Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

1366x768 Monitors Top 1024x768 For the First Time

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the hope-it's-not-like-the-rocky-movies dept.

Displays 394

mpol writes "Statcounter released new statistics today and 1366x768 is now the most used screen resolution on the internet. These screens are available in most cheap laptops, and therefore probably sold and used very much. With 19.2%, it is beating the old 4:3 resolution, which still has 18.6% usage share. (But as you know, you have lies, damn lies, and statistics.)" The numbers are still close, but it sounds like the tide has turned.

cancel ×

394 comments

Who cares? (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662295)

768 lines of resolution is too few.

Re:Who cares? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39662331)

The point is that 16:9 now beats 4:3.

Re:Who cares? (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662467)

Horizontal resolution is entirely irrelevant. Your ability to read lines peaks at about 80 characters. There's no limit to how long a column of text can be. Therefore, vertical resolution is the important issue.

Re:Who cares? (5, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662531)

Why do I always have to be the one to point out that porn looks better in wide screen?

Re:Who cares? (5, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662585)

Why do I always have to be the one to point out that porn looks better in wide screen?

Because you're the only person who thinks "People of Wal-Mart" is a porn site?

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39662685)

BAM!

Re:Who cares? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39662633)

Hatta's gonna hat.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39663427)

Why do I always have to be the one to point out that porn looks better in wide screen?

Because the rest of us like our porn 4:3

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39662565)

Horizontal resolution is entirely irrelevant. Your ability to read lines peaks at about 80 characters. There's no limit to how long a column of text can be. Therefore, vertical resolution is the important issue.

Sorry, can you break your post up into a couple different lines for me? I was only able to read what I put in bold, because I'm apparently incapable of reading more than 80 characters in a line. I'm sure you had something wonderfully insightful to add, so I definitely don't want to miss anything.

Re:Who cares? (1, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662877)

I see you are unfamilliar with the word "peak". I suggest you consult a dictionary and contrast with the word "end". They are not synonyms.

Re:Who cares? (2)

cos(0) (455098) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662589)

I run my desktop monitors at work in portrait orientation, like God intended.

Re:Who cares? (1)

MitchDev (2526834) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662945)

No kidding. Documents are norally in Portrait, I have a TV for watching movies...

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39662645)

When the only thing on your screen is a single column of text, sure. (So turn your bloody monitor sideways -- VGA was only 720px wide, so 768px is plenty for 80 columns -- and rejoice in the 33.4% more pixels!)

But in the real world, I generally have multiple windows open, each no larger than half the screen area, and mostly smaller.* Which aspect ratio more space comes in is largely immaterial, so long as more space does come; 1366x768 is in fact more pixels than 1024x768, so I'm calling this a win.

*This usage pattern applies for 1920x1080, 1920x1200, 2048x1536, and 3840x2400 screens -- I do have a laptop that's only 1280x800, but I seldom use it any more. A typical large window there might be 2/3 of the screen, rather than half.

Re:Who cares? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662905)

But in the real world, I generally have multiple windows open, each no larger than half the screen area, and mostly smaller.*

That's a waste. You can't have focus on more than one window at a time. At best you can read from one and write into another, so if you're displaying more than two windows you're wasting space.

Re:Who cares? (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662781)

Horizontal resolution is entirely irrelevant.

Not to be blunt, but horseshit.

I knew people who used 132 columns on VT100's almost 20 years ago. I find 80 columns for code to be too small.

And, having upgraded to a widescreen monitor several years ago, I can have two windows side by side or overlapping and have more on the screen. I've got a Visio diagram I keep open most of the time with my network diagram on it, and it's the width of the screen that allows me to see more, and several applications I use can present more information on a wider screen. Throw in virtual desktops, and I've got 10+ square feet of screen available to me.

Not everything is just plain text displayed in courier font.

What you say is your opinion (and your welcome to it), but having the wider screen for a vast number of us is more productive. Hell, the company I work for, dual widescreen monitors is the norm for *everyone* -- which gives you a lot more horizontal resolution than vertical. The ability to look at things side by side is damned useful. If it wasn't for the fact that I'd need to buy a second video card, I'd have added a second widescreen monitor to my home machine.

