about.

At least 1920x1200 on a 26" or larger display and the snap to edges thing in Windows 7 can seriously improve productivity for just about anyone who has to write reports. Suddenly you can very comfortably, very legibly handle the document you're writing and the one you're commenting on/criticizing/whatever at the same time. Of course you can do that without the snap thing, but that's one example of a UI element that really helps you to take advantage of your pixels. Windows 7 also handles large fonts better than previous Windows OSs, which helps.

Display Shrink (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 4 years ago | (#31948792)

I've noticed something similar, pretty much every LCD monitor out these days at a reasonable price stops at 1920x1080, which is down from 1920x1200 a few years ago.

The flood of HDTVs on the market has basically locked everything at 1080p, with higher resolution displays nigh-upon impossible to find at a reasonable price, and nothing approaching a higher DPI is anywhere to be found except on mobile devices (which in a sense I can understand, but it's still disappointing.)

I guess it's no great surprise that in 2010 I am using a 1600x1200 display at work, which is the same that my laptop had in late 2001. Admittedly, I am using two...

Re:Display Shrink (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31948860)

Rather than DPI, it's the aspect ratio that I find annoying.

First we had to put up with 'widescreen' at 16:10. Now that's considered normal, and widescreen has become 16:9, exactly the same as TVs and some film stock.

I want my 4:3 back.

Re:Display Shrink (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31949048)

I want my 4:3 back.

I wanted the CRT contrast ratio and viewing angle back too (via OLED or whatever), but what can we do? :(

CRT contrast ratio and viewing angle back too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31949306)

And don't forget blacks and response time too.

Re:Display Shrink (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31949058)

I want my 4:3 back.

Me too.

Re:Display Shrink (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31949200)

why? 4:3 sucks ass.

Re:Display Shrink (1)

Seriousity (1441391) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949280)

I guess it's no great surprise that in 2010 I am using a 1600x1200 display at work, which is the same that my laptop had in late 2001. Admittedly, I am using two..

I use 1600x1200 on a beastly old IBM CRT, and design desktop wallpapers for it - if you're interested most of them are here

Not off topic because I generally design them with smooth gradients so I can zoom in on them in compiz at a high resolution, which is why I love high resolution - compiz wins.

That's why people get more than one display... (1)

BradeRunna (210310) | more than 4 years ago | (#31948802)

But then I got two 30-inch displays and can't imagine needing more, although that's just me.

To the guy in the adjacent cube... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31948822)

...Because I know you spend all day reading Slashdot instead of what you are supposed to be doing...

Would you please stop making disgusting sounds with your dentures???

Please?

Re:To the guy in the adjacent cube... (5, Funny)

zill (1690130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949136)

I was deliberating whether to mod you "troll" or "offtopic" when I finally realized you were talking about me.

Sorry, I'll stop now :(

Laptop pains too (2, Insightful)

stokessd (89903) | more than 4 years ago | (#31948830)

I feel your pain. I have a 17" laptop screen that is 1920x1200. By that token a high dpi 30" screen should be a lot more than ~2500x1600

I would also love a second display for my laptop but good luck finding a desktop monitor of any size with the same DPI as the laptop. As a result I've got small windows and big windows.

Sheldon

What a whiny knob (0, Troll)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31948850)

I've always wanted the largest monitor with the highest DPI that I could afford.

Typical attitude of looking only at the numbers and thinking "more is better." While there is room for improvement, there are practical limits. For example, would you want a 50" display on your desktop? It would be rather impractical. How about a 30" monitor with 200,000,000 pixels of horizontal resolution. What would be the point, apart from requiring your graphics card to require its own nuclear power station and liquid nitrogen cooling? Your eyes would not be able to perceive the extra pixels.

Going much higher than current resolutions would be pretty counterproductive untill all our OSes and applications had completely resolution-independent interfaces, anyway.

Re:What a whiny knob (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949016)

A simple litmus test: As long as you can distinguish antialiased fonts from non-antialiased fonts, a higher resolution would improve your experience.

Re:What a whiny knob (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949352)

A simple litmus test: As long as you can distinguish antialiased fonts from non-antialiased fonts, a higher resolution would improve your experience.

But that's not what this guy is saying - he's arguing for the highest resolution physically possible, at the largest possible physical size. He puts no constraints on this argument, and he lists these two factors as his only variables.

I'm sure we could get some extremely-high DPI displays if, for example, they only had a bit depth of 1 bit. But I don't think he'd actually like that too much.

