Why does AT prefer (1280x800) display over (1366x768).?

[SunnyD]

I hate both. Both suck ass and are abominations.

 

[CZroe]

Huh? Only the elderly view web pages full-screen. You can't be serious.

I hope you are joking because the productivity loads of windowed web browsing on a laptop are quantifiable.

 

[Ichinisan]

Huh? Only the elderly view web pages full-screen. You can't be serious.

Aero-snap to half the screen and you end up with a browser window that isn't wide enough for most web content. 16:9 1920x1080 is absolutely awful.

 

[HN]

not even on a laptop would i do full screen browsing (on a single window). I think the only time i do so is on phone or tablet and that's because i'm forced to.

 

[mnewsham]

Aero-snap to half the screen and you end up with a browser window that isn't wide enough for most web content. 16:9 1920x1080 is absolutely awful.

you know you can customize the boxes so they fit whatever portion of the screen you want...right?

I generally have a movie, or youtube open in about 60-70% of the screen, web browser open on the remaining.

 

[Ichinisan]

If Windows handled multiple displays better, I'd love to have a setup like this at home:

Left: 1920x1200
Middle: 1600x1200
Right: 1920x1200​

That would be a dream.

 

[Carson Dyle]

I hope you are joking because the productivity loads of windowed web browsing on a laptop are quantifiable.

I hope you're translating. WTF are "productivity loads"?

 

[Ichinisan]

I hope you're translating. WTF are "productivity loads"?

Maybe he means "negative impact against productivity." Still, I don't think "quantifiable" is the right word if it can't be represented with a number :hmm:

 

[Ruptga]

Browser on the left, Pandora and 4-5 columns of common desktop icons on the right, what's so hard about that?

 

[Newell Steamer]

1280x800,... what is this, 2007??

 

[Rhezuss]

The best screen res is the one that suits your needs.

But some use their pixel counts for bragging rights and I never understood this.

Sure it looks better on 1440p but 1080p does more that the job when you have a life.

 

[skipsneeky2]

You aren't bothered by ultra-wide, unreadable web pages?

A computer is not a TV. An aspect that's only good for video is the wrong aspect for a computer that needs to do so much more.

At the very least, 16:10 allows for video editing / playback controls to share the screen with a 16:9 video.

My computer is purely for entertainment purposes,16:9 simply works.I am putting a bit of money away for a Dell u2414h.

I game,i check my Facebook from time to time and i load up Netflix.That is all i do lol.I am what you would call a casual.

 

[Ichinisan]

you know you can customize the boxes so they fit whatever portion of the screen you want...right?

I generally have a movie, or youtube open in about 60-70% of the screen, web browser open on the remaining.

Yeah. Chrome (my browser of choice for various reasons) needs as much room as it can get for the tab bar. I wish it would just consolidate the tab bar to a single button on the same horizontal area with the address bar and give me some more vertical space. I wish tabs worked more like Safari on iPad.

 

[Childs]

Anything less than 1440p is hard to work with. I have a secondary 1080p 144Hz just for fullscreen gaming, but it irritates me when a window with actual useful data pops up on that screen.

 

[Adul]

2x 16:9 displays is almost worse than 1. It's like being extra, extra, extra wide. I have to do that at work.

I do make full use of it though. Glad Win7 and Win8 work OK with the taskbar on the left side. I also use my AeroSnap keyboard shortcuts a lot ([WinKey]+[ArrowKeys]).

Ever try rotating your monitor into a vertical alignment? Really useful when you have a lot of reading/

 

[ElFenix]

Wait, what are the common ratios now?

4:3 - old school cool

8:5 - most desktop computer LCDs (at least in my mind) - Is also close to the Golden Ratio, which means it will forever be the best ratio.

16:9 - wide screen laptops, some stand alone LCDs, HDTVs, many tablets, etc.

This list is giant and confusing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions

the vast majority of LCDs for sale at newegg are 16:9 1080p screens. 16:10 (8:5? wtf?) is a much more niche ratio and limited to better performing screens (no TN junk and actual usable stands instead of some cheap chintzy base).

You cant do work on a 16:9 display. It is stupid. Too much scrolling.