However, I know for *some* applications, flipping a widescreen monitor 90 degrees to give you a tall screen works. For me not so much since I'm not editing documents that much.

Re:Who cares? (4, Informative)

spottedkangaroo (451692) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662925)

It's not bullshit, it's straight up harder on your eyes if you're doing a lot of scanning. If you're spending a long time concentrating on the various parts of the line (like in code) ymmv, but in general, your eyes scan like shit if the text is too wide. However, it's not a number of characters, it's a certain angular width... so distance to the monitor and dpi matter just as much. I also expect the angle differs for everyone.

Personally, I use a 4:3 section of the screen for code ... and maximize (16:9) if I'm working with really long lines. I also use a pretty big font these days... other words ... blah.

But his point was that, for text tracking, your eyes do best in a narrower area. I bet you read web pages more than you write code.

Re:Who cares? (1)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 2 years ago | (#39663467)

So you're saying that we should buy monitors based on the minimum-width task we use them for? Or is it that we should buy monitors that conform to your personal preferences?

Also, do you realize that you're implicitly agreeing with the post that states that our ability to take advantage of horizontal resolution is limited (peaking 80 characters, apparently, I wish he would have specified what the efficiency curve is like and what the by-god conversion factor of characters-to-pixels is), while our ability to take advantage of vertical resolution is unlimited?

Re:Who cares? (3, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39663371)

What you say is your opinion (and your welcome to it), but having the wider screen for a vast number of us is more productive

You might believe that, but studies show that long lines fatigue the eyes. Typography is well established science, and the 80 character limit is actually on the high end of what is recommended.

Given the propensity for humans to fool themselves about their actual capabilities, (e.g., I'm a great multitasker!), doesn't it make sense to listen to the experts?

Re:Who cares? (2)

Tarlus (1000874) | more than 2 years ago | (#39663329)

Horizontal resolution is entirely irrelevant.

That really depends on what you use it for. Having two pages of a document rendered side-by-side, or having two separate documents open on the screen is very useful to me. Sometimes I find myself having to look back and forth between different drafts of a document, and it is very helpful. Sometimes I have a spreadsheet with many columns that is far easier to view with a wide resolution. Yet other times, I may have VIM running full screen in vsplit mode which greatly facilitates web development.

And these were just examples relating to text. People who game and watch movies using their computer will have their own reasons for advocating wide screen. Granted, 1366x768 is pretty cramped, but it's the ratio that we're talking about.

Re:Who cares? (1)

frisket (149522) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662493)

The point is that 16:9 now beats 4:3.

Which is a step backwards for anyone working in publishing or document engineering, where you still need height, not width...for the moment.

Re:Who cares? (1)

Ichijo (607641) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662735)

Which is a step backwards for anyone working in publishing or document engineering, where you still need height, not width...for the moment.

How many more inches do they need, and how much is that in pixels?

Re:Who cares? (2)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 2 years ago | (#39663239)

the thing is, a big enough 4:3 monitor, rotated, is almost perfect for displaying an entire US letter (3.88:3) or A4 (4.24:3) document.

ah well, it's not a concern to most, and i guess tablets are now filling that niche.

Re:Who cares? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#39663355)

But a 16:9 rotated will fit that and the tool bars at the top.

Re:Who cares? (1)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662971)

In that case you pick up a decent monitor that supports being rotated 90 degrees, not a piece of junk laptop :)

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39663381)

Why do I need a rotatable screen or suffer less vertical space because some movie fans want to watch widescreen movies? Let THEM rotate their screens 90 degrees. PCs and laptops are multi-purpose devices. Want to watch TV? Get a TV!

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39662501)

Except in tablets.

Re:Who cares? (5, Insightful)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662791)

The point is that 16:9 is fine for HDTV, but it sucks for computers. 16:10 is better, and some people prefer 16:12 (4:3). Vertical space is usually more constricted than horizontal space for computers, therefore, decreases in screen height are far more constraining, and not offset by increases in width.