Personally, I think choice of display involves a whole lot of factors, including color accuracy and viewing angle for example. But nooooo, all that matters is resolution and size. It's like the people who argue that a camera with a higher megapixel count must be better than a lower one.

Resolution of the human eye: about 570 Megapixels (4, Interesting)

Cliff Stoll (242915) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949110)

Making many assumptions, the human eye has about 500 to 600 megapixels of resolution.

But determining visual acuity is nontrivial. Lots of physics, physiology, and neuroscience enter into it.

Visual acuity depends on a number of physical limitations set by the optics of the lens of the eye as well as the sampling on the retina.

For example, the point spread function of the lens roughly matches the sampling of the retinal mosaic (well, within a factor of 3 or so). A nicely evolved system!

Our eyes' acuity are influenced by

    - Refractive error (out of focus lens, often correctable by glasses or contacts)

    - Size of the pupil (physical optics tells us that a wide open iris will reduce diffraction)

    - Illumination (brighter scenes give more photons, and our neuroprocessing can do more

    - Time of exposure to the field

    - Area of the retina exposed

    - State of adaption of the eye (night [scotopic] vs day [photopic] vision.

    - Eye motion & object motion in scene

See http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html [clarkvision.com]

For a good review of visual acuity, see:
http://webvision.med.utah.edu/KallSpatial.html [utah.edu]

Re:What a whiny knob (1)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949152)

I'm pretty sure the capabilities of ATI's Eyefinity cards show that our graphics cards are starting to outpace our monitors, even without liquid cooling.

Re:What a whiny knob (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949342)

For example, would you want a 50" display on your desktop?

Absolutely, lots of people are emulating such a setup with multiple monitors today. A bigger screen is one of the simplest ways to increase productivity, as you spend less time shuffling windows around.

How about a 30" monitor with 200,000,000 pixels

That would be rather ridiculous, but I would very much welcome a display with 300dpi or more, so that one could actually start to have print-quality fonts.

Going much higher than current resolutions would be pretty counterproductive untill all our OSes and applications had completely resolution-independent interfaces, anyway.

Higher resolution would make it much easier to have resolution independed interfaces, as all the ugly scaling artifacts that pop up when you only have a small increase in dpi and thus fractions in scale could be avoided. Stretching 640x480 to 800x600 looks crap, stretching 640x480 to 1280x960 on the other side looks quite fine, as you just need to double the pixels. This is especially important when it comes to fonts, which are just one-pixel width to begin with.

Not everyone wants more pixels, but better aspect (4, Interesting)

slashuzer (580287) | more than 4 years ago | (#31948862)

Frankly for most people the existing 'HDTV' resolution has more than enough pixels, to get full benefit from increased number of pixels you would need a larger screen and sit closer to it. As it is, reading text on these high DPI screens is hard enough, and I often find myself increasing the default font size. This issue is particularly pronounced in laptop screens.

What I do want is more vertical resolution. The 16:9 craze means today we buy displays that are physcially larger and have more pixels overall than ten years ago, yet do not provide any more area for vertical display. You still have to scroll down far too much. It would be nice if someone still made decent, affordable 4:3 displays; a 1600 X 1200 in 21" format is going to be a killer!

Re:Not everyone wants more pixels, but better aspe (1)

dshk (838175) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949290)

4:3 is usable in 21" size, maybe even in 24", but you were not be able to place a larger 4:3 monitor into an ergonomic position: either your desk have to be too low, or the top of the display will be on too high.
Btw. there are 16:10 displays. 16:9 is really for TV, not for PC. Also if you rotate a 1920 X 1200 display into vertical position you get what you want.

Not only that (1)

JazzXP (770338) | more than 4 years ago | (#31948864)

But where did all the cheap non wide-screen monitors go? You used to be able to pick up a nice 1280x1024 screen at a decent price, but now, it's all about wide-screen in the lower price bracket.

Re:Not only that (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949226)

China [epathchina.com]

less than 50 bucks for a WSVGA monitor, though i'm not entirely sure you will get a monitor and not a piece of wood with "ha ha sucker" written on it in crayon

Assumptions? (1)

mejogid (1575619) | more than 4 years ago | (#31948870)

Why do we have to assume it's HDTV ruining things? Maybe there's a point of diminishing returns at which it makes more sense to focus on things like contrast ratios, refresh rates, viewing ratios and additional features. Maybe the average resolution is going down while size goes up because that's how consumers want to spend their money?