8:5 is and will always be the 'work' computer display

1900x1200 x 2 monitors IS the optimal display

2 monitors will never be superior to 1 that can accomplish the same task.

If Windows handled multiple displays better, I'd love to have a setup like this at home:

Left: 1920x1200
Middle: 1600x1200
Right: 1920x1200​

That would be a dream.

weird. i'd have gone wide in the middle and more square on the outside.

if we weren't about to go 4k i'd say superwide 32" 1440 in the middle with the matching 27" 1440 would be awesome. not exactly sure what i'd do with it (get good at flight sims i guess).

 

[Adul]

Since we are on the topic of displays anyone have a look at this one?

http://www.maximumpc.com/eizos_square_shaped_flexscan_ev2730q_monitor_features_1920x1920_resolution

 

[Ichinisan]

Ever try rotating your monitor into a vertical alignment? Really useful when you have a lot of reading/

I had the Dell UltraSharp 2005FPW and 2007WFP, but not both at the same time. They had a rotating stand, but were only 20". Didn't have dual monitors back then to really take advantage of the vertical orientation.

 

[Pocatello]

lol at both of you, ive been using gigawatt pixels for trillions of years!

LOL GUYS

trillions of years, wow, you're old.

 

[Ichinisan]

weird. i'd have gone wide in the middle and more square on the outside.

You're right. Wide in the middle would be more immersive for games and movies.

Left: 1600x1200
Middle: 1920x1200
Right: 1600x1200​

That would be really cool for my poor eyes.

 

[unrlmth]

You're right. Wide in the middle would be more immersive for games and movies.

Left: 1600x1200
Middle: 1920x1200
Right: 1600x1200​

That would be really cool for my poor eyes.

What about a PLP setup?

Left 1200x1600
Middle 2560x1600
Right 1200x1600

Pretty popular and can be done with Dell 3011 + 2x 2007 or similar.

 

[Number1]

16:10 is better cause you get widescreen with more vertical pixels. It's a good compromise between 16:9 and 4:3

Love my Samsung 1920×1200 monitor.

 

[Ichinisan]

What about a PLP setup?

Left 1200x1600
Middle 2560x1600
Right 1200x1600

Pretty popular and can be done with Dell 3011 + 2x 2007 or similar.

That would be great too, if DPI and vertical dimensions match. My problem is that my weak eyesight can't even handle 2560x1600 at 30-inches. Adjusting DPI settings in the OS is not an option for various reasons.

The setup I'm thinking of would be good for game performance (not some crazy-high rez, but > 1080p), but still enable enhanced productivity and comfort for reading / browsing.

 

[Eug]

^^^ Yep.

I always find it odd people just look at rez numbers without actually factoring other important characteristics such as default font sizing and what not.

Most modern desktop / laptop OSes STILL are not completely resolution independent. Windows 8's tiles don't count because nobody just plays with tiles shifting them around. You still need to open your desktop/laptop applications and use them. Thus, preferably you would be buying a laptop or desktop with good ergonomics in relation to the appropriate default DPI setting ranges for the OS.

I use a 1280x800 MacBook Pro because the speed is still OK, and I think Mac OS X's ergonomics fits this resolution perfectly, in terms of default element sizes and default font sizes. I dislike using the Airs, because everything gets so small on the Airs, as the 128 ppi is simply the "wrong" ppi for proper OS X ergonomics in a laptop. In fact, I think 1920x1200 is basically unusable with OS X in the 13.3" size.

However the new Retina Pros are great because they maintain the "proper" ergonomics that a 1280x800 Retina Pro would have. The 2560x1600 Retina 13.3" screens are again perfect for my preferences because all the element sizes are exactly the same as the old Pros.

 

[Koing]

Home rMBP 13.3" with a Sony 23" 1920x1200 lcd from 2002. I also have a 24" 1920x1200 dell but my rMBP can't connect to two hdmi sauces. No point getting a lightning display as I don't need all of that screen real estate at home.

Previous work setups I've had 8x 17" 1280x1024 screens to one computer and another computer with 2x 1280x1024. Other places I've made do with 4x 1280x1024 and another shared computer with 2x 1280x1024. They had loads of 17" screens. The fixed income guys had 4x 24" 1920x1200 setups.

I like the 8x 17" setup.

Koing