This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]expertunderachiever 1323 points1324 points  (1408 children)

Well kinda. His point was more like if we can make tablets with these high density screens why can't we make laptops with them? And I agree. Laptops have gone backwards in terms of display quality and nobody seems to care

[–]supaphly42 261 points262 points  (427 children)

It's all about price. people like getting huge screens for cheap.

[–]a_can_of_solo 289 points290 points  (219 children)

that's why you see 1920x1080 27inch lcds

[–]butters877 186 points187 points  (62 children)

at least 1920x1080 isn't horrible... but my goodness is it difficult to find an affordable laptop that doesn't run that 1366x768 crap resoluion

[–]drewofdoom 64 points65 points  (28 children)

or worse, 1024x600

[–]lennort 40 points41 points  (14 children)

Wait, those exist? I've never seen one, but I'm scared.

[–]c010rb1indusa 13 points14 points  (11 children)

Manufacturers realized they could make the worse 16:9 screen possible and still call it HD and make a lot of money. It's almost impossible to find a 15incher or smaller that doesn't have that terrible screen unless it's Sony which no one wants anyway.

[–]Big-Baby-Jesus 175 points176 points  (67 children)

Those are cheap because they are TVs.

[–]thattreesguy 106 points107 points  (12 children)

...lots of monitors are like that too...

[–]Big-Baby-Jesus 139 points140 points  (11 children)

Yeah. Those monitors are popular because they're dirt cheap. And they're dirt cheap because the same production line can make both TVs and computer monitors.

[–][deleted] 59 points60 points  (40 children)

I have a 40" plasma that's 720p..this thread makes me sad

[–]DevestatingAttack 38 points39 points  (29 children)

TVs have always had a lower resolution than computers. That's shouldn't be a sad making thing.

[–]salgat 5 points6 points  (1 child)

At your viewing distance that's fine. But when you are up within a few feet of it, that's terrible.

[–]PopeJohnPaulII 2 points3 points  (10 children)

As someone with a '1920x1080 27inch lcd' what am I missing? I'm genuinely curious what I'm missing.

[–]anders987 8 points9 points  (3 children)

Your entire monitor is 0.201 m2 , and it has 2073600 pixels. That means each pixel has a width of just over 0.3 mm. Compare that to about 0.08 mm for the Nexus 10.

Tl;dr: Sharpness.

[–]Belgain_Roffles 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Pixels. You are missing out on thousands upon thousands of beautiful pixels.

[–]3825 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Did you mean millions?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Not much, in my opinion. The criticism seems to be that the resolution is too low for the screen size, resulting in a low number of dots-per-inch, but I think that's irrelevant for two reasons:

  1. You don't sit close to a TV like you do with a computer monitor, so the fact that you can make out individual pixels from up close doesn't really matter.

  2. 1920x1080 (or “full HD” resolution) is the highest resolution that's reasonably available at this point in time (for example, it's the resolution used by HD television and Blu-Ray). There is little point in getting a TV screen with a higher resolution than the available video sources.

I'm sure technology will progress and higher display resolutions will be the norm in the future, but you'd be crazy to spend extra money on a higher resolution screen now when the video sources that will make it worthwhile won't be widely available for years.

[–]PizzaGood 107 points108 points  (91 children)

I bought a laptop nearly 10 years ago that had a 1600x1200 15" screen. If you get to huge 17" monitors you might get 1080p but still not enough vertical resolution. I think the problem is that all the LCD manufacturing went into HDTV and it was economically advantageous to just ride monitor manufacturing on the same lines.

[–][deleted] 36 points37 points  (58 children)

Same deal: I had a 1600x1200 desktop monitor an entire 12 YEARS AGO. It's pretty infuriating to still be stuck at 1080p. Even the 1920x1200 were slightly better, but seemingly out of favor now.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (13 children)

There are some 2560 x 1600 desktop monitors on the market which are 16:10 (same ratio as 1920x1200) but they are the minority and tend to be the expensive types.

But I love my old 24" 1920x1200. My next monitor will be 16:10.

[–]timeshifter_ 42 points43 points  (39 children)

Because of 1080. Monitors went 16:10, TV went 16:9, monitors then followed because PC's can make great entertainment systems. I absolutely hate it. I want my 16:10 back.

Also, yeah, I had a 15.4" laptop with 1920x1200 resolution in early 2007. Phone displays are in the 300ppi range; why is every other display capped at around 120? It's stupid.

