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!

Windows 8 and Screen Resolution: WXGA Still Most Popular

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the how-tight-are-your-pixels? dept.

Displays 382

jones_supa writes "The Building Windows 8 blog comes up with a detailed post explaining the improved support of Windows 8 regarding different screen sizes, resolutions and pixel densities. Early on, the Windows team explored an inch-based scaling system, but found out that bitmaps would look blurry when scaled to unpredictable sizes. They ended up choosing three predefined scale percentages: 100%/140%/180%. The article goes on pondering the best solutions to make each app look good on different screens. Also shown: the distribution of resolutions being used today with Windows 7, 1366x768 having a huge lead at 42%."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


1366x768 (5, Insightful)

CyberK (1191465) | about 2 years ago | (#39461409)

Also known as the cheap laptop screen.

Re:1366x768 (5, Informative)

hjf (703092) | about 2 years ago | (#39461431)

I was shopping around a few months ago. ALL laptops have that resolution. Because it can be marketed as "HD". Either that, ir "FULL HD" 1920x1080.

So it's not "cheap". It's just what it is.

And it's not any better in the "affordable" desktop monitor realm either. I'm still sticking to a 17" 1280x1024 because i think it's stupid to get a 23"-27" with "only" 1920x1080.

Re:1366x768 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39461499)

I'm still sticking to a 17" 1280x1024 because i think it's stupid to get a 23"-27" with "only" 1920x1080.

There are plenty of affordable 1920 x 1200, 2560 x 1440, and 2560 x 1600 flat panel monitors.

Re:1366x768 (4, Informative)

eldorel (828471) | about 2 years ago | (#39461559)

plenty of affordable

I have to assume that your definition of affordable is different from mine, or prices have dropped drastically in the last few months since I was shopping for a new screen. (just checked google shopping, the prices haven't changed. )

All of the monitors that see I with with higher resolutions are almost twice the price of the "1080p" units.

An extra $100 for 200 more rows of pixels? Not interested.

Additionally, I can't even FIND a 19-22inch monitor with anything higher than 1200p vertical resolution without shopping at medical supply shops. I can get the resolutions I want on screens designed for use on an MRI, but I'm not even going to consider a $2300 monitor. (especially since I need 4 of them...)

Re:1366x768 (3, Interesting)

hjf (703092) | about 2 years ago | (#39461599)

Thanks for taking care of the troll. I'm in the exact situation as you. I'm a photographer and I can really use vertical space (google for Lightroom and you'll see how it's arranged and why a big, high res monitor matters.

Re:1366x768 (5, Informative)

amiga3D (567632) | about 2 years ago | (#39461637)

Actually 1366x768 is bad for almost everything except watching video. I had a nice dell laptop that I sold cheap because everything about it was great except the damn screen size. I actually went back to an older one because new laptops with decent screens are expensive. I'd actually love to have a new version of the D630 laptop with an i5 processor and a newer discrete nvidia graphics chip. Even the old T7500 in this one runs well with Mepis Linux but encoding video takes a while.

Re:1366x768 (2)

meerling (1487879) | about 2 years ago | (#39461843)

4 monitors ?! I so want to know what you are playing!
Ok, it could be for work, but when you've done that, what games are you playing on that rig?

Affordable? (2)

trum4n (982031) | about 2 years ago | (#39461583)

Can i borrow your Lambo?

Re:Affordable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39461857)

I just looked at every 1920x1200 monitor on TigerDirect and they started at $250. The most expensive one was an HP that was $599. I don't know what the heck you guys are talking about unless you're really truly saying that spending $599 on a monitor seems like some crazy huge amount of money to you. I guess if you're a college student or something then maybe that's a lot, but that's a function of college student poverty rather than the thing itself being insanely expensive.

Re:1366x768 (1)

dave420 (699308) | about 2 years ago | (#39461773)

You must be really bad at buying computers. I have an old Dell from 2007 with a 15" 1920x1200 screen.

Re:1366x768 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39461827)

You might be surprised to find that it's now hard to find those 1920x1200 monitors in any size. Starting a couple of years ago the standard higher-end resolution became 1920 x 1080. Go into a computer store. You'll find 40 monitors at with that resolution and 1-2 with 1920x1200, and those ones might not have features you want like integrated speakers or webcam or usb hub built in or whatever.
I had your attitude before and then I had to buy computers for my office and I was pissed off that my options had gotten worse than before not better.