Still using a 16:10 display, will not buy 16:9 unless that's the only option I can afford.

Re:Who cares? (1)

leonardluen (211265) | more than 2 years ago | (#39663337)

i have heard people say this...what is so great about 16:10 over 16:9? i guess i don't have a preference either way, my work monitors are 16:10...my home monitors are 16:9 i don't see much of a difference.

both work and home are way over 1366x768 that just isn't a high enough resolution.

i run 3 monitors at work, though i often have a difficult time figuring what to put on the 3rd monitor

Re:Who cares? (2)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 2 years ago | (#39663291)

If that's the news this article attempts to cover, then they are frigging late. When you download their CSV and sum all their 4:3 resolutions you will find that 16:9 beat it in July 2011.

This seems to be the current distribution for aspect ratios:

16:9 - 32.98%
8:5 - 24.85%
4:3 - 21.47%
5:4 - 7.36%
5:3 - 3.74%
3:4 - 2.05% ?? Portrait mode iPads using desktop browser user agents? They area ll 768x1024.
7.58% Unknown/Other(some may fit in above categories but unidentified in CSV)

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39662503)

Not on the lenovo x220 they aren't. Mod troll please ;-)

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39662599)

Yeah, these resolutions are fucking crazy. I've been running 2560x1600 since 2003.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39662837)

768 lines should be enough for anybody!

Re:Who cares? (1)

slaker (53818) | more than 2 years ago | (#39663409)

The bullshit argument that some people seem to trot out is that widescreen resolutions represent "extra pixels" over the tallscreen equivalent. And that's just not true:

19" desktop or 15" laptop "tall" screen: 1280 x 1024 = 1.31 million pixels
19" desktop "wide" or 15" laptop screen: 1366 x 768 = 1.04 million pixels.

Simple math tells me that more stuff fits on the taller screen (which at that resolution is really 5:4 rather than 4:3, but whatever).

At least in the Windows world there really is a lot of stuff that has been designed with the incorrect assumption that everyone is going to have 800 vertical lines of resolution. Anything less than that feels like a regression.

Yup. (1)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662325)

Writing this comment on a HP ProBook 4530s with a 1366x768 screen.

Obsolete already! (5, Funny)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662535)

Writing this comment on an iPad with a 2048x1536 screen.

Re:Obsolete already! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39662647)

You're right, the iPad is obsolete already!

...while wearing oven gloves. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39662879)

nt

LOL ... (4, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662333)

Statcounter released new statistics today and 1366x768 is now the most used screen resolution on the internet. These screens are available in most cheap laptops, and therefore probably sold and used very much.

My wife was just bitching about her new work laptop today because it's got a smaller screen than her old one. This is the resolution she's running at.

I find it kind of pathetic that in this day and age companies are rolling out laptops to their employees with something which is only modestly better than 1024x768, which I was running in '91.

Reminds me of a monitor I got with a work PC a couple of years back -- it was a widescreen monitor, but it's native resolution was still 4:3. Which basically meant it couldn't draw circles, and was optimized more to be a TV than a computer monitor. WTF is the point in doing that? It looked like crap as a computer monitor.

Re:LOL ... (4, Insightful)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662555)

Yes, the loss of vertical space between the prior "common" laptop resolution of 1280x800 (which was also a more useful 16:10 instead of 16:9) and 1366x768 is definitely noticeable. Many browser-based games won't even fit in 768 pixels without fullscreening (as in completely removing titlebars) the browser.

Re:LOL ... (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662839)

Resolution and aspect ratio SHOULD NOT be tied together like that. If they are it means your display subsystem is naive and generally crap.

One step closer... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39662361)

...to my dream of owning a 30" 4k resolution computer monitor.

Why is screen resolution not improving? (4, Insightful)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662375)

I've been looking into replacing my current laptop, which has a 1680x1050 resolution. But I see that MOST laptops nowadays have this crappy 1366x768 screen. What gives? Why isn't our screen resolution improving along with out CPU speed, RAM capacity, HD capacity, and virtually everything else???