Maybe your average consumer or business just doesn't have that much need for a single display larger than 1920x1080 or so? In specialised applications multiple screens are frequently at least as useful, and I know many people who still find 1280x1024 perfectly adequate. Obviously at smaller sizes every additional pixel can be a big benefit, but this is less of an issue at desktop scales.

There are plenty of specialist screens with higher resolutions, but if 1920x1080 or so is a sweet spot for the average consumer - allowing 1080p video, two side by side pages, more than enough space to view any webpages etc - then higher resolutions won't benefit from economics of scale.

Re:Assumptions? (1)

theJML (911853) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949104)

It's true, most people probably don't NEED a larger screen than 1920x1200 or 2560x1600, but I'd have to say the guy is right, but mostly in the laptop range.

I run 1680x1050 on my work laptop at 15.4" and it's awesome, I wish for 1920x1080 in that area and when I go to find a personal laptop with a screen size anywhere close I find that most laptops come with a resolution of MAX 1366x768. Even my mom's new $800 HP 17" laptop only has that resolution! Personally I think anything less than 1920 in a 17" screen is lackluster yet if you really want something that high you have to spend a lot of money.

Let me step back and say this. I have two laptops at home, both of the same 1024x768 resolution. I also do a lot of photography with a Canon EOS Rebel XT and 5D mk II. When I view a picture on one, a 15.1" Thinkpad, the picture looks okay. Then I open the same picture on my x40 12.1" screen and the clarity is outstanding. It looks even better if I choose to view it at work on the 1680x1050 screen. Considering we keep getting higher resolution cameras, and better video cards, a higher resolution screen should be a no brainer.

Personally I think the laptop makers think they found a sweet spot, 1366x768 is technically perfect for 720p video and the next step up is 1920x1080 for 1080p. Why should they think they need to go higher than that? Well, 4k video is coming out soon, let's start there.

Someone should show them a nice picture taken with a Canon 5D mk II on a higher res screen and when they wipe the droll off their chins, make them get back to work. Why anti-alias with sub-pixels when you can just have that much more detail in the first place.

Re:Assumptions? (1)

SBrach (1073190) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949334)

Well 3 years ago I wanted to buy a 24" monitor, all were 1920x1200. I ended up settling for a 22" at 1680x1050 due to price. Yesterday I went to the store and low and behold, the highest resolution I could find from 23"-28" was 1920x1080. So I bought a 27" LG that looked decent but when I got it home and hopped on slashdot the text looked like shit. 1920x1080 is not good enough for a 27" display to be used with a PC. So I took it back and got the Asus 25.5" I am using right now. I didn't notice it the first time but it is one of the few monitors left that are over 1080p. 1920x1200 is decent enough at 25". The only other monitors over 1080p that I have seen are 30" @ 2560x1600. Unfortunately they start around $800 more than this Asus. We have definitely gone backwards.

Price has gone up... (2, Interesting)

Braintrust (449843) | more than 4 years ago | (#31948912)

My 2.5 year old Samsung 275T monitor is currently retailing at the same location for appox $75 more than I paid for it at purchase. In 30+ years of building systems I think that may be a first.

(Freaking great monitor, btw.)

Some of this is of course due to currency fluctuations, I think... never seen a piece of hardware increase in price over time before.

Re:Price has gone up... (1)

nxtw (866177) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949166)

My 2.5 year old Samsung 275T monitor is currently retailing at the same location for appox $75 more than I paid for it at purchase.

2.5 years old means it's probably not being produced anymore. That model no longer appears on Samsung's LCD monitors page and is sold by very few vendors.

In 30+ years of building systems I think that may be a first.

Pay more attention. I don't even waste my time in building systems and I've seen prices go up on unused, out-of-production hardware (new in box & sold by an authorized retailer).

Need small native resolution screens too! (2, Insightful)

Jazz-Masta (240659) | more than 4 years ago | (#31948914)

I agree with increasing DPI on a screen, to a point.

I find a 22" screen with 1680x1050 is perfect. The new 21.5" screens with 1920x1080 are a bit too "small" when dealing with XP and the native resolution.

Most business users I deal with still want 4:3 screens. 16:9 and 16:10 screens are far too short vertically. Many people still want to see a full page of text on a screen. Widescreen works well for spreadsheets and databases.