Re:1366x768 (2)

hjf (703092) | about 2 years ago | (#39461829)

That's the point, Einstein.

It's *now* that's hard to find high rez screens. In the past it's been much easier.

Re:1366x768 (2)

No, I am Spratacus! (2281684) | about 2 years ago | (#39461443)

Indeed. It really is an unfortunate trend. Going to 1366x768 is cheaper for manufacturers, and it seems most people don't care. 16:9 is a convenient way of selling less screen area for the same diagonal size than 16:10. Sure, people will argue about how widescreen this and widescreen that, but virtually all websites and documents scroll vertically. The only thing 16:9 is good for is watching HD videos without having black bars along the top and bottom.

Re:1366x768 (4, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | about 2 years ago | (#39461477)

I disagree: widescreen is great for having two VIM windows side-by-side, or having only one VIM and a document, etc.

Most websites have to be scrolled anyway, more vertical space doesn't make much of a difference, but tiling windows horizontally is damn handy.

Re:1366x768 (1)

thestuckmud (955767) | about 2 years ago | (#39461595)

I disagree: widescreen is great for having two Emacs windows side-by-side

FTFY ;-)

Seriously, though, in addition to old school text editing (which I use every day), many of the modern applications I regularly use (IDE, GIS, CAD/CAM) make efficient use of wide screens. I typically work with three wide screens on two computers and love it.

Re:1366x768 (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#39461511)

>>>The only thing 16:9 is good for is watching HD videos

Which is probably what the majority of computer users are doing... watching youtube or hulu or other video sites. Very few are doing actual work with vertical documents like we do every day.

I don't have a wide 16:9 screen but if I did, it would HAVE to be at least 1024 vertical (same as my old 12:9 CRT). The currently-popular res is too cramped (though it beats the 320 or 640x200 of my early computer days).

Re:1366x768 (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 years ago | (#39461621)

What is interesting is that 320x200 has actually the same aspect ratio than 1280x800. Well, to be honest, I think it was designed to be used in the 4:3 format with non-square pixels. However it's nice to run games in DosBOX with sharp quad-pixeled graphics.

Re:1366x768 (1)

Aliotroph (1297659) | about 2 years ago | (#39461817)

Sure, if you like your games to look squashed. DOS games running at 320x200 were indeed designed with non-square pixels in mind. Playing fullscreen in DOSbox without aspect correction turned on looks awful.

# 2 is 1280 x 800 (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#39461553)

Another cramped resolution. Why wouldn't people use the higher 1280x1024 on their screens?

Re:# 2 is 1280 x 800 (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#39461617)

Because 1280x1024 is a 17 or 19 inch 4:3 display, still pretty common on top of beige corporateboxen of the world; but not exactly setting the world on fire at retail or in consumer focused offerings. 1280x800 is almost certainly a cheap 'HD' widescreen in one of the smaller sizes(somewhere between 17 and 20) or a similarly nasty and similarly marketed as "HD" laptop panel.

In most cases, those extra vertical pixels don't physically exist. The combination of cost-cutting and the marketing convergence of broadcast TV and computer monitors have done terrible things to display resolution.

Re:# 2 is 1280 x 800 (2)

meerling (1487879) | about 2 years ago | (#39461915)

It may be because of default font size, lack of desire to change resolutions, or maybe, here's a thought, THEIR MONITOR DOESN'T SUPPORT THAT REZ !

I apologize for my outburst, but a lot of people got monitors with their computers (straight from oem, no consumer choice involved) that doesn't have that vertical resolution as it only goes to 768, though it often has 1360 or 1366 horizontal resolution. And as to those of you with money to burn and can just get one of those huge and gorgeous monitors we all drool over, good for you, but the rest of us can't afford to buy another monitor, at least not this year, and definitely not for elitist reasons.

I wonder how many more times it will have to be spelled out to some of the posters on this forum that not everyone has the option of 1280 x 1024...

I saw a beautiful 24" 1900 x 1200 for only $200. I only had $70, and it was already reserved for important bills. God I hate being poor.

Re:1366x768 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39461479)

Depends on screen size. It's great at 11".

Re:1366x768 (5, Informative)

x0d (2506794) | about 2 years ago | (#39461501)

That is correct. Older higher-end Thinkpads had like 1600x1200 or 1440x1050 even on smaller screens, like 14" and that was back in 2002-2003, so, by now everyone should have caught up as parts became cheaper(they did, right?). But it's 2012, and the standards haven't been raised by much. Maybe the arrival of the new iPad will improve things...