Re:Why is screen resolution not improving? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662479)

Why isn't our screen resolution improving along with out CPU speed, RAM capacity, HD capacity, and virtually everything else???

To maximize profits. Higher resolution would cost more.

Re:Why is screen resolution not improving? (1)

Iniamyen (2440798) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662509)

Price is going down. Even with Moore's Law, when you factor in inflation, something has to be compromised...

Re:Why is screen resolution not improving? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39662521)

Apple only uses 1366x768 on the smallest 11 inch MacBook Air.

Small text (4, Insightful)

Aqualung812 (959532) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662543)

Don't you know that higher resolution means smaller text?

Sure, when you have a proper application & OS, you can resize the text all you want, and also get the benefits of much better graphics.

However, most end user reaction to seeing over 2000 lines was "The text is too small. Change it back."

Why give them something better* & more expensive if they don't want it?

*I suppose that better could be that lower res = lower graphics card power use = longer battery life & cheaper cost.

Re:Small text (1)

archen (447353) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662851)

Man am I feeling the pain of that where I work as I've switched people to 1900x1200 monitors. It would help a lot if Firefox would allow a default "zoom everything" instead of on a per website basis, or maybe honor the OS dpi setting.

Re:Small text (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39663247)

Had the same issue with firefox. You can solve it by tweaking layout.css.devPixelsPerPx in about:config.

Link: https://brainwreckedtech.wordpress.com/2010/08/06/fix-firefox-dpi-settings/

Re:Why is screen resolution not improving? (4, Insightful)

JDG1980 (2438906) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662563)

I've been looking into replacing my current laptop, which has a 1680x1050 resolution. But I see that MOST laptops nowadays have this crappy 1366x768 screen. What gives? Why isn't our screen resolution improving along with out CPU speed, RAM capacity, HD capacity, and virtually everything else???

Because operating systems can't yet do DPI scaling that works 100% perfectly on all applications. Windows 7 is much better at this than XP was, but there are still lots of rogue applications which won't behave themselves properly at anything but the standard DPI setting. Not long ago I filed a bug report on an integrated library system (ILS) application used at my workplace; some of the toolbar icons are solid black if you set 120 dpi, but display fine at the standard setting. Many other programs I've used have text spilling over the edges, overlapping, etc. if anything other than the default DPI setting is used.

My feeling is that Apple is going to solve the deadlock; they're less afraid to break old stuff (in large part because they don't have nearly so many businesses running their software and depending on it supporting legacy apps). And they've already rolled out "Retina displays" in the iPhone and iPad; rumor has it that the MacBook may be next.

Re:Why is screen resolution not improving? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39662931)

Nice how you completely sidestepped the quoted question and went on to push Apple for something they haven't done and comes entirely out of your big toe.

The question remains, why did the common resolution go down from 1680x1050 (which is perfectly and entirely supported by even 10 year old out-of-support windows operating systems) to 1366x768?

Re:Why is screen resolution not improving? (1)

toejam13 (958243) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662957)

Which is a problem with the OS. When you use a higher DPI, it only seems to scale some objects while others remain the same size.

The solution would be to map bitmap objects onto a texture and then scale it in proportion to the desktop scale factor. Vector objects are then rendered to scale and merged in. Applications should actually be DPI agnostic since it is the job of the desktop rendering engine to scale.

Obviously scaling bitmap objects upward isn't ideal, but there are plenty of ways to compensate for the quality issues. Just look at all of the scaling choices you get when using old emulator programs.

Re:Why is screen resolution not improving? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39663277)

I don't want the OS to scale anything. Having a higher resolution doesn't give you more real estate if the OS scales everything to the same size.

Re:Why is screen resolution not improving? (2)

x1r8a3k (1170111) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662595)

The average user doesn't care. As long as it has the HD badge, it's impressive sounding.

Besides, if you only do email and facebook it doesn't make much of a difference.

Re:Why is screen resolution not improving? (1)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662621)

Because displays are tied to movie decoding, not desktop productivity. Everybody seems to be confused as to what more than 1080 pixels vertical would possibly be used for. Yet everybody who gets to use their Facebooks and Yahoo mails on a decent display vs their dinky laptop always says "Wow, this is nice".