I would also like to see more screens with a lower DPI for older users. I have yet to set a 20", 21.5" or 22" screen at native resolution for older workers. Most tend to move to a ~1440x900 or even ~1280x800 from the 1680x1050 or 1920x1080. When I move to those resolutions, or any resolution that keeps the same aspect ratio, but is not the native resolution, the LCDs are blurry (even more troublesome for older users).

Not everyone watches movies on their computers all day, in fact, I would believe most people view more vertical than horizontal documents for the better part of the day - both at work and at home.

Re:Need small native resolution screens too! (3, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949046)

16:9 and 16:10 screens actually kick ass for text, assuming you have the right setup.

Most programs and websites(in terms of sidebars and toolbars and stuff) are still laid out for screens that are wider than they are tall, so you do usually need one monitor in the usual configuration.

Your second monitor, though, you just rotate so that it is now taller than it is wide, and offers rather more horizontal resolution than any but the nicest 4:3 monitors ever did.

All but the cheapest video cards support dual monitors(and we are talking really cheap here. the 20-30 dollar card might not; but for $50 you'll have a hard time not getting dual monitor support, albeit often 1VGA, 1DVI), and the software is mature enough(you'll have to suffer through looking at your BIOS bootup sideways on one of the screens; but you'll survive).

Unless your environment is quite space constrained, or has to fit in a laptop bag and go with you, a second monitor, rotated so that its dimensions closely match those of your common paper document, is a fairly cheap way to make an office-type worker's life more pleasant and productive.

Re:Need small native resolution screens too! (2, Informative)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949066)

Don't think of sizes in terms of pixels -- think of them in inches. The current thing on your screen that takes up 10 inches of space, wouldn't you like it to have twice the detail, while staying at 10 inches? I'd love for my text to have twice the detail, becoming easier to read. Maybe websites could start using serif fonts, which are generally regarded as more legible but also tough to use on most present-day monitors because of the low DPI. That's what high DPI is for -- more detail, not to make things smaller.

Bloody luxury. (5, Funny)

gklinger (571901) | more than 4 years ago | (#31948924)

My monitor has ONE BIG PIXEL. It ain't easy to use but I get by.

Re:Bloody luxury. (2, Funny)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949076)

Bah! Whipper-snappers, the lot of ye! My monitor has one tiny pixel. And it's hardwired to black.

Which do you want? (3, Interesting)

voss (52565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31948932)

The 2560 monitor that sells for $1200 or the 1920 monitor that sells for $200-300? the market has decided.
The 1080p standard is beneficial to both computer users and tv watchers in driving prices down.

1440p is probably the next stepping point thats 2736x1440, its less of a step than 2160p.

Apple Displays. (2, Interesting)

vonsneerderhooten (254776) | more than 4 years ago | (#31948946)

Yes, really. The 30" Apple has really high ppi.
Not an Apple fanboi, just sayin'

Re:Apple Displays. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31949094)

you mean the ones that have the same panels as some of the Dell monitors?

they are available (and for less money) from other people too.
They just aren't the cheapo commodity monitors you get bundled with systems anymore.

Re:Apple Displays. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31949112)

Yes, really. The 30" Apple has really high ppi.

But does it display porn?

Re:Apple Displays. (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949184)

Or you could get the equivalent Dell or HP, which will have identical PPI(pretty much any 30-inch monitor that isn't sold as an "LCD TV", or bundled with medical workstations for $15,000 will have exactly the same 2560x1600 resolution in a 30 inch panel). In many cases, assuming equipment from the same time period, they'll even have a panel made by the same manufacturer(and, since you aren't going to be driving your 30-inch monster off a VGA port, the video processor board isn't nearly as distinguishing as it once was). The only real differences will be price(Apple high, Dell low), case (Apple attractive, Dell plasticky), input options(Apple minimalist, Dell multiple), and possibly backlight(I think Apple was first to LED at 30 inches; don't remember if Dell has caught up yet).

Do the math... (0, Troll)

ichbineinneuben (1065378) | more than 4 years ago | (#31948948)

First, more pixels requires more graphics processing power. Next, more graphics processing power often means a new computer. Last, Microsoft makes it's money when people buy new computers (the only customers they really care about are the OEM's). Add this up - this may not be the story you think it is.