Re:1366x768 (4, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#39461631)

Speaking of how things were better in the old days, shed a tear for the IBM T220:

3840×2400 pixels on a 22.2 inch widescreen. Discontinued c.2005

Re:1366x768 (4, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 2 years ago | (#39461721)

I used one, and while they looked great I won't be shedding too many tears. For one thing, it used two single-link DVI connectors, so it looked like a multi-monitor configuration to the computer, meaning you needed something like Xinerama to make it work properly, and often things like OpenGL applications would decide that full screen meant half of the monitor. It also cost over $10K, putting it well out of the price range of most people.

Re:1366x768 (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#39461813)

Oh, it was a hell of a weirdo, and would have done a great deal better with more recent display connection standards. The price, also, was undeniably an issue.

It's just sad that, unlike many of the other technologies that were a bit hacky and/or excessively expensive in the 2000-2005 range, the T220 just sort of died rather than improving. That specific product had the issues you get when you push a little too hard against the envelope. It's just frustrating that 6+ years since its introduction didn't result in there being a "T420" with the weirdness ironed out and the cost reduced.

Re:1366x768 (1)

jimicus (737525) | about 2 years ago | (#39461647)

> by now everyone should have caught up as parts became cheaper(they did, right?)

They did indeed. Driven by small widescreen LCD televisions, the cost of 1366x768 screens plummeted.

Now, the PC industry is heavily driven by cost. Basically every commodity PC manufacturer is in a race to the bottom to see who can build a computer the cheapest. It's been this way for some years now - there's a reason a cheap laptop feels like it's constructed out of cheese.

Which means that if the 1366x768 16:9 television panel costs $20 and the 1280x800 16:10 is $24 (numbers pulled out of thin air), the laptop manufacturer will go for the cheaper part unless they're pretty certain that the more expensive part will result in a laptop that can easily be sold for a little bit more.

Re:1366x768 (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 2 years ago | (#39461731)

Arguably, it's the human eyes that are the limit, and we're hitting it. As quite a few people pointed out, if you don't specifically look for differences, most people will not see the difference beyond current resolutions used. It's a sweet spot between what people find acceptable in terms of quality and acceptable in terms of price.

Re:1366x768 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39461503)


My NEW corporate Developer Laptop (HP Sucks big time) has this Resolution. WTF?

It is no wonder that I've virtualised it and now run it as a VM on my 4yr old 17in MBP.

The one thing that has gone backwards big time is Laptop Screens.
My ancient Dell Inspiron 8100 had a 1600x1200 screen, That was 10 years ago...

Perhaps the 'retina' displays being used by Apple in the ne iPad might shake up this bit of technology.

Re:1366x768 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39461679)

Ah, another "outsourced our IT to HP" victim.

Our on-site support guy DOES NOT EVEN KNOW HOW TO CHECK a screen's resolution. I pointed out to him that my co-worker got a 1600x900 screen on her laptop, and that (while it's still a lame 16:9 AR) I'd like to get the same on my upcoming replacement. His reply: "Well, she can select that resolution, but it'll be fuzzy because it's not native." No, it'll be SHARP because it IS native, you FUCKING MORON. But your stupid fucking "catalog" only lists one resolution, and so that must be the only resolution HP ever ships us, and that's what our equally stupid upper management signed off on, so that reflects Corporate Reality, and if we're holding a laptop in our fucking hands with a 1600x900 display, well, it must be time to bring out the electrical tape and "correct" the screen by covering part of it up.

And don't even get me started on desktop/dock displays, where most people are issued 1366x768 or, if they're lucky, 1600x900. I went through all the proper channels, pointing out that developer productivity scales pretty directly with screen size (ESPECIALLY screen HEIGHT), and that they were being pound foolish giving us tiny displays. They responded by graciously upgrading us to 22-inch displays -- at 1680x1050.

Fuck. My. Life.

Re:1366x768 (1)

no1nose (993082) | about 2 years ago | (#39461601)

Why don't the use 1680x1050??

Re:1366x768 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39461725)

Why not use 1680x1050

Yeah right. My old Dev Laptop was a Lenovo T500. It had a 1680x1050 screen. Lovely.
Now go and look at the current offerings from Lenovo, HP etc and tell me how many mainstream Laptops offer this resolution. Very few.