Re:Why is screen resolution not improving? (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662885)

Everybody seems to be confused as to what more than 1080 pixels vertical would possibly be used for.

Except that the resolution quoted is 1366x768. That's not even close to 1080. It's enough to allow it to be called 'HD' at 720p, though - which is why your argument still stands; as long as people can watch a video and do some facebook/twitter/e-mail/general web browsing, they don't really need the higher resolution.

Higher resolution is available - it just generally costs a pretty penny more and usually commands a larger screen.

Re:Why is screen resolution not improving? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39663003)

The laptops I have it is usually a 200-400 dollar premium. Depending on how big it is and what you want to put in it.

Another option is to buy the laptop as is and do the tricky bit of swapping out the panel. Never wanted to put that much work into it myself but know people who have.

All the big names have an option for at least a 1080 screen. But only on very select laptops.

Re:Why is screen resolution not improving? (1)

sdk4777 (1013597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662745)

I just went ahead and bought a second hand HP Compaq 6710b, it came from a government office, so it was barely used. It has a nice 16x10 screen with 1680x1050 resolution. Just perfect.

Re:Why is screen resolution not improving? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39662969)

My guess would be long term contracts are still in place between OEM's, and LCD and LED display manufacturers for specific technology, not 'new or developing technology.

It's the same with Car Manufacturers and off-the-shelf components that people can buy at $auto_store of choice. There's a reason you can still buy a 1985 Chevy Truck swing arm pretty much, anywhere. (not sure if this is true, but I like a good car anology once in a while)

Re:Why is screen resolution not improving? (1)

BetterThanCaesar (625636) | more than 2 years ago | (#39663009)

Meanwhile, the iPad 3 has 2048 x 1536 in under 10 inches. That alone is almost enough for me to want one.

Re:Why is screen resolution not improving? (1)

CliffH (64518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39663025)

That 1680x1050 res screen isn't in a cheap laptop you bought from a store I would assume (bad me for assuming). My boss has a Dell with that same res and I keep telling him what I'll tell you, you'll need to get a decent consumer grade laptop (probably gamer spec'd) or a decent business machine to get a good resolution. There are more and more (basing this on NZ stores mind you so take with a grain of salt) lower end laptops sporting better resolutions but, on average, you need to pay a bit more for a better resolution and that usually means not a cheap laptop for the masses.

Re:Why is screen resolution not improving? (1)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 2 years ago | (#39663089)

I had to search around for a decent resolution. I ended up with a 15" Sager with a 1920x1080 screen. 1366x768 is endemic though. You've gotta be picky about the resolution if you want something else.

Re:Why is screen resolution not improving? (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 2 years ago | (#39663385)

You'd think it should. New iPad has 2048x1536 iirc, and that's just a lowly 9.7" screen.

Re:Why is screen resolution not improving? (1)

bemymonkey (1244086) | more than 2 years ago | (#39663391)

Unfortunately, it seems that most of the world's laptop using population is too blind for decent pixel densities at typical desktop OS 100% scaling... I actually know people who WANT 1366x768 on a 15.6 inch laptop :(

Re:Why is screen resolution not improving? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#39663457)

I've been looking into replacing my current laptop, which has a 1680x1050 resolution. But I see that MOST laptops nowadays have this crappy 1366x768 screen. What gives? Why isn't our screen resolution improving along with out CPU speed, RAM capacity, HD capacity, and virtually everything else???

Because you've been shopping on price, not quality.

Laptops cost the same as they always have. If your old one costed $2000 when you bought it, you should look at $1500-2000 laptops. Not $500.

Because to get to $500, manufacturers had to design to cost, and display screens and GPUs are extremely expensive parts that most people don't care about (people say "I want a 15-inch laptop" not "I want a laptop with 1400x900"). CPU, hard disk, RAM, those are expensive, but people know they want "more" and leave out graphics and display. Plus those items are relatively cheap - tossing in a low end 2.6GHz processor in place of a 2.5GHz one isn't a lot of cash. Or switching from a 320GB to a 500GB hard disk. Or doubling RAM from 2GB to 4GB.