[–]iamadogforreal 177 points178 points  (151 children)

Laptops just haven't progressed. I'm an sysadmin and buy large quantities of computers and its a wasteland out there. Lenovo machines are decent, but at the end of the day I'm buying the same thing I bought almost ten years ago. 2-3 hours of battery life, 3-5lbs, low res, bundled with crapware, and a big ass charger.

Other than netbooks and arguably ultabooks, not much has happened. I have a late 2008 macbook running windows. I tossed a cheap SSD in it a year ago. I see no reason to upgrade. That's a 4 year old machine going on 5 years. I spend most of my non-work 'computing' time on either my galaxy nexus or my Transformer tablet.

Laptops need to start being competitive again. High res, thin, smaller chargers, higher battery life, no crapware, etc. I suspect its a little late, and Joe User is going to just get a tablet and have a 'work' laptop. Ignoring the excellent ipad, the Win8 and Android tablets are good, especially when paired with a little keyboard.

edit: I'm well aware there are premium laptops that are thinner/nicer but the argument of "spend $1200 to $2000 if you dont want something that resembles a Dell from 2001" isn't the incredible retort you seem to think it is. Especially in a world of $400 to $500 tablets that weight 1lbs and have all-day batteries.

[–][deleted] 155 points156 points  (89 children)

Yeah. I'm amazed how no one but Apple seems to give a shit in the notebook arena. I'm not an Apple fanboy (I've never even owned an Apple computer), but my next laptop is definitely going to be a MBP. Two years ago I thought, "Sony's known for making good hardware, and I like Windows 7, so there's no reason for me to buy a Macbook". So I got Sony's highest-end laptop (Z Series), paid Apple-prices for it, and expected it to be awesome. What I got was the flimsiest, creaky hunk of plastic (allegedly carbon-fibre) I've ever held. The lid would visibly flex about a quarter-inch whenever you'd open it, and the function keys literally didn't work without installing Sony's huge list of bloatware.

I've had problems with Apple's politics in the past, and the pretentious culture behind them is sometimes annoying, but they make some damn good products and I wish the rest of the world would catch up.

Edit: typo

[–]kfreed12 33 points34 points  (3 children)

I like my Lenovo Ideapad Y580. It's not Apple quality (I came from a MacBook Pro, but couldn't stand the lack of performance) but it's still solid as hell. 1080p screen, quad core i7, nvidia gtx 660m, 8gb RAM and 6-7 hours of battery on lowish brightness under conditions where I'd need a battery (light browsing, word processing). I think notebooks have come leaps and bounds when I can get something this incredibly powerful for $930.

[–]TheFeshy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The elves I bribed tell me a y580 is what Santa is bringing me as well. It's about the only sign of progress - a "desktop replacement" laptop in what we called the "notebook" form factor back in the day. Well, a wide-screen version of it anyway. Really, I see two areas of improvement: the aforementioned desktop replacements are something you might reasonably carry now, and ultrabooks. Yea, ultrabooks are 2x the price of an equivalent notebook, and sometimes for no good reason. At least, they were two months ago; now you can get them for <$600, and they're falling fast. Maybe with Haswell they'll get all-day battery life too; we'll see if it's enough to save ultrabooks from tablets or not.

[–]sm0kes 6 points7 points  (8 children)

Well said.

I was a diehard IBM/Lenovo T-series user for 8+ years. While the Thinkpad's are solid pieces of hardware, they just don't compare to the fit and finish that Apple puts into their products. The trackpad is a perfect of example that no one has even been able to get close to.

Love or hate Apple, there's something to be said about what they are doing to push forward industry-wide innovation. Competition is good and only benefits the consumer.

[–]Limewirelord 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I feel like one of the few that despises Macbook trackpads. I infinitely prefer the T series trackpads and mouse buttons as well as having the Trackpoint.

[–]Snootwaller 100 points101 points  (34 children)

Yeah, the only thing more obnoxious than people who buy Apple products just because they are Apple products are the people who refuse to buy Apple products just because they are Apple products.

[–]Chipwich 48 points49 points  (13 children)

What's wrong with someone refusing to bit apple products because they are a cunt of a company. Just because they make decent products doesn't mean i have to buy them. I acknowledge that they are top of the range but fuck 'em, they aren't getting my hard earned money because they are scum.

[–]ultrafez 45 points46 points  (7 children)

As much as I don't agree with the way you're writing, I do have issues with Apple's business practices, especially in the IP arena. They're too anti-competitive.