I bought a new Laptop last week. I got fed up having to compromise in one way or another so I got an MSI GT780DXR. I7 Quad core, 17in 1920x1050 screen, 16Gb Ram and 1500Gb HDD. That will keep me going until I retire in 4 years.
Oh, and it will drive THREE screens. 1 HDMI, 1 VGA and the Laptop Screen itself.

Re:1366x768 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39461925)

Why do you capitalize "Laptop"? Much less "Laptop Screen". Seriously, what's going on there? The arbitrary capitalization police want to know. We've been super busy with all the Tea Party literature lately but that doesn't mean we're turning a blind eye to lesser offenders.

Re:1366x768 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39461867)

Unfortunately Apple cornered the supply of 16x10 LCDs so the only place you can get a 16x10 laptop these days is on a macbook. I'm almost ready to buy one just to wipe and run windows and linux on it.

And in case you're wondering, I run linux for programming and windows for photography.

1366x768 (5, Interesting)

CockMonster (886033) | about 2 years ago | (#39461417)

I hate this resolution. I seems to me that screen resolutions have gone backwards, it's nigh on impossible to do any development with this shitty resolution. My old 5 year old Dell laptop supports 1600x1200 compared to my more modern Acer laptop despite the Acer having a far more powerful graphics card. It's not even a native HD resolution so your graphics card has to scale the 720p image up to display it on fullscreen... which totally defeats the purpose of 720p as the scaling hardware is probably crap. It seems to me that laptop manufacturers are shooting themselves in the foot with this crap.

Re:1366x768 (2, Interesting)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 2 years ago | (#39461473)

DPI probably has something to do with it.

Having arbitrarily high screen resolutions at small to medium(13 to 15 inch) range is a goddamned nightmare on the eyes.

And yes there's probably HDTV to blame too, as HDTV has been a big push behind LCD panel production making 1366x768 screens cheap as hell too.

Re:1366x768 (1)

tenco (773732) | about 2 years ago | (#39461685)

Having arbitrarily high screen resolutions at small to medium(13 to 15 inch) range is a goddamned nightmare on the eyes.

I don't understand. Why is a high DPI value a "goddamned nightmare on the eyes"?

Re:1366x768 (4, Informative)

jo_ham (604554) | about 2 years ago | (#39461733)

Because Windows and OS X have spotty support for high dpi modes right now (both slated to improve enormously in next release), so while your images, video, scaled up vector fonts etc all look fantastic, the UI elements tend to be tiny. You can scale the UI, but this sometimes breaks some apps.

Re:1366x768 (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | about 2 years ago | (#39461735)

Because of small fonts. At least that's how it was with XP system fonts. And when you increased it's size, everything looks butt-ugly.

Re:1366x768 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39461749)

I don't understand. Why is a high DPI value a "goddamned nightmare on the eyes"?

Because a ton of UI APIs out there happily ignore DPI settings, color profiles, etc. or just are so ridiculously low level that the programmer is expected to count pixels in the application's code. Guess how many bother doing that.

Any display device too many steps away from the lowest common denominator will look wrong somehow.

Re:1366x768 (2)

Mr Z (6791) | about 2 years ago | (#39461783)

Sure, current OSes and applications don't support high DPI very well, but that's not a good reason to shun high DPI. Higher DPI is actually easier on the eyes. It's the reason a printed page is much more readable than a PDF scaled to the exact same size onscreen.

Rumor has it the next MacBooks will have high-DPI screens. I hope this is the case and it inspires a few others in the PC world to follow. Once developers start getting high DPI monitors in greater quantities, they'll be more inspired to fix their apps and websites.

Re:1366x768 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39461561)

If you rotate the screen, then you have a 1080x1920 screen. It is unfortunate that most screens are TN, so the viewing angle effects get worse.
It is a pity you cannot do that with a laptop, but you can do that with a media consumption oriented tablet.
And by media I mean the funny cat videos on YouTube, now in Full HD.

Re:1366x768 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39461575)

There is high hopes future lines of Macs will break this annoying HD craze, if new Ipad didn't already.

WTF is WXGA?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39461419)

This is slashdot, right, so why do we have to put up with these idiotic, nonsensical marketing terms which are meaningless to everyone but the person who created them, rather than being told the resolution itself straight away? Things like "1080p" are somewhat understandable, but the ones like the one from the title are just pure nonsense.

Re:WTF is WXGA?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39461437)

WTF is 1080p? They do post the actual resolution (1366x768). I wish all TV manufacturers would just post the actual resolution than coming up with marketing drivel like 720 and 1080p.

