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 513999
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:


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:

Does nobody tile windows on their screen?

Reply Parent Score: 2

ggeldenhuys Member since:

That again would give you too little horizontal space per window. eg: 56% of all laptops now have 1366x900, so that would give you 1366/2 = 683px per window if you have two windows tiled. Now include window borders, scrollbars etc and you have even less "usable space" per window.

Reply Parent Score: 2

phoenix Member since:

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