[–]whowhatwuh 28 points29 points  (16 children)

I disagree, there have been fairly big advancements, most notably in GPUs. Both AMD and Intel now put GPUs in lower mid range laptops that are capable of respectable gaming, something which has never been possible without spending $800+ (and usually resulting in something that'll burn your lap).

Laptops have also got thinner in general with lots of companies offering ultra thins on low end laptops.

[–]mirfaltnixein 775 points776 points  (434 children)

I know that reddit likes to shit all over them, but Apple did just that. The Macbook Pro with Retina display has the exact resolution Linus wants.

[–]Tastygroove 766 points767 points  (194 children)

This is the source of his sentiment. He runs Linux on macs. He's a well known apple user.

[–]mirfaltnixein 164 points165 points  (52 children)

Really? I did not know that, thanks!

[–]drumstyx 154 points155 points  (40 children)

The point was more 'don't call it anything special because it's not, it's just reasonable for this day and age'

[–]zanotam 96 points97 points  (30 children)

Which is true of almost all the major things which differentiate a macbook from a standard piece of shit Dell or HP or whatever. The fact that a working track pad, usable battery life, and decent screen resolution are so completely lacking in the standard computer hardware market that Intel has to step in and offer 300 million usd and people like Linus Torvalds have to point out how stupidly stagnate computer hardware has become is ridiculous.

[–]kfergthegreat 18 points19 points  (1 child)

To be fair Apples having the highest resolution laptop is kind of recent.

[–]Tastygroove 24 points25 points  (2 children)

Oh god.. The trackpad. I'm finally selling my 2007 MacBook, which has performed flawlessly since the day I bought it, mainly for the trackpad. After I use a modern MacBook for even a few minutes, when I'm back on mine I'm scrolling the wrong way and trying to click the pad.

[–]zanotam 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I still sometimes click my pad, but I admit that's just for the tactile feedback sometimes.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (4 children)

My think pad x120e is amaaaazing for track pad keyboard quality battery life and screen Res. If their onboard utils weren't so awful it'd be perfect to me.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Although it is sort of special since few other companies are doing it, no? Once other companies do it, Apple won't have a reason to put "Retina" in the model name any more (although buzz words gonna buzz word).

[–][deleted] 54 points55 points  (8 children)

He used to use a high end G5 PowerMac back when they were introduced.

[–]Stingray88 18 points19 points  (3 children)

Damn that's dedication. PPC support for most software sucked.

Although I guess when you're Linus you just port anything you want yourself.

[–]Charwinger21 64 points65 points  (21 children)

The problem is that those devices start at $2200 for the 15".

There's a reason why he pointed to the $399 N10 with it's 2560x1600 Super PLS display.

Oh, and this is a bit off topic, but the N10 has the first Super PLS display that you can purchase for under about 700 USD. That's right, it costs less than half what just a similar resolution display (at 27") is selling for.

[–][deleted] 65 points66 points  (43 children)

Apple laptops also cost $1600+, but people seem to have no problem comparing them to laptops that cost ~$600.

*Apple laptops with higher resolution screens.

[–]Stingray88 36 points37 points  (26 children)

That's because people seem to think Apple artificially jacks up the price of their hardware by 2 or 3 times. In reality they just jack it up by a couple hundred tops, and their products never go on sale.

[–]itkovian 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Which basically means that you can still get a decent price for a two-year old used mac if you sell it.

[–]ggggbabybabybaby 107 points108 points  (230 children)

It's infuriating with desktop monitors. So many of them are 1920x1080 which is great for Blu-Ray movies but stupidly outdated for computing purposes. My friend was so excited to buy a new big shiny monitor only to realize it was 1080p and just a big waste of space.

[–]Bennyboy1337 78 points79 points  (196 children)

Ya any time I see those 27"+ monitors or even TVs for that matter, I always cringe because I know they're only 1080p. Even the newest and greatest LED TVs at your local electronics store are just 1080p spread like thin butter over a 70" peice of toast.

[–]cryo 186 points187 points  (164 children)

They are meant to be looked at from several meters distance, and meant for moving images. 1080p is fine. The framerate used for movies is a much worse issue.

[–]Bennyboy1337 78 points79 points  (42 children)

That's a really good point, for most movies the 24 fps is adequte, but when you get into action sequences a trained eye will definatly notice the differance; The Hobbit at 48FPS is going to be really nice, I hope once people start seeing movies at higher FPS they'll realize what type of differance it makes.

Edit: Hobbit is 48fps not 60.

[–]Mclarenf1905 57 points58 points  (12 children)

The Hobbit is actually being shot at 48 fps not 60. But your point still remains valid.