Widescreen is not for productivity. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31948982)

What bothers me most is that everything has gone widescreen. Displays used to be 4:3 (1.33 AR). My current two-year-old pair are 16:10 (1.6 AR). The current items are 16:9 (1.77 AR). With my dual-display setup I can look at four different source files at the same time, but what I'd really like is to be able to view more of one file.

I was running 1600x1200 15 years ago on fairly mid-priced equipment. One currently has to go quite high end to find that kind of vertical pixel count. I'd really like to be able to enjoy that again before my eyes rot out and I have to run 640x480.

My cell phone has a 265dpi display, yet my computer is stuck at one third of that. I'd love to see us move to quadruple-resolution displays, i.e., double the horizontal and vertical pixel counts, such that text is gorgeous but images can remain at their desired size without being resampled.

Do we really WANT higher resoltuion displays? (4, Informative)

zill (1690130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31948992)

Display resolution and pixel pitch peaked back in 2001 with the introduction of IBM T220 [wikipedia.org] . Even now, no production display can top its resolution and pixel pitch.

Why aren't we all using WQUXGA, WHSXGA, or even WHUXGA display right now?
Simple, there's no demand for it.

Why isn't there any demand for it?
Because 90% of the consumers are still watching 480p DVD and DTV broadcasts.
Because lots of websites are still designed to be optimally viewing in 1024x768.
Because most operating systems and applications have their font sizes hardcoded (Windows 7 only allow system fonts to be enlarged by 150% while OSX cannot adjust its system font size at all).

Re:Do we really WANT higher resoltuion displays? (5, Insightful)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949124)

Why aren't we all using WQUXGA, WHSXGA, or even WHUXGA display right now?

Hopefully regardless of our opinions of pixel density, we can *all* agree to STOP USING THOSE RETARDED ABBREVIATIONS. How is a mortal human being supposed to know what the holy shit "WHUXGA" means in a practical sense? Just give us the actual resolution (in NUMBERS) and call it good. Thank you.

Ahem.

Anyway, I agree with your general sentiment about OS support for high-res displays, although it's getting much better. Progress has been slow. Maybe in another 5-10 years it literally will not matter what your DPI is, and desktops will all look the same regardless.

I also want to add that is Pete Brown wants higher-res displays, he's perfectly welcome to start up a business providing same and seeing how well he does. If he's right, and there's a huge demand for these, he'll make a killing. (My guess is he's not and there isn't and he'll go broke.)

Re:Do we really WANT higher resoltuion displays? (1)

Homburg (213427) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949164)

while OSX cannot adjust its system font size at all

When I read that, I thought it couldn't possibly be true, but a quick google suggests you're right. Weird; you'ld think Macs, with their popularity among designers, would be more likely than any other platform to support accurate DPI settings.

Re:Do we really WANT higher resoltuion displays? (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949204)

The capability in OS X has been "next version, you'll see" for about 3 versions now. I think I first heard that it was being implemented for 10.3.

The Windows support for DPI changing in Vista and Windows 7 is actually quite good. It's still a bit hidden, but the majority of apps cope with it pretty well.

Re:Do we really WANT higher resoltuion displays? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31949208)

Display resolution and pixel pitch peaked back in 2001 with the introduction of IBM T220 [wikipedia.org] . Even now, no production display can top its resolution and pixel pitch.

Why aren't we all using WQUXGA, WHSXGA, or even WHUXGA display right now?

Simple, there's no demand for it.

Why isn't there any demand for it?

Because 90% of the consumers are still watching 480p DVD and DTV broadcasts.

Because lots of websites are still designed to be optimally viewing in 1024x768.

Because most operating systems and applications have their font sizes hardcoded (Windows 7 only allow system fonts to be enlarged by 150% while OSX cannot adjust its system font size at all).

Actually, they updated and made the monitor better with the T221 and Viewsonic VP2290b, which can be had for ~$500 when they come up used on eBay.

Re:Do we really WANT higher resoltuion displays? (1)

Tromad (1741656) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949242)

Windows 7 allows for 300%, although you have to manually add the value in the custom DPI box.

get bigger displays (3, Informative)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#31948998)

The market is getting there. New 22" and 24" displays are coming out that have 1920x1080 (or 1200) resolutions, and recent 27" displays like on the latest iMac and a Dell 27" display have 2560x1440 (the 16:9 version of the 16:10 2560x1600 30" displays). You should be careful about some of these monitors, as many of them are large gamut displays that require calibration, and they're generally not going to be for gaming, as they're H-IPS panels. But they're really beautiful. I'm waiting for some detailed reviews on the new HP zr24w display - 1920x1200 (16:10 FTW!) with regular color gamut. I want the wide viewing angles, but I'm not _that_ picky about color. $425, I think.