Re:WTF is WXGA?! (5, Interesting)

Mr Z (6791) | about 2 years ago | (#39461737)

1080p is a thousand times more descriptive than UXWVGA or what have you, because it tells you both the vertical resolution and the fact that it's progressive scan (the 'p') as opposed to interlaced. TVs only come in a small number of aspect ratios (4:3 and 16:9), so the horizontal resolution is implied by the vertical.

And to boot, the "GA" part, which has alternately stood for "graphics adaptor" (eg. CGA == Color Graphics Adaptor) and "graphics array" (VGA == "Video Graphics Array"), is just stupid. That video card names somehow became a handle for resolutions is just silly, since originally, all these cards were capable of multiple resolutions. (Ok, the MDA wasn't, but then the MDA didn't end in 'GA' now did it?)

I guess this all happened around the time of the second wave of "SuperVGA" cards. The first wave did 800x600, and the newer ones could do 1024x768, and needed some way to distinguish themselves. Once XGA came along, the alphabet soup resolution plague [wikimedia.org] was here to stay.

Re:WTF is WXGA?! (3, Informative)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#39461753)

Oh for god's sake. Are you trolling?

VGA = 640x480
SVGA = 800x600
XGA = 1024x768 ...

Go look it up for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphic_display_resolutions [wikipedia.org]

It's not a marketing term as much as it is a name for a numeric expression indicating a rectangular range of pixels. Those terms have been around longer than 1080p (which just means 1080 progressive scan lines).

And to the commenter above mine "I wish all TV manufacturers would..." Why? While 1080p TVs normally mean 1920x1080p, the ONLY thing they are really guaranteeing is 1080 progressive scan lines. From the days of analog TV, the contents of each line has effectively been analog variations in signal. In the days before color, it was merely an analog variable signal indicating brightness. So there was no effective pixel width as you understand it today. The density of phosphor was as close as you could get early on and actual pixel count could only be approximated in early color displays. Only Sony's Trinitron display tubes could really claim a true horizontal pixel count in CRTs as the arrangement of color bits were more hexagonal (or triangular depending on how you looked at it) in nature. Of course today's digital TV sources do account for horizontal pixel count as well as vertical, but the habit of referring only to the vertical count comes from the analog scaling of the horizontal scan line which still exists in today's TVs and signals. Technically, if someone were to make a 1280x1080 display and made the horizontal pixels wide enough to create a 16x9 aspect ratio, they might still be able to call it "1080p" even though most assert that it should mean 1920x1080.

We're still living with some legacy standards in our "modern age."

Re:WTF is WXGA?! (1)

Mr Z (6791) | about 2 years ago | (#39461847)

Sure, those alphabet soup strings are standardized, but they're still opaque alphabet soup. At least 1080p is descriptive, and 1080p does actually mean 1920x1080. It's standardized by the ATSC. [wikipedia.org]

Re:WTF is WXGA?! (2)

Skapare (16644) | about 2 years ago | (#39461891)

Just because it has been around for a while does not make it the best way. It's simpler to just give the numbers, like in 1920x1200.

Thought (-1, Redundant)

schrodingersGato (2602023) | about 2 years ago | (#39461423)

Does this mean that Microsoft is actually putting some thought into their OS for a change?

Re:Thought (-1, Flamebait)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 2 years ago | (#39461471)

Fucking RMS cock sucking cum guzzler... I'll bet you were really holding yourself back not to say "Micros$oft".

Good grief.

Re:Thought (2, Funny)

mystikkman (1487801) | about 2 years ago | (#39461687)

Fucking RMS cock sucking cum guzzler... I'll bet you were really holding yourself back not to say "Micros$oft".

Good grief.

He tried, but Hurd does not support the $ symbol yet.

There is a lot of thought being put into how to implement the support.

Re:Thought (2)

isopropanol (1936936) | about 2 years ago | (#39461507)

No, the clue was that they tried to do an inch based resolution (like everyone else) but were still using bitmaps, which looked wrong. If they had used SVGs maybe we could finally get people on business desktops to stop setting their LCDs to the wrong resolution.

Re:Thought (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about 2 years ago | (#39461677)

Does this mean that Microsoft is actually putting some thought into their OS for a change?

An example of too much thought being put into an OS: Hurd.