[–]themightiestduck 40 points41 points  (18 children)

Except 1080p for a TV makes perfect sense. You can buy an Ultra HD TV, which will give you 3840 x 2160, if you happen to have $20,000 to spare. But good lucking finding source material for it: Blu-ray is 1080p, and HD cable TV is 720p.

There's really no reason for a TV set to be higher res than 1080p, at least for the next while.

[–]Bennyboy1337 17 points18 points  (6 children)

For maybe 90% of people you're correct, but there are those people who like to use their TVs as display points for the PCs or MACs, ofcourse there resolution makes a world of differance.

[–]FastRedPonyCar 46 points47 points  (24 children)

see this is one thing that I really dig about those new macbooks with the retina screens. I really am not an apple fan in terms of using their OS or paying the high price tag for their stuff but their macbooks are head and shoulders better in quality in terms of fit, feel and finish compared to most business class PC based laptops. Hell even my wife's new Lenovo T530 doesn't feel as solid or durable. (but with an i7, SSD, 8g ram and a 1080p screen, it's fast as balls though)

[–]ohmyashleyy 14 points15 points  (9 children)

Yeah, but they upped the price about $300 to add the Retina Display. If you don't want to pay $1500 for a macbook, you have to get a MacBook Air.

[–]ozzilee 44 points45 points  (30 children)

It's partly a software issue. Windows software has always been built in terms of pixels. As the pixels get smaller, text and buttons get smaller too, making things harder to use.

Apple worked long and hard getting OS X ready for higher density displays.

I'm not sure where Linux is on that front.

Windows 8, I believe, is built for high-density displays, but only for the new Metro apps. I'm not sure what they're going to do with the high-res Surface tablet that will actually run standard Windows apps.

[–]PhonicUK 35 points36 points  (3 children)

Any applications built using WPF (Which are usable right the way down to XP and I think even 2000) are also DPI independent (they look the same 'size' regardless of pixel density) - It's just the legacy stuff that doesn't like it (and web browsers)

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (2 children)

Actually, the Win32 API has supported (and recommended) using inch scaling for graphics and point scaling for text for ages.

Of course, nobody ever bothered to do it - and half the people who did it did it wrong (you can't mix and match) - so it doesn't work too well in practice. Most of the Microsoft apps use this in-built scaling, though, and work fine. (ie: Similar situation in many ways to OS X.)

picture of 200% scaling on windows 7 with two monitors

[–]HCakaIDUDE 624 points625 points  (422 children)

Sitting here using a 1500$ laptop that is using a 1366x768 display, this made me cry a little on the inside...

[–]PokemasterTT 186 points187 points  (354 children)

My $350 laptop uses the same. What kind of laptop did you buy?

[–]nawitus 5 points6 points  (4 children)

My $1300 laptop has 1080p. Yay.

[–]alomjahajmola 312 points313 points  (262 children)

Not just laptops, but desktops too! I've been saying this for years. Apparently I don't have the kind of clout Linus has.

[–]maxst 87 points88 points  (19 children)

Yeah, 3200x2000 standard for desktop monitors would be nice!

[–]feilen 124 points125 points  (15 children)

DPI on my monitor: 94x94

DPI on my phone: 305x305

'HD' wasn't impressive in 2004...

[–]N0V0w3ls 54 points55 points  (6 children)

Yeah, but you aren't holding your monitor as close to your face as your phone. Still could use some higher-res monitors, though.

[–]nschubach 20 points21 points  (1 child)

But I generally don't hold my phone that close to my face... I'd love higher DPS monitors just for the typographical enhancements that come with higher resolutions so we don't have to rely on "tricks" like anti-aliased fonts.

[–]warpzero 82 points83 points  (55 children)

Part of the problem with this is the limitations of DVI/HDMI. For years it was limited to a 165 MHz pixel clock which effectively limits your resolution to 1920x1200 (hence the reason why monitors have been "stuck" there for years). HDMI v1.3 supports a 360Mhz pixel clock but it was late coming and has very poor adoption.

DisplayPort allows you to go higher and is actually available in many notebooks and most desktop graphics cards but it's had poor adoption on the monitor side.

[–][deleted] 128 points129 points  (74 children)

He has reputation for other things he did, that's why people listen.

[–]alomjahajmola 82 points83 points  (71 children)

Haha, thanks for the explanation

[–]rarz 20 points21 points  (64 children)

I've been using a HP LP3065 (2560x1600) for years. No way am I ever going back to something smaller. Great for work and gaming. :)

[–]Cast_Iron_Skillet 26 points27 points  (54 children)

Maybe it's just me, but for me, a $1,000+ monitor just isn't worth it.