Re:get bigger displays (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31949158)

I've had a 24 inch display with 1920x1200 resolution for FIVE YEARS! How is that "getting there"? The market stagnated about a decade ago. Honestly, I'm surprised it took so long for an article like this.

And another thing, what the heck ever happened to 4:3? Why can't I buy a laptop with a screen like that anymore. They all have widescreens with terrible vertical resolution.

Re:get bigger displays (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949222)

I've had a 24 inch display with 1920x1200 resolution for FIVE YEARS! How is that "getting there"? The market stagnated about a decade ago. Honestly, I'm surprised it took so long for an article like this.

What kind of monitor is that - a professional one? The prices on decent panels (H-IPS, specifically) are coming down now, and it's possible to get a really nice 24" display for under $500. 1920x1200, too, not '1080HD'. Ugh. But it's happening with the advent of H-IPS panels. It's taken a while to go from our beloved 21" 1600x1200 CRTs to something high-res WITH a decent viewing angle in the flat panel equivalent, but it's happening now. From here on out, things should start to get a bit better, albiet slowly. I had really hoped SED would be available by now, but oh well. *sigh*

And another thing, what the heck ever happened to 4:3? Why can't I buy a laptop with a screen like that anymore. They all have widescreens with terrible vertical resolution.

The panel manufacturers decided you didn't need that aspect ratio anymore, so they're not going to make them. Nice of them, eh? I guess you could cut a 16:10 in half, and you'd be close. :)

NVIDIA 9600GT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31949020)

I have a NVIDIA 9600GT, and it comes with outputs for not one but two, count 'em TWO dvi outputs. So I have two, not one but count 'em TWO Samsung P2270 monitors running (and I'm typing on one and watching TV through the TV tuner card on the other), although when I'm doing software development, a manual is on one, and the software is on the other (super handy). The P2270's are 22 inch (diagonal) and I have them set to the max resolution (1920x1080), so my actual resolution is 3840x1080. It doesn't hurt that the refresh is 2ms on these, or that the contrast ratio is 50000:1. I bought one of them about 2 years ago for 490, and bought another just after last Christmas for $188 (damn nice), after the old 17" panel died after 7 years in use and looked to be unfixable. Bonus: the new monitor uses 30% less power even though its 29% larger, the new monitor has a much faster refresh rate, and a better contrast ratio. When I watch HiDef digital (over the air), it is a *lot* better on these than on big (much bigger than these) screen TV's I've seen. I've had people gripe and complain! I try to explain that digital TV over the air (Wireless TV), is much higher resolution than what you get from cable or satellite as those two carriers compress the video and audio to fit, and also its analog, not digital. They don't want to hear it. (The grumble and complain and aren't happy, and try to tell me that its wrong to watch TV on a 1920x1080 computer monitor, especially a $188 one). Not happy, not happy at all!

Re:NVIDIA 9600GT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31949206)

Wow, really? TWO monitors? That's friggin AMAZING! Hey guys, didja know that you could hook TWO, count 'em TWO monitors to your PC? I know, what an amazing world we live in.

Not HDTV, but operating systems (1)

proxima (165692) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949030)

If it was really just HDTV, we'd see 3840x2160 screens at maybe the 24" or 27" size. Instead, I think the primary factor is the operating system. Poorly scalable icons, widgets, and other elements of the UI. Websites too - many are either fixed width or simply horrible looking when stretched too wide. It's tedious to read Slashdot full screen on a large monitor because the text scrolls too far horizontally. Still, I long for the day when we can nearly eliminate antialiasing on fonts.

Some of these problems are non-trivial to solve. UI design is a lot easier when you can have pixel precision. SVG is only now being universally adopted and required re-doing icons in vector format.

Sure, some laptops have a higher DPI - I paid a premium on my Thinkpad to get a little better resolution. Yet I commonly see users with poor eyesight setting their LCD resolution below 1:1 to make everything bigger. Since XP lasted so long, there were only a limited number of ways to make it somewhat usable on a high DPI screen. Things like toolbars were still fixed in pixel size, though.

