Laptop Screen Resolution Has Actually Gotten Better Not Worse

[railroadmaster]

I can never understand why people endlessly complain laptop screen resolution saying that it is worse than it was several years ago and in some cases they are correct, however in other cases resolution has improved.
For example many laptops used to used to ship with 1400x1050 resolution or 1680x1050 resolution now instead have 1920x1080 resolution. Also laptops that used to have 1440x900 resolution now have 1600x900. I will agree that 1080p is a downgrade from 1200p but most laptops didn't have this resolution. In my view what replaces the 1200p notebooks are the few and far in between super high resolution notebooks such as retina macbook pro or the Samsung Series 9 WQHD. Also to be considered is that there are now a few 11.6" or 13" laptops with 1080p screens such The Vaio z, Asus Zenbook, Acer s7, and various other ultrabooks or hybrid laptops. The 1366x768 laptops people complain about most replaced 1280x800 laptops, while 1366x768 resoltion may have less vertical pixels but they have more horizontal pixels which is sometimes advantageous.

 

[postmortemIA]

sorry 16:10 is better than 16:9. 768 vertical pixels? is this 1999? My dad has one such laptops and he cannot see most web sites with such low resolution.

 

[railroadmaster]

sorry 16:10 is better than 16:9. 768 vertical pixels? is this 1999? My dad has one such laptops and he cannot see most web sites with such low resolution.

I never said one was better than the other. I was merely saying that there are advantages to having more horizontal pixels vs having more vertical pixels. With a wider display you have more space for to put applications next to each-other, spreadsheets that are more wide than tall benefit from wide displays, video of course benefits from wide displays, and you have more space for the taskbar with a wide display. As for it being 1999 many smaller 10.1"-12.1" laptops had 1024x768 resolution and had their displays replaced with 1366x768.

 

[ther00kie16]

Yea dude... 1600x900 used to be 1680x1050. 1366x768 vs 1280x800 is almost a wash but 768 vertical lines still feel inadequate. 1400x1050 was a weird size and I really only saw it on a convertible tablet or two while 1440x900 was during the transition to widescreen I think. Oh and I bet you didn't know all the old 4:3 Thinkpads could be fitted with a 2048x1536 display. http://www.computersolutions.cn/blo...-dont-make-things-like-they-used-to/#more-521

 

[bunnyfubbles]

just need OLED and resolution independent software

 

[Ichigo]

sorry 16:10 is better than 16:9. 768 vertical pixels? is this 1999? My dad has one such laptops and he cannot see most web sites with such low resolution.

Yeah I can see the 32 extra pixels making all the difference.

In all seriousness 13" laptops that used to be 1280x800 are now often found with 1440x900. DPI is increasing so resolutions are too. It's so strange that some of you can only look at the change in one direction.

 

[ther00kie16]

Yeah I can see the 32 extra pixels making all the difference.

In all seriousness 13" laptops that used to be 1280x800 are now often found with 1440x900. DPI is increasing so resolutions are too. It's so strange that some of you can only look at the change in one direction.

It sure does, I keep scrolling to see that last row of spreadsheets.
And often is not true as most ultrabooks are still 13x7. Few are 900p or 1080p and those are mostly niche markets still because most won't pay the extra $300 for screen upgrade.
1920x1200 had been in 15.4" laptops for many years and other than a $2800 Mac with retinadisplay, there's nothing that can touch the 2048x1536 resolution Thinkpads used to offer. So DPI is only increasing in select product ranges (11"/13" 1080p & Apple). I want to see options for 1080p across the board and 2560x1440 offerings as well to compete with Apple's 2880x1800

 

[Rubycon]

Whoever came up with 1366x768 - I agree with the previous poster! 768 vertical lines is like 1998 with 1024x768. Heck I used that resolution in 1992 on my 486!

If we've gone forward how come I had 1920x1200 on a 15.4" display in early 2004?
I still have a Dell Latitude D830 with a 1920x1200 15.4" display and it blows away the "HD" crap today. 1920x1080 on a 17" laptop display is barely adequate. I was glad the 17" MBP had a 1920x1200 display! Too bad it's not IPS...

Speaking of IPS the viewing angles on these new displays is horrible unless you have an IPS panel. The first thing I noticed on the retina MBP is I did not have to look dead on the display to see colors properly.

Hopefully this will trickle down into mainstream. That and Super AMOLED+ panels. Imagine a 17" MBP with a 4K SuperAMOLED+ display!

 

[Throckmorton]

Whoever came up with 1366x768 - I agree with the previous poster! 768 vertical lines is like 1998 with 1024x768. Heck I used that resolution in 1992 on my 486!

