Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 7th May 2013 13:38 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems News of the year in the technology industry. "The Fit's most important spec its display, with a nod to Sony's TV division: they come with 1600x900 or 1920x1080 touchscreens and nothing else. 'We're not going to offer 1366x768," reps said. 'We've killed that.'" This is Sony's new, simplified entry-level notebook line. Very, very welcome news in a world where even a supposedly "Pro" laptop that costs $1199 ships with... A 1280x800 resolution. This bottom-of-the-barrel crap needs to be eradicated, and good on Sony for taking this step.
Thread beginning with comment 560748
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
wide screen only :(
by cobbaut on Tue 7th May 2013 14:03 UTC
cobbaut
Member since:
2005-10-23

I'd prefer a 1600x1200 resolution!
Because I actually work on the laptop and never use it to watch movies.

Reply Score: 11

RE: wide screen only :(
by 01Michael10 on Tue 7th May 2013 15:18 in reply to "wide screen only :("
01Michael10 Member since:
2013-05-07

You (and NuxRo) are right on... I recently managed to re-purpose a NEC Multisync LCD2190UXp display (1600x1200 4:3) from a patent look-up PC not being used anymore at the public library system I work at for myself.

This is the best monitor I have ever used bar none and wish had one at home. Wide-screen displays are good for watching movies but suck for doing real work or even just browsing the web.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: wide screen only :(
by Earl C Pottinger on Tue 7th May 2013 19:37 in reply to "wide screen only :("
Earl C Pottinger Member since:
2008-07-12

First, I agree that 1600*1200 is more workable than 1920*1080 but this garbage 1366*768 has got to go.

I mean it is not even showing all the fine details of HD videos that it is meant for, and as for web-browsing, text work and other stuff, it is very limiting to use.

Just the other day (about a week ago) I went thru the stock at the local Business Depot and Best Buy.

What a horror, dozens of machines with good specs on memory, CPU and available ports. Final found one with a 2 TByte hard drive, 2 USB 2.0, 1 USB 3.0, HDMI & VGA outputs, a up to date i7 CPU and then a screen of only 1366*768 and they wanted $1199 for it. Rip-off!

Found a Toshiba the almost same specs, 3 USB 2.0 and 500 GByte drive (the savings will go into a SSD) but at-least the screen was 1920*1080 and the price $799.

Seems it is not just about costs to make the machines, but how much profit they can fool people to give them.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: wide screen only :(
by Kivada on Wed 8th May 2013 08:58 in reply to "wide screen only :("
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

I prefer 1920x1200, more workspace then 1600x1200 while keeping the vertical space while still being able to properly display 1080p video while the laptop isn't being used for work.

IMO this doesn't go far enough, I'd rather see 1920x1200 be the floor at 10.1" and by the time you get to 15.6" you should be up to 3840x2400 WQUXGA displays. All modern GPUs can now handle this resolution, so you don't need funky setups like the old days treating the screen as multiple independent displays to reach that resolution.

Why 3840x2400 WQUXGA? It scales perfectly. 1 pixel @ 1920x1200 scales perfectly into a square of 4 pixels @ 3840x2400 so you don't need to treat it all that differently for font scaling, but when resolution independence gets better everything will look much crisper.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Scaling
by Earl C Pottinger on Wed 8th May 2013 14:08 in reply to "RE: wide screen only :("
Earl C Pottinger Member since:
2008-07-12

Another advantage to 1600*1200 is easy scaling without the fuzz.

1600*1200 easy to 800*600 for poorer eye-sight.
1920*1200 becomes 960*600 also easy to read.


1366*768 becomes yuck if you scale it down. Of-course you don't but you lost the chance to see finer detail in a lot of material. Even people with poorer eyesight will notice if difference went viewing some material.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: wide screen only :(
by tonny on Thu 9th May 2013 03:23 in reply to "RE: wide screen only :("
tonny Member since:
2011-12-22

IMO this doesn't go far enough, I'd rather see 1920x1200 be the floor at 10.1"

Well, make it 3840x2400 at 10.1 cause I have super-eye /s

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: wide screen only :(
by bassbeast on Wed 8th May 2013 16:34 in reply to "wide screen only :("
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

I'll probably get hate for saying it but...I don't see a probably with 1366x768 on smaller devices. I have a EEE 1215B 12 inch netbook that runs at that res and I have to say it works fine, websites are easy to read and navigate, movies look fine, running office programs on it is fine, I don't see a problem.

If anything I'd say that trying to jam high res screens into SFF devices? Kinda pointless. Now 16x9, I can see that, but pushing it up to 1080P on a small screen, what is the point? you gonna get a magnifying glass so you can enjoy those teeny tiny pixels? IMHO 1080P and better needs to be at LEAST 16 inches as far as screen size to truly enjoy the better picture, otherwise it just becomes a numbers game.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: wide screen only :(
by tonny on Thu 9th May 2013 03:27 in reply to "RE: wide screen only :("
tonny Member since:
2011-12-22

Well, some people use their laptop with the monitor at 4" distance from their face, so they ABSOLUTELY NEED, say, 1920x1200 at 10.1". Or 1920x1080 at 5" smartphone. Or 3840x2400 at 15.6" /s

Reply Parent Score: 2