Re:Thought (1)

schrodingersGato (2602023) | about 2 years ago | (#39461795)

Haha, very true. My comment was clearly meant as a joke... I love to poke fun at ms, but I have to say I've been impressed with my experience with win7. Here's to hoping 8 is even better

Stop 16:9 displays! (5, Insightful)

ArchieBunker (132337) | about 2 years ago | (#39461427)

Please stop it with these 16:9 ratio displays. I can't stand having a two foot wide desktop with 6 inches of vertical height.

Re:Stop 16:9 displays! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39461433)

Stop running your desktop in 4:1 then...

Re:Stop 16:9 displays! (2, Funny)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 2 years ago | (#39461435)

"I can't stand having . . . 6 inches of vertical height"

That's what she said. Thanks, I'll be here all week. Tip your waitstaff.

Re:Stop 16:9 displays! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39461527)

Well, my dual home 24" 1920x1200 displays have 12" vertical, and at least 20" horizontal display space. My office 23" 1920x1080 is a bit shorter, but only by an inch or so.

Re:Stop 16:9 displays! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39461615)

Pedantic: 6" / 9 * 16 = about 1' not 2.

My way around this at work was to rotate the displays -90 degrees (into portrait instead of landscape, so to speak). It's not idiotproof, but I've got both windows and linux supporting this (a bit of trouble getting the welcome screen to rotate) and I get 4 screens of real estate in a large square. For sourcecode or long docs, stretching things to huge vertical rectangles makes all the hassles worthwhile.

Re:Stop 16:9 displays! (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about 2 years ago | (#39461711)

I can't stand having a two foot wide desktop with 6 inches of vertical height.

Your married to the classic CRT ratio, and you are of course overstating the actual ratio of new displays. You would do well to get used to letterbox ratios for a few reasons; 1) LCD tvs come in letterboxed ratios. The old 4:3 CRT/TV ratio is not coming back. 2) LCD TV'S have one or more HDMI ports, and netbooks have them as well. The best deal for a larger display is an LCD TV w/HDMI. I "dock" my netbook by simply plugging it in its hdmi port to my Vizio 24" LCD, something I picked up at Walmart for under $150, and bluetooth my kb and mouse. A comparable LCD from a computer specialty store was twice as much. The resolution is crisp as anything, and not only do I have two HDMI ports on this thing it also has an RGB analog port, an rf cable plug, and I can tune in TV broadcasts over the air, if I were so inclined. I bought three of these cheapie LCDs just for my computers. I have a hellacious dual head display on my main rig and the one for my netbook. 3) If for some reason you simply can't wrap your head around the 16:9 ratio I think you can force the 4:3 ration on some configurations. 4) You really should try to get used to t he letterbox; its pretty sweet to have a window going on one side where I'm hacking some code and another off the other side where I'm watching a movie or something. Its not nessessary to have another display (even though I do on my main/gaming rig anyway.) I have more screen real estate than I know what to do with.

I'm surprised so many people have widescreen (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#39461461)

I'm still using a CRT with standard aspect ratio, and two spare CRTs/LCDs in the basement. I won't be going widescreen for awhile.

But an up-and-down resolution of only 768 would feel cramped to me. I'm used to 1024 pixels of room, so I can comfortably read documents and books (which are oriented vertically).

Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39461517)

One thing I have seen doing is rotating the displays. That can give you a screen that can fit something similar to a sheet of paper like those 300dpi ones that were all the craze in the early 80s. At least in the publishing enterprises.

Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 2 years ago | (#39461519)

To me, 1024 is definitively not enough for a full A4 page, and if I have to scroll, a little more or less doesn't make much difference, in my opinion.

I have 800 vertical pixels, and I usually zoom the text to fit half the page. Having 1024 wouldn't give me anything.

Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39461563)

16:10 display + stand with a 90 degrees pivot is a nice combo for reading. It's almost has the aspect ratio of book pages so there's not much wasted space when the page is scaled to the whole window.

Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#39461633)

Indeed. I can get $2 CRT monitors at my local Goodwill that will do 1600x1200 easy, and usually higher.

Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about 2 years ago | (#39461741)

I'm surprised anyone is still using 4:3 CRTs. Seriously. Why?????

Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen (5, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#39461805)

Because they didn't break. Throwing-away a still working piece of equipment is what is filling-up landfills and damaging the environment. In addition to the 4:3 CRT and LCD screens, I also still use a TV set from the 70s, a second set from the 90s, a Pentium 4 computer, a Pentium 3 laptop, a Dolby 5.1 surround stereo, and 1987 and 97 cars..... rather than toss them in the trash, I just keep using them until they die. THEN I will upgrade.

