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 560788
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Unfortunate
by tylerdurden on Tue 7th May 2013 17:42 UTC in reply to "Unfortunate"
tylerdurden
Member since:
2009-03-17

Wow, people actually want low screen resolutions by choice?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Unfortunate
by tidux on Tue 7th May 2013 18:50 in reply to "RE: Unfortunate"
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

Yep, they're called morons.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[3]: Unfortunate
by latreides on Wed 8th May 2013 19:14 in reply to "RE[2]: Unfortunate"
latreides Member since:
2011-03-20

Wanting a resolution that is more pleasing to look at is hardly grounds for such a statement.

While I have 20/20 vision, looking at tiny windows, tiny buttons, and tiny text is not my idea of an enjoyable experience. Increasing the DPI to effectively mimic a lower resolution, while paying the cost (monetary) and (power) and (processing power) to get exactly what I can already get with a lower resolution screen seems like quite the effort for no gain.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Unfortunate
by Yoko_T on Tue 7th May 2013 23:49 in reply to "RE: Unfortunate"
Yoko_T Member since:
2011-08-18

Wow, people actually want low screen resolutions by choice?

Hell,yes pea-brain. Unlike you and your friends, not everyone is a brain-damaged gamer.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Unfortunate
by tylerdurden on Wed 8th May 2013 06:29 in reply to "RE[2]: Unfortunate"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

I feel honored that you paused your game to tell me off...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Unfortunate
by abraxas on Thu 9th May 2013 23:26 in reply to "RE[2]: Unfortunate"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

"Wow, people actually want low screen resolutions by choice?

Hell,yes pea-brain. Unlike you and your friends, not everyone is a brain-damaged gamer.
"

How is a a lower resolution better? Is because buttons and other things get smaller? That isn't an issue of resolution. It's an issue of "resolution independence" with the graphical interface. I don't think people should be demanding LOWER resolutions, but more resolution independent interfaces.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Unfortunate
by Soulbender on Wed 8th May 2013 20:00 in reply to "RE: Unfortunate"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"Low resolution" is relative to the physical size of the display. 1366x768 is not necessarily low.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Unfortunate
by tonny on Thu 9th May 2013 03:42 in reply to "RE[2]: Unfortunate"
tonny Member since:
2011-12-22

Yep, agreed! And distance from our eyes to the screen. If I'm a normal person with 11.6" netbook 1366x768 screen, with ~50cm distance from eyes to screen (most relaxed position for typing or enjoying moview), I think it's crispy enough.

Reply Parent Score: 2