Why are most laptop display resolutions 1366x768?

[w3stfa11]

In my hunt to buy a laptop, most of the 15.6 inch screens have a max resolution of 1366x768. Since I'll be using my laptop for programming (though not my primary dev machine), I need something more. I would have expected the ASUS laptops to support greater resolutions, but I'm finding that that's not the case. The low vertical space is a dealbreaker, imo. I don't understand why this has essentially become the standard on these medium-sized laptops when it could be so much more.

Are there any 15.6'' laptops with a larger resolution? I don't want to lug around a 17" one.

 

[corkyg]

What you see is the result of a wide screen (letterbox) format. The vertical number of pixels is based on what fits that aspect ratio. Youy want more vertical pixels, then find a 4:3 screen. You should then have a 1366x1024 screen. Nowadays, you may have to look in business type machines for that.

 

[Winterpool]

Apple notebooks, at least, continue to employ 16:10 screens, and the base resolution for their 15-inch MacBook Pro is 1440x900, with an option for 1680x1050. I'm sure there are Windows notebooks with such screens as well.

Just took a stroll through the Dell website and was a little surprised to see almost all the Latitudes offered only 1366x768 with no option to increase res. However, the Studio 15 appears to be offered in both '720p' and '1080p', though I expect in both cases you're stuck with 16:9 aspect ratio.

 

[aceO07]

I think manufacturer just discovered it's cheaper to offer widescreen displays to consumers.

I'd rather have 1280x1024 (1,310,720 pixels) instead of the widescreen 1366x768 (1,049,088 pixels). There's more pixels and horizontal space. Even the 1440x900 (1,296,000 pixels) is less pixels than 1280x1024..

I'm hoping that Thinkpad brings back 1400x1050 (1,470,000 pixels) for their 12" displays.

 

[CurseTheSky]

Shop around. There are notebooks with more than 1366x768 around, but they tend to be the slightly more pricey models.

Personally, I think 1366x768 is perfect for an 11.6-13.3" screen. For a 14.1-15.4", 1600x900 is good enough. For anything over 15.6", I'd want 1920x1080. Pixel pitch (how small pixels actually are on the screen) doesn't tend to bother me, though, and Windows Vista / 7 tends to do a very good job at scaling text and icons appropriately.

 

[kalrith]

A quick search at Newegg found the ASUS G51JX-A1 with a 15.6" screen at 1920x1080 resolution.

 

[w3stfa11]

A quick search at Newegg found the ASUS G51JX-A1 with a 15.6" screen at 1920x1080 resolution.

Would the font size be really small? I think I've read that some people develop eye strain with a resolution like that on a 15 incher.

 

[Rifter]

yes it wqould be really small, untill you make it larger you know you can adjust font size right.

 

[xSauronx]

I think manufacturer just discovered it's cheaper to offer low-res widescreen displays to consumers.

fixed. ive gotten to like a widescreen over the years if the resolution is decent. 1366x768 for a 15" seems a tad low, but its probably perfectly usable for the average user.

 

[Gibson486]

what I want to know is why everyone is moving to the 15.6" screen. WTF...15.4 inch is good enough.

 

[kalrith]

what I want to know is why everyone is moving to the 15.6" screen. WTF...15.4 inch is good enough.

15.4" screens use the 16:10 aspect ratio, and 15.6" screens use the 16:9 aspect ratio. There's a vertical decrease in screen size between the two screens, but less so since they added a small amount.

It would be a completely different screen even if they had chosen 15.4", so it's not like it really matters.

The font size would be small on a 15.6" screen with 1920x1080 resolution. It would be best if you could look at one in person, but it seems that most stores just have the low-res laptop offerings.

As already mentioned, you can increase the font size, but that doesn't always have the best effects (Win7 might be better at this than Win XP). If you need the screen real estate that 1920x1080 will provide, then IMO it's worth it. BTW, 1920x1080 has DOUBLE the pixels of 1366x768. That's a lot of extra room, and with a little tweaking the font size should be manageable as well.

 

[w3stfa11]

15.4" screens use the 16:10 aspect ratio, and 15.6" screens use the 16:9 aspect ratio. There's a vertical decrease in screen size between the two screens, but less so since they added a small amount.

It would be a completely different screen even if they had chosen 15.4", so it's not like it really matters.

The font size would be small on a 15.6" screen with 1920x1080 resolution. It would be best if you could look at one in person, but it seems that most stores just have the low-res laptop offerings.

As already mentioned, you can increase the font size, but that doesn't always have the best effects (Win7 might be better at this than Win XP). If you need the screen real estate that 1920x1080 will provide, then IMO it's worth it. BTW, 1920x1080 has DOUBLE the pixels of 1366x768. That's a lot of extra room, and with a little tweaking the font size should be manageable as well.

I went to Best Buy today to check out the resolutions and ALL their 15.6" laptops were 1366x768. How frustrating..

I guess consumers don't seem to mind since they're all like that?

 

[Rubycon]

That pixel pitch is intolerable.