Re:I'm surprised so many people have widescreen (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 2 years ago | (#39461779)

That's one funny thing. If I could get an affordable CRT monitor that is about 24" diagonally and can do 4:3 or 16:10 or even 16:9 at at least 1024 vertical pixels or better, I'd buy three and never look back at any of the LCD monitors ever again.

Sure, CRT will use more power and may eventually get issues with convergence, but I will finally be able to get a monitor that can display colours properly. It's been years since I've seen a computer monitor with proper colours, even IPS is shit in comparison to CRT, and OLED is just not ready for being made in monitor sizes needed (and has dimming problems with time).

I don't suppose the basement is actually a shop that sells those monitors somewhere? Please? :(

Above 1920x1200 ?!? (1)

dargaud (518470) | about 2 years ago | (#39461521)

1366x768 ? Who uses that ? Even my mother in law has a better screen.

I've been using 1920x1200 and/or 1920x1080 for the last 8 years and lately trying to get something better than that. But there's nothing without a huge price jump (think x3 for the closest resolution and most screens are actually x10). When are we going to get an improvement in screen resolution ?!? And fuck the iPad3.

Re:Above 1920x1200 ?!? (2)

jimicus (737525) | about 2 years ago | (#39461667)

> When are we going to get an improvement in screen resolution ?!? And fuck the iPad3.

Were I to hazard a guess, I'd say "About 12-18 months after Apple releases a laptop with drastically improved screen resolution".

Re:Above 1920x1200 ?!? (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 2 years ago | (#39461919)

The HDTV market drove down panel prices in certain specific sizes, like 1920x1080. Other sizes around those remained expensive because fewer manufacturers wanted to do those. So even 1920x1200 is a big jump in price. When UDTV comes out, then it will probably give us 4096x1728 (cinema 4K) and maybe one common scaled down size of that.

I miss WUXGA. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39461533)

Before 1080p LCD's were commonplace, 1920x1200 screens were common. Now they're hard to find, and expensive and I really miss them. It's the perfect resolution for a desktop, allowing full HD playback with subtitles on the black bars, plus it's tall enough to have two pages of text fit nicely.

Once 1920x1080 LCDs started being mass produced and used in both monitors and TVs, the superior WUXGA screens became much harder to find.

I don't really get the whole 1366x768 screen. I'd rather have 1280x800, as it's to 720p as WUXGA is to 1080p.

16:10 all the way. Stupid TV industry has pushed computer monitors to use 16:9.

Re:I miss WUXGA. (1)

osu-neko (2604) | about 2 years ago | (#39461589)

Before 1080p LCD's were commonplace, 1920x1200 screens were common. Now they're hard to find...

orly? [dell.com] Took me all of ten seconds searching...

Re:I miss WUXGA. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39461879)

Yeah that is a nice Frigging MONITOR. I usetwo of them every day.
What about a laptop screen?

AFAIK, the Apple 17in MBP is the only laptop that still has 1920x1200 resilution.

Typical Broken MS crap (1)

towermac (752159) | about 2 years ago | (#39461547)

Half the images in TFA were broken links. Of course, to Microsoft's credit, the broken link icons were scaling very nicely.

Once again proving they are idiots (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#39461581)

Microsoft had another option which they have completely ignored. SVG is a standard graphics format which is vector based. The code to support it has already been written over and over again. MSIE already supports the format from MSIE 8 and above. SVG does not have to mean the rendering is slow in the least and can easily mean bitmaps are rendered from SVG sources before displaying and only has to be updated if the screen resolution changes.

Of course, they could also have used WMF but... yeah... just no.

They could have selected any resolution after basing icons and other graphical bits on SVG and it would ALWAYS look as sharp as it needs to look.

Re:Once again proving they are idiots (3, Insightful)

Moridineas (213502) | about 2 years ago | (#39461611)

Making all art resources into vector graphics is not nearly as easy as you seem to think it is. Absolutely nobody believes that rendering SVG or other vector formats is the hard part--the problem is converting content to vector formats!

Bitmaps are not going anywhere for a long time.

You're the idiot (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about 2 years ago | (#39461661)

You can't convert all images to SVG. Try zooming a PDF which has images, and see how the images get blurry while the text remains sharp.

Re:Once again proving they are idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39461663)

Actually scaling is built into win32. Yep baked right in. Doesnt work worth a damn. Because every video card manufacture out there did their drivers differently. So MS wanting to be compatible 'fixed' it. It now does not work very well. As instead of everything being scaled to that it takes into account which font size you are using. MS could 'fix' the problem now. But would break just about every single application out there.