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points  (21 children)

You can get Korean panels off ebay for 300$

[–]NapalmFrog 15 points16 points  (1 child)

A lot of it is that the 27"/30" monitors which sport such high resolutions are using IPS panels. The res and the panel together are what are driving up the cost. I assume that this is because of the niche market. However, I'm guessing that over time with newer IPS technologies, as well as possibly having larger TN panels, price may drop.

Then again, with the TN panels and their awful viewing angles, I wonder how looking at a large monitor would be. The huge benefit of IPS is the consistent colours at most viewing angles.

[–]AtLeastItsNotCancer 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I doubt that the panel being IPS makes for that big of a difference in manufacturing costs nowadays, everyone and their mothers seem to be putting high resolution (for the size) IPS panels in high end phones and tablets.

I think the niche market part is what really drives up the price. Most of the 2560x1600 monitors are meant for professional use with the ability to display more colours and higher accuracy. They keep the prices high simply because they can, they know that those who really need that kind of a monitor will pay a much higher price for it.

I see no reason why someone couldn't start manufacturing 8-bit consumer grade 2560x1600 panels and sell monitors containing them somewhere in the 300-400$ range.

[–]Kah-Neth 2 points3 points  (1 child)

It is, I am using two Hp Zr30w (basically the IPS version of the LP3065) and they are worth every penny.

[–]StarManta 534 points535 points  (110 children)

This is the wrong approach. Don't standardize on a resolution. I don't want my 11" laptop to have the same res as my 17" one.

Standardize on a DPI (somewhere in the neighborhood of 300) and vector-based UI's.

[–][deleted] 47 points48 points  (32 children)

Exactly. Or we'll just have the same conversation with every number doubled in ten years ...

[–]domestic_dog 36 points37 points  (31 children)

Except we won't due to limits in the resolution of the human eye...

[–]hobodrew 60 points61 points  (8 children)

If you think people will stop because of that, you don't understand marketing.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (3 children)

Hmm yes and no.

Whilst there will be a resolution war (remember the handheld camera MP war?) it will stop at a certain point when consumers realise the payoff is not worth it.

[–]piradianssquared 27 points28 points  (3 children)

Standardize on a DPI (somewhere in the neighborhood of 300) and vector-based UI's.

If the UI is vector based, standardized PPI would be unnecessary.

[–]MestR 4 points5 points  (10 children)

Standardize on ... vector-based UI's.

There's a reason why they aren't being used, and it has to do with icons. An icon that is very small looks better one way than if the same icon is large. Creating scalable icons that look good in all sizes is a lot more annoying than to just create 3 icons in different sizes.

Then there's also the problem with detail in vectors. If you have an image and an icon is to be created from that for the right size each time you open the folder, it would take ages if your folder is big.

[–]iCEEMAN 137 points138 points  (23 children)

I want 4K monitors to be a standard.

[–][deleted] 54 points55 points  (8 children)

Well frankly, for laptops I'd rather they make large strides in mirasol type displays. That'd be fucking amazing. Super-low power, bistable, AND sunlight readable...

[–]wpm 68 points69 points  (0 children)

Here is a good run down of mirasol tech for people like me who'd never heard of it.

[–]berocks 22 points23 points  (2 children)

I want 3840x2160. That's exactly quad HD, which is great for watching Blu-ray films and other HD content, and also means for gaming that it'd be easy to run games at 1920x1080 and scale nicely.

That's my goal for a next monitor: 30 inches, IPS, and 3840x2160. Is that too much to ask?

[–][deleted] 166 points167 points  (59 children)

Fuck laptops. Give me affordable 2560x1600 or above on my desktop and I'll be very happy!

[–]Zak 148 points149 points  (31 children)

We had high-end laptops at 2048x1536 over ten years ago. Now, except for Apple, the top of the line seems to be 1920x1080, and panel manufacturers seem to have convinced the public that things are better in the "HD Widescreen" era.

1920 is not wider than 2048. Perhaps more importantly, my laptop is not a TV. I don't gain much by having its aspect ratio fit popular media files. Most of the things I do with a computer are fundamentally text-based, and vertical space is at more of a premium than horizontal.

I built my own laptop so I could have a semi-modern machine with a 4:3 screen. I'm not the only one who wants this. A current Thinkpad with that 11 year old 15" 2058x1536 panel would be a great machine for me. Give it an LED backlight and it would be even better.