15.1" with 1920x1200 is definitely nice.

 

[Athadeus]

I had a 14.1" 1440x900 HP laptop (well, I still have it, but the MB is shot). It looked sharp, but not quite so sharp that I had trouble reading text.

Here's a comparison:

16:9
------
15.6" 1366x768 is 10097 pixels / sq. in.
15.6" 1600x900 is 13859 pixels / sq. in.
15.6" 1920x1080 is 19957 pixels / sq. in.

16:10
------
14.1" 1440x900 is 14506 pixels / sq. in.
15.6" 1680x1050 is 16122 pixels / sq. in.
24" 1920x1200 is 8900 pixels / sq. in.
30" 2560x1600 is 10126 pixels / sq. in.

 

[TheStu]

I had a 14.1" 1440x900 HP laptop (well, I still have it, but the MB is shot). It looked sharp, but not quite so sharp that I had trouble reading text.

Here's a comparison:

16:9
------
15.6" 1366x768 is 10097 pixels / sq. in.
15.6" 1600x900 is 13859 pixels / sq. in.
15.6" 1920x1080 is 19957 pixels / sq. in.

16:10
------
14.1" 1440x900 is 14506 pixels / sq. in.
15.6" 1680x1050 is 16122 pixels / sq. in.
24" 1920x1200 is 8900 pixels / sq. in.
30" 2560x1600 is 10126 pixels / sq. in.

These values are usually a little easier in DPI, what you have is DPI^2, so...

15.6" displays
1366*768 = 100.45 DPI
1600*900 = 117.68 DPI
1920*1080 = 141.21 DPI

14.1" @ 1440*900 = 120.43 DPI
15.4" @ 1680*1050 = 128.65 DPI
24" @ 1920*1200 = 94.34 DPI
30" @ 2560*1600 = 100.63 DPI

 

[hans007]

the dell studio 15 offers 1920x1080 as an option. it hin kthe default size is 1366x768.

 

[sxr7171]

I think manufacturer just discovered it's cheaper to offer widescreen displays to consumers.

I'd rather have 1280x1024 (1,310,720 pixels) instead of the widescreen 1366x768 (1,049,088 pixels). There's more pixels and horizontal space. Even the 1440x900 (1,296,000 pixels) is less pixels than 1280x1024..

I'm hoping that Thinkpad brings back 1400x1050 (1,470,000 pixels) for their 12" displays.

I wish but they have moved to widescreen with their X200 models. I prefer the X60's screen ratio any day.

 

[corkyg]

Am now on the verge of a new laptop - the T510 15.6 screen is 1600x900 res. The W510 has 1920 x 1080, and is about $150 more. I'm inclined to see the latter as excessive for a 15.6 screen. In any case, IMHO, OP's question assumes a fact not in evidence.

 

[aceO07]

I wish but they have moved to widescreen with their X200 models. I prefer the X60's screen ratio any day.

Their X201s has 1440x900, but it still not that great. It's not available on their X201t.

Seems like the Thinkpad has gone downhill at the start of the X/T60 series. The resolutions get lower after that. They used to offer 1600x1200 on their 15" IPS monitors.

 

[corkyg]

...Seems like the Thinkpad has gone downhill at the start of the X/T60 series. The resolutions get lower after that. They used to offer 1600x1200 on their 15" IPS monitors.

1600x1200 is a 4:3 aspect ratio. 1600x900 is exactly the same resolution in a 16:9 aspect ratio. People forget, the smaller vertical pixels is merely the shortening of the vertical size when you create a wide screen, letterbox format. The actual pixel resolution of imagery displayed on either screen is the same.

Why is this? That is the current format of many HD movies.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Just took a stroll through the Dell website and was a little surprised to see almost all the Latitudes offered only 1366x768 with no option to increase res. However, the Studio 15 appears to be offered in both '720p' and '1080p', though I expect in both cases you're stuck with 16:9 aspect ratio.

Posting from a 1440 x 900 equipped Dell Latitude E6400.

 

[aceO07]

Posting from a 1440 x 900 equipped Dell Latitude E6400.

I think the Latitude E6400 got replaced by the E6410, which only offers the 1280x800 option. The E6510 is 1366x768.

 

[Alienwho]

Ever since I got my Envy 15 (15.6" obviously) a few months ago with the most beautiful 1920x1080 resolution I have laid eyes on I can't stand to look at any other laptops screen.

It defaults to have that windows 7 font setting to the medium or whatever and looks great. I decided to take it down to the smallest setting. It did seem a little small at first, but you just need to get used to it and it looks great. Now if I go put the setting at medium again everything seems way too big. The productivity factor of having a 1080p display in a portable laptop is incredible.

 

[Anubis]

The HP Elite book i have through work has a horrid resolution at 1280x800. its horrid considering how much work we do in excel. we can use a docking station to a moniter that runs a 4:3 resolution of 1366x1024 i believe, which inst a great improvement. it also might have to do with the craptastic lintel on board graphics chip

i have a 8 year old Dell that has a 15.1 inch screen running 1920x1200