Look up dialog units.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms645475(VS.85).aspx [microsoft.com]

Re:Once again proving they are idiots (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39461763)

It's near the end of the article, and I know no one ever rtfa here, but yes. That is an option. The reason they don't make it the default is because so many people are still used to doing bitmap graphics and MS doesn't want to face the wrath of the nerds that refuse to learn something new.

Re:Once again proving they are idiots (0)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#39461837)

I see it... and saw it. The fact is, they are creating an ALL NEW user interface and have the opportunity to create new standards and to enforce them against the old ways developers have been working with since the beginning.

Microsoft suffers TREMENDOUSLY for their keeping the old stuff working. To make progress, you simply have to divest yourself of old things which get in your way. But instead of answering the problem with a simple and universal way of handling it, they try to blend the old and the new creating a clumbsy and awkward transition. But this is how they have always done it. Can anyone deny that it isn't quite the way to go?

When Apple made the transition from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X, they created a compatibility layer for Mac OS 9 though it sucked pretty bad... it was barely passable but it worked well enough that people who were planning to transition could do so. Mac OS 9 apps looked like hell compared to Mac OS X apps, but they worked.

Microsoft could EASILY take the same approach. Sure, scale and display your "legacy bitmapped icons" but when you create your apps FOR Windows 8, the standard is to use SVG and nothing else. But they run the risk of upsetting people who don't want to change with the times. Boo-frikken-hoo!! Those unwilling to change are the ones hurting Microsoft and its reputation the most. Microsoft could do better without those clowns.

30", 2560x1600 here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39461653)

And the best part: paid for from an EU grant!

Re:30", 2560x1600 here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39461759)

I've got a couple of 2560x1440 ones here, paid for by my work. They're too cheap for 2560x1600 I guess.

4-8k screens (1)

Twinbee (767046) | about 2 years ago | (#39461673)

This is why it would be great if we could have 5-20k+ screens. Scaling and blurring wouldn't be an issue anymore (hardware or in software manually), and we won't have to rely on tricks such as subpixel anti-aliasing (or even *any* anti-aliasing, so that scaling is faster, and where there are less artifacts if you work in graphics). Reading text would as clear as reading a book. And we would take one step closer to true resolution independence where all icons, gadgets and widgets would resize accordingly.

Why do they make crappy displays? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 years ago | (#39461695)

Especially amongst the professional crowd, there's clearly a demand for displays with more vertical pixels. If someone just created laptops with 1920x1200 and 1280x1024, matte coating, hell, put a IPS panel there (they are cheap enough to make). It would sell like hot pretzels in Oktoberfest.

Welcome to 1995 Microsoft (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | about 2 years ago | (#39461719)

Early on, the Windows team explored an inch-based scaling system, but found out that bitmaps would look blurry when scaled to unpredictable sizes.

Really?! Who would have thought that.

But do I understand correctly that Windows 8 (Metro) will pretty much abolish higher resolutions? Higher resolution, but still the same amount of screen estate.

1920x1080 (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#39461739)

I don't know why my W510 has this resolution. My old DELL Latitude D810 with WUXGA display has 1920x1200 resolution [google.com], but that laptop is now impossible to use, it's so old and underpowered and it overheats immediately and responsiveness is near 0. But I want that screen on my new laptop, WTF is wrong with this picture that since 2005 the screen resolutions have gone down as opposed to going up?

Re:1920x1080 (1)

billcopc (196330) | about 2 years ago | (#39461865)

2005 ? Even earlier... I had a 15.4" Inspiron in early 2003 with 1920x1200. It was a really nice display. Fast-forward 8 years, the 17" Macbook Pro has that same res, but the 15" is only 1440x900. Survey says: WTF!? Even Dell's 15" laptops are still on 1366x768, unless you go for the top-of-the-line XPS and pay extra to upgrade to a 1080p panel, by which point you're looking at a $2000 "desktop replacement" laptop with less than 2 hours of battery life.

Laptops have stagnated because, like everything good in this industry, non-geeks have crowded the market with their unrefined tastes and wants, squeezing us elitists out of the equation. We are now the minority, and have little if any influence on product segmentation anymore. It simply isn't profitable for the big guys to cater to out exotic needs, when they can make 100 times greater profits by selling cheap junk to the everyman.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account