    Many 22" screens are still 1680x1050, so not that many desktop displays have hit the 1080p size. On the other hand, Apple's 27" iMac is 2560x1440. Not that Apple will ship with blu-ray drives any time soon, so many movies will just be upscaled DVDs anyway. But 2560x1440 on a 20" screen? Most OSes would do pretty poorly with it (even Mac OS X).

Re:Not HDTV, but operating systems (1)

dmgxmichael (1219692) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949312)

That's not entirely an operating system issue. CSS support for multiple column layout of text would be nice. And to be clear, I'm referring to CSS outdividing the text into the columns within a given div - not creating columns for menus et al.

Pff, noobs! (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949040)

I have three 21" CRTs. My total resolution is 4800x1200. I can change the resolution to whatever I want.
Wanna know what I paid?

$150!

Hell, for another $150, I could have a six-screen setup. If my table/wall and my graphics cards would support it.

what the TV industry learned from the PC industry (3, Insightful)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949078)

they learned to never give your customers what they really want, just give them something barely adequate and a year later market something just incrementally better thus prompting consumers to buy again, rinse & repeat & rinse & repeat until you can afford that retirement castle on the mountain,

high-DPI displays (4, Interesting)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949108)

The problem with high DPI displays is bad software support. Two things need to happen for this to work:

1) Applications need to work properly with high DPIs.
2) The OS needs to do a good job scaling old applications that don't respect DPI. That may include lying to them about the resolution and DPI, and stretching the window.

For #1, we are getting better. But many modern apps *cough*iTunes*cough* completely botch it. In some cases text on buttons gets bigger but the button does not, so instead of "Configure" you get the top half of the letter C. Or maybe the text gets bigger, and it spaces just fine, but the column sizes still default incorrectly. It would be better if they just ignored DPI than supporting it half-way.

For #2, you basically need to scale the window and adjust the mouse coordinates to compensate. There's gonna be quirks, but it sure beats an app that is just too small to be usable. Also, scale it well (not bilinear!) so it isn't a blurry blob.

Another stupidity in the LCD display market (5, Insightful)

Skapare (16644) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949134)

... and even the LCD TV market, is the lack of a guarantee of NO DEAD OR STUCK PIXELS. Very few displays have any pixel issues. The industry says that fewer than one percent have problems with any pixels. Yet when you read the warranty details, they will treat a few (usually somewhere from 3 to 8 depending on manufacturer and pixel location on the screen) bad pixels as not covered by the warranty. OK, so they are cheap skates and want to screw over the fewer than 1% of the buyers that luck out and get one of their lemons.

If the figure really is less than 1%, why not offer one of those "extended warranty"-like deals the retailers like to offer ... for a cost of say 3% to 5% of the purchase price ... but in this case an "absolutely zero dead or stuck pixels no matter what ... warranty"? If only 1% of units are bad, then they should make a killing at 3% to 5% of purchase price.

Of course, not everyone would buy that. But if I'm going to plunk down big dollars for a 76 cm 2560x1600 display, I sure don't want to get a lemon with a bad pixel. I'd pay the 5% more to be sure I don't get one.

They could even test units and segregate the stock, selling the flawless ones for more, and the flawed ones for a little less. Even if this price span is break even, this can attract more buyers ... some wanting the perfect units ... some wanting a discount. Come on you MBA bozos ... go after that market.

bigger the better (1)

simonbas (1319225) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949142)

I dont understand why people settle for lower resolution LCDs

My fifty pound 22 inch 2048*1536 is the best...for taking a lot of space and weighing a lot.
Still, wouldnt trade it!

2+ TB Hard Drives (1)

d3matt (864260) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949176)

What I want to know is... why are hard drives stuck at 2TB? Did we reach some theoretical limit? Does the laws of physics start to fail at higher data densities? Don't get me wrong, I love my 2TB hard drive, but I want more!

I have a big problem with everything (5, Funny)

brxndxn (461473) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949188)

On a computer screen, I want as much resolution as possible! And.. even on my hdtv, I want as much resolution as possible. Even in my living room, watching a Bluray at 1080p, I still see the pixels from 10-12 feet away on the couch. Maybe I'm more picky than the average person.. or maybe I have better eyes (not really.. i wear contacts)...

