2012-2013 Ultrabook calls for beyond Full HD resolutions

[cbn]

From the last link I provided in post #21

it's obvious that all we really need is more volume on quality displays and pricing can come down. For that matter, we're not even looking at crazy prices for a decent bump in display quality right now. The stock 1366x768 display in the R835 can be purchased online for just $75, whereas the nicer panel in the Samsung Series 9 appears to go for around $90. Assuming that's the actual panel I've seen in a Series 9 laptop (it's far better than the low-contrast TN panels found elsewhere), $15 extra is a pittance for the improved contrast and brightness. Or how about Apple's vaunted MacBook Air 1440x900 LCD: $100 for a replacement, just $25 more than what we currently have foisted on us.

$25 more (at retail level) for a Apple Quality 1440 x 900 TN display vs Plain Jane 1366 x 768 TN sounds like a good deal.

 

[cbn]

The Spectre does have an IPS panel which is worth keeping in mind.

http://www.cnet.com.au/hp-and-the-great-glass-ultrabook-envy-14-spectre-hands-on-339329436.htm

1600x900-pixel HP Radiance LED display uses different technology, according to HP — not true IPS, but extremely bright and viewable from any angle.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5398/hands-on-with-hps-envy-14-spectre-envy-15-and-folio

Vivek Gowri's comment following the above News Post:

The Envy 15 is an IPS panel (forgot to put it in the post, sorry guys), the Spectre is TN.

 

[Scout80]

give laptops IPS/retina display first @ 1920x1200

I have an old Dell M70 (circa 2005) that has 1920x1200 resolution on a 15.4" screen. I kept using it until this fall just because of the resolution. I never understood why companies when backwards but I blame all the "HD this, HD that" advertising. I don't think the average consumer realized that resolutions existed above 1080.

 

[cbn]

I have an old Dell M70 (circa 2005) that has 1920x1200 resolution on a 15.4" screen. I kept using it until this fall just because of the resolution. I never understood why companies when backwards but I blame all the "HD this, HD that" advertising. I don't think the average consumer realized that resolutions existed above 1080.

A lot of comments I have read claim that resolution is too high for such a small screen. (Apparently certain Workstation tasks are the exception)

An example: (scroll down to see 18th comment)

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/opinion/1652880/time-ditch-awful-hd-1080p-widescreens

I have a Dell Precision Laptop M70 with a 15.4" screen with 1920x1200 resolution. This was five years ago. The pixels are so small so I have to use the magnifying glass to see the small fonts, but is great for solid modeling - the main task

 

[pitz]

A lot of comments I have read claim that resolution is too high for such a small screen. (Apparently certain Workstation tasks are the exception)

I have the same screen in my laptop, a 1920x1200 15.4" unit. At first it sucked pretty bad because Windows Vista didn't do a very good job of font scaling, nor did the browsers. But as developers and Microsoft became aware that people do run higher DPI screens, they've been fixing things. Its a much more functional experience today, than it was back in mid 2007 when I bought the laptop.

Once you're used to such a high quality screen, its very difficult to go back to using a lesser DPI screen. Much like the iPad 3 users probably will have a lot of trouble going back to iPad 2's, and will demand at least equivalent screens in future models.

 

[Scout80]

A lot of comments I have read claim that resolution is too high for such a small screen. (Apparently certain Workstation tasks are the exception)

An example: (scroll down to see 18th comment)

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/opinion/1652880/time-ditch-awful-hd-1080p-widescreens

Interesting article. I definitely agree that Hollywood has ended up dictating what we see for computer monitors because the manufacturers seem to think the only thing people use laptops for is watching movies. Like Tim from the article said, this resolution is great for modelling. That's why my college, which specializes in engineering, issued these laptops to every student.

I didn't seem to have much issue with the font scaling. I have run XP, Vista, and Win7 on as well as various *nix distros. All seemed to display it quite well. Mine also has an nvidia graphics card which probably helped. Maybe that wasn't standard?

 

[Scout80]

Once you're used to such a high quality screen, its very difficult to go back to using a lesser DPI screen. Much like the iPad 3 users probably will have a lot of trouble going back to iPad 2's, and will demand at least equivalent screens in future models.

It's like going from HD television back to standard. It is so grainy looking you wonder how you were ever able to watch it.

 

[cbn]

They need an option for displaying the icons and letters at the same size but with higher resolutions, so it would look crystal clear. Windows just makes everything smaller and smaller. Hopefully Windows 8 have ways to work like that.

http://www.extremetech.com/computin...y-fixes-high-resolution-issues-for-metro-only

In effect, Windows 8 will be doing exactly what iOS has to do when scaling up original iPhone and iPad apps for the iPhone 4 or iPad 3 with a Retina display. There is one fairly sizable difference, though: With the Apple devices, because of the fixed aspect ratio and screen sizes, the image simply has to be doubled in size (scaled 200%). This is easy to do and has no risk of causing any graphical anomalies. Windows 8 doesn’t have it so easy: If you scale a 32×32-pixel icon by 140%, you end up with 44.8×44.8 — which then has to be rounded up or down to 44 or 45. It’s the same story for 180%.

Windows 8 Task Manager: a bit fiddly for high-PPI touch?It might not be very noticeable with icons, but with more intricate layouts and especially websites laid out with CSS, the difference of 1 or 2 pixels can make a huge difference: Lines won’t meet up in the right place, navigation bars and text will wrap incorrectly, and so on. Even one of the simplest (and most common) elements, the 1-pixel line, would be forced into an existential crisis: does it remain 1-pixel, get scaled up to 2, or does it straddle the fence and become fuzzy and anti-aliased?

As for where this leaves the Desktop side of Windows 8, we’re not sure. What will Office or Photoshop be like on a 2560×1440 laptop, without proper interface scaling? Microsoft has made a lot of noise about the Ribbon UI taking over Explorer in Windows 8, but will that be usable at 300 PPI? The new, cut-down version of Task Manager (pictured above) — can you imagine trying to click those panels on a small, high-resolution display?

 

[germinop]

Re: 2012-2013 Ultrabook
give laptops IPS/retina display first @ 1920x1200

I agree! Not sure if I'm outdated but I only know a handful of IPS ultrabooks so far.

 

[Zargon]

first thing first,

make all laptops have 1080p screens

no lets make that 19x12 :sneaky:

I've found the HD 3000 to be more than fast enough for 1366x768. These laptops would have the new Ivy bridge IGP which should be a decent improvement though.

yes the next gen are required to be Ivy so it will be HD4000 which is a nice improvement

I will have to say that I cant image 25x14 on a 12 in screen, 1080p at 15.6 like someone dragged out of comments from a link is what I have used before and its pretty nice to me, with 20-10 vision, but I know alot of people that plain couldnt read on it