Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 12th Apr 2012 18:01 UTC
Intel It looks like 2013 is finally going to be the year that we're going to see truly high resolution displays - according to Intel. Retina displays for laptops and desktops for everyone. Considering promises regarding HDPI have been thrown our way for years now, it's high time they became reality. As the article mentions, there's one interesting possible issue: Windows 8's desktop mode. How will it handle HDPI displays?
Thread beginning with comment 513893
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Don't care if they are not 4:3 aspect ratio
by rom508 on Thu 12th Apr 2012 18:50 UTC
rom508
Member since:
2007-04-20

It's crazy how these days you can't get decent 4:3 monitors. I absolutely hate wide screen monitors, I use my monitor for work, not for watching porn. If I want to watch movies I have a TV for that. Why did they have to screw with something that was perfectly good.

Reply Score: 2

_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

wide is actually good for work too. 2 pages + in one screen.

best of all, if you don't like side by side.. most monitors rotate 90 degres, so you can have 2 pages up/down instead.

My favorites are 16:10, unfortunately, for cost reasons, most are going 16:9 now (like tvs). The diff ain't that big anyway.

Reply Parent Score: 4

jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

Agreed. There are MANY work uses for higher resolution, wide screen displays. I would be in a world of hurt without my wide screen for development. It's an efficiency thing.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Bishi Member since:
2009-08-27

With 17'' displays the 4:3 and the 5:4 format yielded the most displays per production cycle. With 19'' displays widescreen formats yielded more monitors. And when monitors get larger than 20'' widescreen starts getting more useful.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

It's crazy how these days you can't get decent 4:3 monitors. I absolutely hate wide screen monitors, I use my monitor for work, not for watching porn.


Why is widescreen a problem for work? For me, it's perfect - I can display two documents side-by-side, e.g a code diff tool, a code window with console output on one side, a spec document next to the code, etc. Sure, vertical space is important too, but the more horizontal pixels, the better...

Reply Parent Score: 2

ggeldenhuys Member since:
2006-11-13

+100000000

Computer monitors should definitely not by put in the same category as TV displays.

Unfortunately the hardware manufactures had a shortage of LCD panels back in 2009, and found that if they use 16:9 ratio displays (instead of 16:10) they can cut 18 15" displays out of a sheet, instead of 15 displays. Scoring 3 extra monitors for no real extra cost. So they started pushing the 16:9 ratio LCD monitors, thus giving us the absolute hideous 1366x900 resolution laptop screens, which are now covering 56% of all laptops on the market! Very sad indeed. I think only Apple still sells 16:10 laptops - but for a premium.

Give me the good old fashioned 4:3 monitors any day!! I want more vertical space, which makes much more sense for computer use.

The sad things is that 4:3 monitors actually have more pixels than their widescreen counterparts, but because they advertise the widescreen displays as 15.6" or 17.3" the consumer thinks they are getting a bigger monitor - which they aren't!! :-(

Edited 2012-04-13 07:39 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Does nobody tile windows on their screen?

Reply Parent Score: 2

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

You mean 1366x768, which is the 16:9 widescreen resolution most common nowadays. 1366x900 isn't 16:9 or 16:10 (1366x853 is 16:10).

1440x900 is the "standard" 16:10 resolution, and is way too common on 19-24" widescreens.

768 vertical pixels is not enough to do anything. Really, 1024 vertical pixels should be the minimum. And it's very hard to find widescreen monitors that are over 9" tall with over 1024 vertical pixels. ;)

Migrating from 19" 1280x1024 4:3 screens requires 23" 16:9 screens in order to not lose vertical screen real estate (physical or logical). ;) Which takes up a *lot* more physical desk space.

I miss my old IBM CRT 21" screen that supported more than "FullHD" resolutions. Unfortunately, it was over 80 lbs and warped my desk. But the resolutions it supported ...

Edited 2012-04-13 18:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2