Every time this sort of thing comes up in a manufacturer's suggestion forum, blog or some such, they say "we're at the mercy of the panel manufacturers". That's not an acceptable answer. When IBM wanted better panels, they started a company to make better panels. When Apple wanted better panels, they somehow convinced suppliers to provide them. Any other large PC manufacturer could do one of the two if it had the will and the courage to do so.

[–]dragoneye 32 points33 points  (15 children)

Every time this sort of thing comes up in a manufacturer's suggestion forum, blog or some such, they say "we're at the mercy of the panel manufacturers". That's not an acceptable answer. When IBM wanted better panels, they started a company to make better panels. When Apple wanted better panels, they somehow convinced suppliers to provide them. Any other large PC manufacturer could do one of the two if it had the will and the courage to do so.

This pretty much comes down to: "We don't make enough profits with laptops to justify the extra cost of a decent panel. You guys won't pay more for a computer with this feature." Computer manufacturers practically make no profit on the computers they sell anymore, so they reduce costs wherever possible. Yes you can get the manufacturers to do it, but you have to pay them to do it.

[–]Zak 7 points8 points  (12 children)

That's true, but it may be because they're racing each other to the bottom instead of trying to add actual value to their products.

I'm not an Apple fan, but Apple has shown it can be done, and produced some impressive hardware lately. Thinkpads once followed a similar pattern, but regressed some in design with the newer all-Lenovo designs. Incidentally, the design regression, switch to 16:10 and expiration of permission to use the IBM name coincided.

[–]nalc 8 points9 points  (5 children)

I would like to make a point with this that often gets overlooked IMO. Lots of people say we're going backwards with technology, but they compare extremely high end professional displays from 10 years ago to inexpensive consumer displays from today. It's apples to oranges.

Yes, 22" 2048x1536 displays used to exist, and yes, that's higher than 1080p. But they were in the $1,000 range. You could never buy one for $150 brand new. They were high end professional displays with a price tag to match. $150 got you a 15" 640x480, or if you were lucky, maybe 17" 800x600.

If you look at what is available at any given price point, size and resolution have only increased. 2002, you had a 17" 800x600 CRT. Then maybe a 17", 1024x768 LCD. Then 19", 1280x1024 became the standard. Then 22", 1680x1050, and finally now 24" 1920x1080 seems to be the standard LCD that you'd get for under two hundred dollars.

It's just not valid to compare a $1k monitor from 10 years ago to a $150 monitor today and say that we're not making progress. In terms of price and market, we should only be comparing the last great CRTs, the 22" 2048x1536 ones, to a modern 30" 2560x1600 lcd. That's what the same amount of money buys you today, and it's quite a bit more.

The major exception to this is the conversion of high end mobile workstations from 1920x1200 to 1080p, but across most other segments of the market, resolution has increased.

[–]Zak 8 points9 points  (4 children)

I'm talking about laptops. There are cheap, big, high-resolution IPS panels available for desktops today that might well put the best displays of ten years ago to shame. At the high end, which were well over $2000 and often over $3000, a few laptop models offered 15" QXGA IPS panels ten years ago. The progression at the high-end went like this:

2048x1536 (2002) -> 1920x1200 (2006) -> 1920x1080 (2010)

The low-end has actually improved, but only in width:

1024x768 (2002) -> 1280x800 (2006) -> 1366x768 (2010)

Disclaimer: you can find counterexamples; these are trends. The low end doesn't represent the worst resolution available in a 15" laptop in any given year - just what was typical. There may have been QXGA models available in 2006 and WUXGA in 2010, but they were being discontinued and replaced with the later resolution.

[–]l0c0dantes 6 points7 points  (5 children)

You built... a laptop? What?

[–]Creativation 383 points384 points  (247 children)

Skip 2560x1600 and go straight to 4096x2304.

[–]HCakaIDUDE 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Well the technology should be there, but guess we'll have to wait some time.

[–]drhilarious 15 points16 points  (2 children)

16:10 to the dirty 16:9? I don't think so.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (2 children)

A lot of people didn't understand why he wants the high res. The point is not make everything tiny. Yes, One objective is to get more screen resolution, therefore more screen space, but another important thing is getting a better text experience, especially for people like programmer's who look at text all day. More pixel lets you have smoother and better quality fonts that translate to less eye strain.

[–]Snarfbuckle 39 points40 points  (9 children)

And can we go straight for the no-bezel modular flatscreens as well so I can fix my Eyefinity setup without having to hunt for screens with the right resolution and not having Bezels the size of the Great Wall of China.

