Is 1366x768 really that bad?

[ViviTheMage]

Every laptop is moving towards 16:9 and with mediocre TNs, whether you like it or not. Me myself want to see IPS panels commonplace, but that is not going to happen.

lenovo x220, what what!

my only grip is the low 1366x768 res, but other then that, amazing screen.

 

[snuuggles]

Dot pitch is what determines usability

A certain minumum vertical resolution is really needed by many people. 768 seems to be too low for many professionals, but it's accepted with the smaller form-factors.

Try to focus on the actual question. It isn't what your personal preferences are, or what's the ultimate setup for Photoshop..

You could print War and Piece on one sheet of paper, but that doesn't make it a better book

You have gone out of your way to be confrontational about something that is a matter of opinion. I think you can find a better way to participate.

 

[dawza]

Tom has made it clear that anyone who wants a high-resolution screen (i.e. >13x7) without making extensive qualifications as to what exactly it is they intend to do with said screen real-estate is an elitist. Of course, this classification would have to be limited to the internet, because we all know that in the "real" world, few people actually consider higher resolution to be l33t.

And in response to the last comment about War and Peace, which was in reference to a spreadsheet essentially being easier to work with on a higher-res screen:

1. Straw man
2. Spreadsheets are the quintessential example of why higher resolution is beneficial. Herald85 was even kind enough to provide a visual example.

And please, let's not veer off into dot pitch again. In the monitor world, it's all a matter of the number of pixels you can reasonably fit into a certain area. Dot pitch is just a derivative value for the purposes of this discussion.

 

[ArchAngel777]

I actually agree with Tom on the PQ. The DPI for 1366x768 on a 15.6" laptop is about the same as a 22" at 1050P or 24" 1200P. So when talking PQ, I think 1366x768 is just fine.

However, the other aspect of resolution is screen real estate. This is where I can understand people complaining about 1366x768. They are right, there is just less space to work with documents.

For movie, games, and basic computer work 1366x768 is just fine, which is why 90% of up to 15.6" laptops sport that resolution. If you work with a lot of documents, then you will certainly want something higher resolution.

Tom has probably been rubbed the wrong way by some people in regards to this. I can indentify with him in this regards. You hear ignorant comments like "Wow, that resolution sucks" or "That should be a crime to have a laptop with that resolution" or "You can barely even use that laptop" or "Maybe if you have poor eye sight or are a senior citizen", etc... Those comments are assinine and some of them are absolutely false while others are just hyperbole.

For most users 1366x768 is just fine.

 

[disports]

I've been spoiled by using a desktop most of my life gradually going from 1680 x 1050 to 1920 x 1200 and now to 2560 x 1440 (although the last resolution is the 27" LED Display that my MBA is hooked up to). I've used 1366x768 on my dad's desktop (he's got 40" Samsung TV as a monitor) and I can't stand it. Everything's way too big but then again I actually prefer smaller fonts (font size 8 or 9, sometimes 10). It's also because even if I'm just web browsing, I also have a tv show running next to the browser or doing something else. Hard to do that on a 1366x768 screen.

 

[Emulex]

alot of us actually use the real estate so going from 2560x1600 to a laptop is hard. i actually deal with large tables (excel/sql/views) and having 2 or 3 30" monitors is not unheard of if it prevents having to toggle pages back and forth. so having 1920x1200 on a laptop is okay. but 2560x1600 (or 1440) - that is where apple is going. you will probably see it on the ipad 3 and future imac/macbook products. You don't have to use the resolution you could scale back but when its time to bust some work - it sure does help to be able to rock 1 or two super high res screens. the biggest reason i can't use a 15" or 13" macbook pro is the screen res (1280x800 for the last few years now they are bumping them up finally in the last year or so).

remember 1366*768 is 1 megapixel, 1920x1080 = 2 megapixel, 2560x1600 = 4 megapixel - 4 times the work -and with a GREAT screen and good eyes you can work it. clearly the millions of people that bought 3.5" 960x540 screens for their phones are making it work. scale that out. a 10.1" screen at 2560x1600 is less PPI than a 3.5" iphone 4 screen - so a 17" laptop screen at 2560x1600 is VERY doable.

Not for everyone - i agree - but it's about time they give some love to us data cruncher - plus i'll know when my eyes are getting bad

 

[Tom]

Hey, I have nothing against higher rez if that's what you want..

BUT THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED.

 

[iCyborg]

remember 1366*768 is 1 megapixel, 1920x1080 = 2 megapixel, 2560x1600 = 4 megapixel - 4 times the work -and with a GREAT screen and good eyes you can work it. clearly the millions of people that bought 3.5" 960x540 screens for their phones are making it work. scale that out. a 10.1" screen at 2560x1600 is less PPI than a 3.5" iphone 4 screen - so a 17" laptop screen at 2560x1600 is VERY doable.

Apps were designed for iPhone with that DPI in mind. Most Windows apps were designed for ~100 DPI. Just look at the size of icons on iPhone. You can comfortably fit a complete PDF page on a 1366x768 laptop screen in landscape, now try doing that on an iPhone. Sure you can make icons/text bigger on Win, but in that case all you got is a little bit sharper image, not more screen real estate.

I had HP's ProBook for about a week at work, 15.6" and 1080p screen. It's pretty borderline for me: it's tolerable, maybe I would get used to it with more time, but more likely I would change resolution to 1600x900 if it were mine. 1080p was definitely not easy on my eyes. And that was DreamColor2 IPS display, one of the rare IPS screens you can get on a laptop, and it sure was awesome, I had another 14" 1366x768 HP laptop, and the screen was garbage compared to ProBook.

 

[Emulex]

dreamcolor2 is meant for art work - nobody uses them at the brightness levels that you use a MACBOOK LED screen. those are so bright and punchy they can blind you on a dark day. (and nobody uses macbook TN 6-bit led panels for real color work) so it's a tricky situation with dreamcolor2 - ideally you want to rock 150nit or so on dreamcolor - iirc macbook air displays were more than twice that maybe even triple that? so apple designs their displays for users and the iphone i am guessing was designed for clarity not color accuracy. high contrast/high brightness - low color accuracy (and BLEED lol).

sorry to thread crap i will EOL.