But an LCD display is expensive, especially higher resolution ones. GPUs are optional because there are ones built in (making Intel the largest display controller manufacturer - nVidia and ATI/AMD are bit-players). So a cheap LCD coupled with expensive-sounding parts and you have your $500 laptop.

That $500 laptop isn't a bargain - it's just a pricepoint manufacturers are using to say laptops are available cheap. Last time I looked, you were looking at $1000 and up before they started bumping up resolution and even adding in low-end GPUs. $1500 should get you what you want quite readily.

Everyone's fixated on cheap. Apple is one of the few that tends to use higher resolution screens by default, and Dell often offers it as an option on a lot of their higher end laptops. Get out of the budget lines and look at the more performance lines.

uh oh... cue the aspect ratio people.. (4, Funny)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662389)

uh oh... cue the aspect ratio people.. the ones complaining about 16:9 and saying 16:10 is so much better for computer work, only to be snubbed by the 4:3 people who don't know why anybody would want to work with any sort of 'wide screen' monitor, who in turn will be ridiculed by the CAD people stroking their 5:4 monitors, while the 16:9 folk just roll their eyes, and their monitor by 90 degrees, and put on a trollface.

Now... where's my 32" 4k 3D 12bit 2.39:1...

Re:uh oh... cue the aspect ratio people.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39662465)

Now... where's my 32" 4k 3D 12bit 2.39:1...

This.
So much this.
Please, I hope it happens soon.
I mean, if I knew it wouldn't happen, it wouldn't be like this.
I know it will I just don't know when and the suspense is killing me.

Re:uh oh... cue the aspect ratio people.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39662597)

I wouldn't count on it, 2:39:1 is a horrible aspect ratio for a computer. In general, it's just too short, but think about what a laptop at that aspect ratio would look like. In order to fit a keyboard and a touchpad, you'd need to put a huge bezel on the top and bottom of the screen. 2.39:1 is a good aspect ratio for certain types of movies, and absolutely nothing else.

Re:uh oh... cue the aspect ratio people.. (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 2 years ago | (#39663069)

don't hate the bezel, embrace the bezel!

Besides, do away with the touchpad, it'll be a touchscreen panel anyway.
If I just measure the keyboard part of my notebook, it's about 28cm*12cm, or 21:9. Which means the bezel wouldn't be any much 'wider' than it is now (although I realize modern notebooks have thinner bezels.. except in the top where they fit a webcam).

And given that it's a nice high-res 4k display, you can fit a website within a 4:3 subsection if you'd prefer - you'd have s[ace on the left/right for other things - other windows, perhaps :)

Re:uh oh... cue the aspect ratio people.. (1)

ifrag (984323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662579)

Unfortunately in some games (Starcraft II for example) 16:9 actually gives more game-world viewing space than 16:10. Was rather pissed about that when I was playing on my 16:10, but now I'm playing on a 16:9 like a real gamer!

Re:uh oh... cue the aspect ratio people.. (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 2 years ago | (#39663217)

Yeah, that's just bad game design, and something that does get exploited in other ways as well. People with a 3 monitor setup in an FPS, for example, can get a nice wide view that people on a single monitor cannot; even if they changed the field of view setting, everything would get compressed into that single screen.
Unfortunately it's not something that's easily dealt with short of hard-limiting the screen real-estate that's actually used by the game.. and then you'd just get gamers complaining that on their 4:3 screen, only a 16:9 portion is used, or vice versa. And if you have to use the entire screen, somebody is going to benefit one way or another. Unless you have some OSD element that you can mess with (in 16:9 vs 16:10, the extra 16:1 could be covered up with an OSD element that is always on-screen, e.g., while in the 16:9 version where it would overlap the view it fades out when not in use).

Re:uh oh... cue the aspect ratio people.. (1)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662669)

16:9 monitors tend to be far to narrow to be useful in portrait mode, until you get to the 2560x1440, and even then 1440 wide isn't great.