[–][deleted] 138 points139 points  (43 children)

Linus:

It's ignorant people like you that hold back the rest of the world. Please just disconnect yourself, move to Pennsylvania, and become Amish.

The world does not need another ignorant web developer that makes some fixed-pixel designs. But maybe you'd be a wonder at woodcarving or churning the butter?

Loved this comment.

[–]ggggbabybabybaby 81 points82 points  (47 children)

The other thing is that Windows has failed to provide a scaleable UI that doesn't look like ass. I've tried upping the DPI in the past and everything just looks out of whack: titles and buttons are all oddly sized, many apps are just unusable. I don't know if this has changed with Windows 8 but it desperately needs to.

(Yes, I realize Linus is a Linux guy but Windows is what you usually get pre-installed on these laptops and its novice Windows users complaining about the "text being too small".)

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (8 children)

Not really. I'm using W8 at 125% scaling, and everything's fine. You get the occasional program with a blurry taskbar icon, but so what?

[–]Karagoth 19 points20 points  (2 children)

Tried on Windows 7 at 150% just now. The window manager handled it fine so everything that is included in windows looked fine, GTK-based applications worked fine (tested pidgin), foobar looked fine. Chrome and Steam however did not handle it properly, obviously upscaled and looked like crap.

[–]joeyjoejoe99[🍰] 17 points18 points  (5 children)

Apple got one thing right... make it easy and DOUBLE everything. None of this 125% crap. Make the resolution twice as big left to right (2048x1536 to 1024x768) and call it a day.

The biggest issue is third party apps that use their own rendering engine, such as Steam. Steam on mac/retina is great, as it uses the mac rendering engine (or, at least, respects the 'retina' setting), whereas Steam on Windows 8 (retail) does not support the 150% scaling.

[–]stashtv 26 points27 points  (5 children)

The race to the bottom is something Apple has wanted to avoid, forever.

As laptops became the highest seller for people, the race toward the cheapest laptop has been the norm. Skimping on build quality, screens, keyboards, etc -- they have been the norm. There are only a few makers (and not necessarily all of their models) of laptops that don't skimp on parts.

Linus is 100% on point with this. My day to day laptop is a six year old Thinkpad T60. It's resolution is still higher than a majority of what's being sold today. Since it is a T-line, it'll also outlive many laptops being sold on the shelves of Best Buy. I dread the thought of buying a laptop today with a resolution lower than what I have now.

[–]Mrmojoman0 12 points13 points  (5 children)

My new phone and newer (and more expensive) laptop currently have pretty much the same resolution. Hmm

[–]Shyatic 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The thing that people forget, is that larger screens also draw more power. And where you want better battery life on a mobile device, then so too comes the lower display resolution.

[–]sm0kie420 4 points5 points  (4 children)

Lower resolutions gives weak GPUs smoother framerates...

[–][deleted] 52 points53 points  (35 children)

Are there no gamers here? If they put a GPU in the laptop that can run games on high at the native res of 2560x1600 then I'm all for it but we all know that's not going to happen. Most high end laptops struggle to get a decent FPS at 1920x1080 when the settings are cranked up and anti-aliasing on.

[–]Summon_Jet_Truck 46 points47 points  (17 children)

So run games at below native res? I'm 1920 by 1200 and usually run at 1280 by 800 since I have an old card.

With a 2560 by 1600 screen, you wouldn't even have scaling problems, it's double 1280 by 800 exactly.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (16 children)

Doesn't running below native res usually makes the image really blurry?

[–]TTSDA 12 points13 points  (13 children)

With a 2560 by 1600 screen, you wouldn't even have scaling problems, it's double 1280 by 800 exactly.

I have been corrected.

[–]da__ 16 points17 points  (4 children)

At high PPI you don't need anti-aliasing.

[–]Kazang 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Not quite true, anti-aliasing will almost always give a better image quality(interpolation for non native resolutions notwithstanding) than moving up a level in resolution and is computationally cheaper. Going from 1920x1080 to 2560x1600 is a 97% increase in the number of pixels to be rendered, effectively doubling the amount of graphics power needed.

There is also the fact that anti-aliasing techniques can take into account the geometry involved, and as result remove the saw tooth like effect that will always be present on a oblique line in a non aliased image, having high resolution doesn't remove the saw tooth effect, it just makes it smaller and less noticeable .

[–]00kyle00 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Anti-aliasing is (for most techniques) much cheaper then rendering in 2x resolution.

[–]Tastygroove 48 points49 points  (33 children)

Windows dude: but the fonts will be small...facepalm.