If we've gone forward how come I had 1920x1200 on a 15.4" display in early 2004?
I still have a Dell Latitude D830 with a 1920x1200 15.4" display and it blows away the "HD" crap today. 1920x1080 on a 17" laptop display is barely adequate. I was glad the 17" MBP had a 1920x1200 display! Too bad it's not IPS...

Speaking of IPS the viewing angles on these new displays is horrible unless you have an IPS panel. The first thing I noticed on the retina MBP is I did not have to look dead on the display to see colors properly.

Hopefully this will trickle down into mainstream. That and Super AMOLED+ panels. Imagine a 17" MBP with a 4K SuperAMOLED+ display!

I checked out a Retina MBP today for the first time... it was incredible. The "safari" photo gallery they put on it did a good job showing the clarity. It's like looking at a print. I've decided that will be my next computer, even if I have to save up for a few extra months. Should be amazing for photo editing.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Yeah in the UK laptop manufacturers seem to love 1366x768, it's awful

 

[Zodiark1593]

I admit, I really like the display of that Retina MBR, but from what I'm looking for, the lack of GPU horsepower is an immediate deal-breaker.

Wish we can get the uber high res display in gaming lappys. I'd think dual 680Ms can drive games at the resolution of the rMBP with little issue.

 

[Rubycon]

I admit, I really like the display of that Retina MBR, but from what I'm looking for, the lack of GPU horsepower is an immediate deal-breaker.

Wish we can get the uber high res display in gaming lappys. I'd think dual 680Ms can drive games at the resolution of the rMBP with little issue.

Annnnd (again) this is just not possible physically. If you want that kind of GPU horsepower you will have to get one of those clunky ten pound creaky plastic behemoths with one hour if you're lucky battery life!

 

[crab0]

Annnnd (again) this is just not possible physically. If you want that kind of GPU horsepower you will have to get one of those clunky ten pound creaky plastic behemoths with one hour if you're lucky battery life!

Retina Mac Pro Portable. Amazingly powerful, surprisingly moveable.

 

[ther00kie16]

Annnnd (again) this is just not possible physically. If you want that kind of GPU horsepower you will have to get one of those clunky ten pound creaky plastic behemoths with one hour if you're lucky battery life!

Yea, this is why external GPUs need to be done right. Can you imagine a 4lb (a la Sony SE) 15" with a quad core and a plug-in desktop 680? Upgrading would be so much easier.

 

[Rubycon]

TBH I'd rather see that "modularity" go to console games to allow for multiple monitors, "roll your own" controllers, rooting for custom everything (cheating may be a problem though), etc. Use of display port to drive higher resolution (1080P getting old hehe) such as 4K panels and projectors. Oh and keep the cost under $500 for all that.

 

[Bryf50]

Other qualities besides resolution of 1366x768 and 1600x900 displays have gone to shit. 150:1 contrast ratio, nonexistent vertical viewing angle, less than 200 nit brightness, no AG coating, terrible color reproduction. A laptop from 5 years ago is almost guaranteed to do much better in all these metrics. It's an odd situation caused by a race to the lowest price possible at the expense of quality.

 

[Anubis]

Other qualities besides resolution of 1366x768 and 1600x900 displays have gone to shit. 150:1 contrast ratio, nonexistent vertical viewing angle, less than 200 nit brightness, no AG coating, terrible color reproduction. A laptop from 5 years ago is almost guaranteed to do much better in all these metrics. It's an odd situation caused by a race to the lowest price possible at the expense of quality.

this, and while some points above are correct with getting slightly larger now wide screen displays, the rez is still in the crapper, my now 10 year old dell has a 15.4 in screen running 1920x1200, with a good viwing angle, getting that today is like trying to catch a fing leprechaun

 

[_Rick_]

5 Years ago the thinkpad X60 tablet had 1400x1050 pixels on a 12 inch diagonal.
Now it has a 1366x768 12.5" screen.

So at least that datapoint (and one of the few laptops I'd consider worth buying) has dramatically lost resolution.

There's not many 1600x900 12" screens out there either. 1080p in 12" would actually be the first noticeable increase in resolution. Some of those HD-tablets are finally getting there, but on an actual decently built and usable laptop, I'm not expecting to see it for quite a while yet.

 

[ther00kie16]

5 Years ago the thinkpad X60 tablet had 1400x1050 pixels on a 12 inch diagonal.
Now it has a 1366x768 12.5" screen.

So at least that datapoint (and one of the few laptops I'd consider worth buying) has dramatically lost resolution.

There's not many 1600x900 12" screens out there either. 1080p in 12" would actually be the first noticeable increase in resolution. Some of those HD-tablets are finally getting there, but on an actual decently built and usable laptop, I'm not expecting to see it for quite a while yet.

Zenbook Prime has 11.6" and 13.3" 1080p models. Surprised more companies aren't coming out with them. Sony Z series has had 13.1" 1080p for a long time.