(posted from my 22" 4k 16:10)

Who uses 1024x768? (1)

Keith Mickunas (460655) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662425)

Aren't most desktop monitors at least 1280x1024? Isn't 1024x768 something strictly limited to older CRTs? Or are there far more of those out there still being used than I suspect?

Re:Who uses 1024x768? (1)

frisket (149522) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662603)

Aren't most desktop monitors at least 1280x1024? Isn't 1024x768 something strictly limited to older CRTs? Or are there far more of those out there still being used than I suspect?

This old Dell Latitude laptop is 1400×1050. Most laptops I can find have something like 868 pixels high which is not enough for my work. There are some with a higher vertical resolution, but they are not physically big (high) enough: the dots are there, but they're so small you'd need to wear magnifying lenses to do any work on documents. It's because manufacturers have found the big market is in domestic use watching pr0n videos, not in business or engineering.

Re:Who uses 1024x768? (1)

windcask (1795642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662637)

Aren't most desktop monitors at least 1280x1024? Isn't 1024x768 something strictly limited to older CRTs? Or are there far more of those out there still being used than I suspect?

Go back in the server room in your office. See the little dark blue 4:3 Dell 15" LCD that's either attached to a server KVM or otherwise sitting in a corner with its cord tied around the base? That's 1024x768. There's a few left in every office, not quite crappy enough to put out to pasture on the shop floor but too old and small to be of practical use for the desk jockeys.

Re:Who uses 1024x768? (1)

JDG1980 (2438906) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662683)

Aren't most desktop monitors at least 1280x1024? Isn't 1024x768 something strictly limited to older CRTs? Or are there far more of those out there still being used than I suspect?

There are indeed a lot of old monitors still out therem especially in the hands of non-technical users with aging PCs. Also keep in mind that these resolution surveys are based on what resolution the user has selected, not necessarily the monitor's native resolution. A lot of less experienced users with bad eyesight will get a high-resolution monitor, find that they can't read the text, and instead of increasing the DPI (a setting they probably don't know exists), will lower the resolution via Windows display settings. This is how you wind up with lots of people running at 1024x768.

Re:Who uses 1024x768? (1)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662749)

This is harvesting statistics from web browser requests. Do some older browsers just fix their info to 1024x768 regardless of the actual display involved?

How many are "monitors".... (2)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662449)

and how many are TVs with a DVI port?

Re:How many are "monitors".... (1)

craznar (710808) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662907)

TVs with DVI ports... all round.

720p and 1080p - may have improved TV quality, but locked monitors into decade old resolutions.

1366x768 (1, Insightful)

polar red (215081) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662473)

Is it still the nineteenth century ????
1920*1080 should be standard by now.

Re:1366x768 (5, Insightful)

franciscohs (1003004) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662525)

No, 1920x1200 should be standard.

Re:1366x768 (1)

Jmanamj (1077749) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662765)

I agree. My buddy has a laptop roughly the same size and specs as mine, but he has a 1920x1200 screen, while I have a 1366x768...He cringes when he looks at my screen.

My games run faster at max resolution though. /blindoptimism

Re:1366x768 (1)

Trondheim (2012498) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662865)

About 18 months ago, I upgraded from a 2007ish Dell Latitude D810 with a 1920x1200 screen, to a Latitude E6510. To my surprise, the highest resolution I could get with the E6510 was 1920x1080.

Re:1366x768 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39662783)

No, 3840x2400/2160 should be the standard.

Re:1366x768 (1)

PenquinCoder (1431871) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662815)

Agreed. I recently bought a new laptop, and the 1920x1200 17" display looks magnificent compared to my older 1336x768.

Re:1366x768 (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662849)

Not on an 10"-13" screen, and it's iffy on a 15". Not everyone wants a 17" or larger laptop, too big and too heavy.

1280x800 should be standard on 13", 1440x900 should be standard for 13", 15" should be 1440x900 or 1680x1050, unless you're going to double those similar to the new iPad.