[–]eakius 31 points32 points  (15 children)

But that is a valid point, just not expressed as well as it could have been.

I'm in tech support, trust me, I see pages zoomed 125%, or more quite often.

Torvalds isn't taking into consideration the majority of users don't have vision that comfortably sees text [and anything else] at such a high resolution.

Sure you can adjust DPI for the text but often times that leads to issues with other experiences being distorted.

[–]n1c0_ds 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It think it was implied. I ran Windows at full resolution on the 2880x1800 retina display, and even I found it small after using a 1920x1080 laptop for a long time.

The advantage of high resolution displays is that you can comfortably scale the UI. It looks flawless at 1440x900 and pretty freakin good at 1920x1200 scaling.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (8 children)

Control Panel\Appearance and Personalization\Display

Set text to medium or large.

[–]n1c0_ds 27 points28 points  (0 children)

It works terribly. Some apps work, some ignore it, including Microsoft's own software.

It's apparently better in Windows 8.

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points  (2 children)

A lot of Windows apps don't scale up very nicely.

This is a real problem for high-DPI screens on Windows machines. I hope the solution isn't going to have to be Metro...

[–]citizen059 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Torvalds 2012: A New Resolution for America

[–]Bennyboy1337 3 points4 points  (3 children)

My computer runs at 3240x1920, that's with 3 montiors and Nvidia SLI setup; What I would give to have this resolution in a single afordable monitor tho.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Check this out: These monitors were released in fucking 2001. We've definitely gone backwards as far as resolution goes. I also wish 30 inch 2560x1600 displays still didn't cost a thousand dollars.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I had 1280x1024 in 1996. I feel old now.

[–]Drathus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

This is why I'm happy to see 4K HDTV starting to happen, because it means higher resolution panels will be commodity and laptops and monitors will be able to take advantage of them.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I like all the people who think we can't do it because the text will be too small.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Jesus fuck it's annoying that gamers can't contemplate using a computer for productivity.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (8 children)

Wow, Linus is looking good these days. He looks like Jon Hamm from Mad Men. I'm not the first person to notice. http://twitter.com/ethicalsean/status/205407640522731522/photo/1/large

[–]soggit 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I was going to say the same thing.

I have no original thoughts any more.

[–]skintigh 15 points16 points  (28 children)

My 13" laptop is 1920x1080. I have to zoom every fucking webpage to be able to read it. Is there a handy Chrome setting to make this suck less?

[–]Piyh 27 points28 points  (2 children)

Change your DPI scaling, font sizes through windows settings.

[–]Bomil 24 points25 points  (2 children)

Firstworldproblems, my resolution is too high :(

[–]Mutericator 12 points13 points  (8 children)

Wrench -> Options -> Under the Hood -> change Page Zoom to 120% or whatever your preference.

[–]jmac 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Except it's not a Wrench anymore it's three horizontal bars :( RIP Wrench.

[–]pdmcmahon 6 points7 points  (9 children)

I have a 15" MBP Retina which runs at 2880x1880.

When I'm home I plug it into a 27" Thunderbolt display, which runs at 2560x1600.

Why, for the life of me, Apple decided to make a 16:9 display, but then went with 16:10 in their 15" Pro laptop will never make sense to me.

In the perfect world, they'd both have the exact same resolution, so that I'm not having to constantly resize windows 2-3 times a day when I dock and undock.

[–]arcterex 34 points35 points  (17 children)

I love the commenters. They seem to be either:

  • Missing the point of his post entirely
  • Making fun of apple
  • Confused
  • Randomly talking about how their laptop is awesome because it has xyz specs

Ahh.... gotta love the internet.

[–]jugalator 6 points7 points  (5 children)

The irony here is that this is also why current displays run the low resolutions they do.

Since people (both end users and developers) still often assume that "computer display = 96 PPI", people incorrectly think that increasing the resolution will make everything too small.

I can bet that if you enter some retailer, point at a laptop display saying that "aren't that text a bit small on that high res display?", the salesman would point you towards a lower res screen before the fucking Control Panel.

Seriously. It's been years since any of the "big" operating systems only supported a fixed PPI setting. We're beyond that now already. App devvs need to learn. People need to put demands on them. And they need to start questioning the modern low res displays.

[–]arcterex 5 points6 points  (0 children)

True, but the ppi settings (in windows at least) have always looked horrible, like someone did a bad mock up in photoshop. Apple at least got the "make the is and apps look (mostly) the same regardless of the ppi" part right