But here's where I really get mad.. Half the people are posting that too high of resolution causes web pages to look too small.. or GUI's to look to funky.. That is where I have a problem! Why the hell don't we have vector graphics gui's by now? First, I blame Intel.. Intel sucks so bad at graphics that they cannot even run Aero properly.. still.. in 2010. Intel, your engineers are of average intelligence. And yet, your goddamn graphics chips are in half our computers. (Maybe some of you think Intel runs Aero fine.. but I'm still not happy with it.) Second.. WTF is Aero? It's a piece of shit GUI band-aid.. that's what it is. It adds like one 3d feature just so the dumbass consumer goes 'ohhh.. pretty candy'. Weren't we promised a vector-based GUI with Vista? So Microsoft, you suck too. Your management is incompetent and your programmers lack talent. Third.. Why the hell can't I take advantage of the contrast of a computer monitor and just have a black background? Why the hell am I pretty much forced with a white background and black text whether I'm running linux, Windows, FreeBSD, Apple, OS2, YourMom (an OS I wrote in like 5 minutes that's better than Windows 7.) Seriously.. every OS basically forces white background/black text.. Why not have vector-based black background with bright green text.. like in the 80's.. back when it was hilariously easy to read text on a crappy 14" CRT monitor? Fourth, fuck you both Firefox and Opera. You both should do a better job of seperating the CONTENT (read.. the fucking text) from the rest of the bullshit on the webpage. Let me, the viewer, decide what color I want for the background and text.. and figure out how to make it look halfway decent! IE, you don't even count because you are from Microsoft and therefore cannot innovate. Apple, do not think you're getting out of this.. You're still living in pixel land. Come on, Steve Jobs, force your overworked minions to develop the best goddamn vector graphics GUI in existence.. Then open the new OS to all platforms.. Then dominate the entire marketplace. Seriously.. the entire world will be scrambling to develop the highest resolution monitor.. Steve, if you don't do this, you have tiny balls. OMG, I almost forgot the monitor companies.. God you suck. I am using a Samsung 1920x1200 26" TV as my monitor right now.. Don't think I didn't notice you went from 16:10 to 16:9 behind my back.. I found the one TV on clearance that still had the 0:+1 more than everyone else.

So, imo, where the entire computer industry is screaming, "Look at me.. I'm soo great.. I have multitouch or I have a stupid 3d feature.. or I have 1080p!", remember that you still have a lot to do.. Please hurry up and get it done..

AMD, you get a free pass.

I have a lot more to bitch about.. but I'm busy.. and I only have so much karma to blow.

input impedence (1)

smoothnorman (1670542) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949268)

how many pixels X pixels is the standard human retina? that is, is there a limit we can appreciate while our noses are less than a meter away?

Suck it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31949302)

> Microsoft Evangelist, Pete Brown rants about the lack of pixels available in today's LCD screens: 'Ok, that's it. I've had it. I want my pixels, damn-it! [...] "At the rate we were going for a while, we should have had twice or three times the DPI on a 24 or 23 inch screen. But nooo.

It's all about the market. TV makers want to make HDTV popular and then sell bigger screens with more pixels for premium prices; that is called planned obsolescence.

Which reminds me:

Ok, I've had it. I want my advanced OS, damn!

We should be using Linux everywhere, lots of virtual workspaces, instant user switching, copy-on-select, paste on single-click, focus on mouseover, longer lives for PCs... But nooo!

couldn't agree more: 1920x1080 sucks (1)

hrf (161658) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949326)

When I started university in 1981, I wrote all my papers and assignments either by hand or on a typewriter. By the time I finished grad school, I was using Microsoft Word on a Mac Plus. I liked being able to easily make changes to the doc, but I found one huge negative: with the word processor I couldn't see as much of the document while I was writing. With paper, I could set several pages on the desk and refer to them frequently with quick glances. With the word processor, I could see only a few paragraphs and switching between pages was distracting.

I noticed that this had a big effect on the flow of documents I wrote. I found it was much more difficult to construct a long chain of reasoning without being able to easily review at a glance what I had previously written. Same applies when writing software: it's a lot easier to write coherent code if you can see more context.

Displays eventually got better, but in my view, 1600x1200 is just barely tolerable. 1920x1200 is a big step up when writing text, since it nearly two full pages can be put on the screen, but displaying three or four pages would make a huge difference and is really what I want.

1920x1080 isn't the same thing at all: the 1080 vertical pixels just aren't enough to display a full page vertically. I would much rather work on a 1600x1200 monitor than 1920x1080.

Microsoft Evangelist, Pete Brown (1)

codepunk (167897) | more than 4 years ago | (#31949332)

I don't think more DPI is really going to make my ssh terminal session look much different.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>