Re:1366x768 (4, Insightful)

bgarcia (33222) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662863)

Yep. We were well on our way to 16x10 being the new standard aspect ratio, with better & better resolutions. But then HDTV finally became popular, and a computer with an "HD screen" became something that could be advertised, and we've been stuck with 16x9 ratios with crappy 1366x768 resolutions (aka 720p) ever since.

(typed on a 2560x1600 monitor)

Re:1366x768 (2)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 2 years ago | (#39663145)

Agreed. I bought my current desktop monitor several years ago when 1920x1200 was more common, and I LOVE it. 1920x1080 feels too cramped.

Re:1366x768 (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 2 years ago | (#39663237)

You mean, 1600x1200 or 1920x1440. 16x10 is useless even with pivot.

Re:1366x768 (1)

chekkerness (2430014) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662711)

Ridiculous.
I run 1024x768 on all of my CRT monitors, and on the one LCD one I have (only because it's for a laptop). Anything higher or at a different aspect ratio is shit.

Re:1366x768 (1)

Silas is back (765580) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662777)

Read your own signature and you have the answer to your rhetoric question.

1920x1200 getting hard to find anymore (5, Insightful)

DanLake (543142) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662661)

My wife and I have 1920x1200 screens on our desktops and laptops. The laptops are getting old and have become almost impossible to replace unless we want to step into the "mobile CAD workstation" market of laptop at 3 times the cost we paid for her Dell. Even desktop screens have all moved down from 1200 vertical lines to 1080 "HD". I had hoped my 24 to 27 inch screens would have bumped up to 2560x1600 by now but it's going the opposite direction.

2*1280*1024 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39662673)

I have two monitors, each one 1280*1024 both at home [my choice] and at work [not my choice]. My wife's desktop PC at home has one 1280*1024 monitor, but she's not a geek/didn't want two monitors. We got our home monitors in 2009; I've had the same setup since I started at my current job in 2007.

At one point [not sure if they still do], Dell made a 1600*1200 20" monitor; I'd love that. I've never been a big fan of widescreen; I'd rather have two 4:3 or 5:4 monitors.

Yes, I know that you can have two pages of a document open side-by-side on a 1920*1080 monitor, but that's far fewer pixels than the 2560*1024 I have with my two-monitor setup.

Screens are getting wider... (5, Insightful)

craznar (710808) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662795)

... and web pages are getting narrower.

and while we are at it, why are 27" monitors the same resolution as 14" laptop screens?

and why is the highest resolution device easily available a 10.7" iPad ?

The world makes no sense to me.

Re:Screens are getting wider... (3, Funny)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662895)

And LEON is getting LARGER!

1366x768 is so 20 years ago (4, Insightful)

Trondheim (2012498) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662797)

I remember saving my pennies in the early 90s for a video card that displayed 1024x768 (XGA for you old-timers). So here we are, some 20 years later, and the standard display resolution is only slightly better.

They've passed by 1.5:1 mobiles! (1)

whovian (107062) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662809)

A mobile phone with pixel grid of 480 x 320 is a 1.5:1 or 3:2 ratio. So desktop screens jumped right over mobile dimensions, it would seem. To me, 1.78:1 seems way too skinny when vertically the long way, and I find even 1.5:1 on the phone to be a bit narrow. I guess that puts me in the 1.33 or 1.00 camp.

ahhh (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39662847)

I run 16:10. Down with 16:9!

1920 x 1200 for internet, and 2304 x 1440 for games. CRT widescreen. Not many made :D sony gdmfw900, beast monitor.

I hate 16x9 (2)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662937)

I prefer 16x10. I used to have two 16x10 monitors at work, one 19 inches, the other slightly smaller than that. I kept asking my boss to get me a match for the larger one, even sent the link where she could get the exact same model. She ended up getting me two new monitors, both 16x9. There is just not enough vertical space for be to be comfortable using them.

I have an 1920x1200 at home, which makes me very comfortable.

Re:I hate 16x9 (1)

chekkerness (2430014) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662989)

Well you're nothin'!
I prefer 4:3, and what I say goes!

Except in... (1)

umundane (1490741) | more than 2 years ago | (#39663077)

Except in Antarctica, where 100% of the screens are 1600x900.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...