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

[Hayabusa Rider]

Depends on what you do. For photography, 4:3 monitors aren't the best.

That's true for photography and as you say they things are very much dependent of the task the display is used for. The thing is most of us still use computers to read and having a wide display at the expense of fewer line of text displayed is a poor trade off.

I suppose there is no perfect compromise, but I'd pay a reasonable premium to have the same width (none of this diagonal dimension nonsense) but a greater top to bottom space. That leads to black bars when watching videos but I can live with that and in any case there are few displays which can show the correct aspect ratios for theatrical releases of movies.

Ideally there would be a "rollable" display technology, perhaps OLED, where the screen could extend to optimal ratios for a given task. I don't see this happening soon where displays, especially in laptops, has become much inferior in recent years. Just finding a good true 8 bit IPS display has become a challenge, and for us which do use laptops for semi-critical work find few affordable choice.

Don't even get me started on the ridiculous 4k push. My DSLR is an old Canon 20d with a whopping 8.1 MP sensor. It's a dinosaur to be sure, but I've had people tell me about how their phone cameras are better because they have more pixels. Oy.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

A monitor that would be like 8000x6000 would be awesome. Resolutions have pretty much stagnated.

As my father in law would say that would be as useless as tits on a boar hog. Think about it. The screen would have to be enormous to get any real advantage out of it. The real problem from my perspective is that the qualities of mobile displays has become awful. No, not your tablet, but in laptops. I work with a 17" laptop and can do most non-critical work on it and it has a 1920x1080 display. That gives me vertical space, but these 1300 something displays are terrible. Bumping that up to "retina" resolutions? That can be useful for some applications, but not as much as people think, and I have absolutely no interest replacing my 65" LED TV with 4k. None.

Display quality is far from just resolution, and the same is true with cameras. What we need is accurate color with a wide gamut and a much greater dynamic range. Greater color depth. We've gone backwards in the latter, and it's among the most important for any critical work. Yeah, you can get special monitors and professional video cards, but they should be the standard and not the exception. When that happens I'll reconsider 4k.

 

[edro]

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

 

[FelixDeCat]

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

 

[Mai72]

Is this 1998?

My display is running a cool 6000x4377

 

[ControlD]

1280x800 is the old Macbook Pro resolution. Anand works for Apple. There you go.

(please don't take the above seriously ....)

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Is this 1998?

My display is running a cook 6000x4377

Nice laptop.

 

[Scarpozzi]

My dual 23s at work are 1920x1080. I can't imagine going with anything less.

Here are some Dell 24s @ 1920x1080 I found by googling the resolution:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/dell-24-...=73&ksdevice=c

I want to get a new desktop at home, but haven't done a lot of after hours fun computing in years since getting married/starting a family. Spare time gets replaced with important stuff.

What I want is a desktop with a dual or triple wall mount with these on it. Maybe I'll take up telecommuting if I do that.

 

[n7]

2560x1440 is the first 16:9 resolution that is work useful. when i moved from 19" CRTs to 20" LCDs i went from 1600x1200 to 1680x1050 and was constantly missing the vertical pixels.

i don't know how anyone uses the smaller ultrawide screens. like looking through a gun slit.

I prefer my old 2560x1600 that i have in front of me, but i would imagine 2560x1440 is also useable, albeit inferior. :sneaky:

It's nice we finally have 4k, etc. as options now. Took long enough.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Funny how we are about to enter 2015 and low-end 720p IPS phone screens are murdering the crap out of the average 768p TN in laptops in everything but raw resolution. Even the 1080p IPS on my Lenovo laptop isn't RGB stripe and that is already by far the best in its price bracket.

 

[jlee]

They're both shit, unless we're talking about a five inch smartphone. Anything less than 1680x1050 is junk that should have been discontinued years ago. My desktop is 1920x1080, hardly impressive anymore but it's good enough to use more than one document/window at a time. I also have a crap laptop and I hate having to work on its 1366x display.

That was my thought..1280x800 is probably phones.

Funny how we are about to enter 2015 and low-end 720p IPS phone screens are murdering the crap out of the average 768p TN in laptops in everything but raw resolution. Even the 1080p IPS on my Lenovo laptop isn't RGB stripe and that is already by far the best in its price bracket.

Even last-gen phones (Nexus 5) are 1080P. I was watching Netflix on my phone yesterday and the display was beautiful.

My 4k desktop monitor is on the way. I have three monitors at work...1440x900, 1440x900, and 1280x1024. I'm sooo ready to be done with them.

 

[ultimatebob]

I get annoyed when I work on anything less than 1680x1050 now. I need room to have multiple windows open, dammit!

My 15" Macbook Pro does 2880x1800. That should be the friggin standard for mid-level laptop displays in 2014, not 1920x1080!

 

[skipsneeky2]

Are oem desktop computers even coming with 1366x768 monitors anymore?I know most if not all these days are coming with 20'' 1600x900 and maybe the more expensive ones go right up to 23'' 1080p.

Using my computer for netflix/gaming and youtube with casual web surfing,my 1366x768 panel doesn't bother me much.Can't use 16:10 cause 16:9 content with black bars pretty much irritates the hell out of me.

 

[mnewsham]

It's nice we finally have 4k, etc. as options now. Took long enough.

i've been eyeing that 28" 3840x2160 (8:5) samsung monitor for $530... if it drops to $400 new I would jump on it without question. 60Hz of 4k goodness. It only works over displayport but that's not an issue with most modern GPUs.

I just wouldnt be able to game at full resolution and would have to play my games at 1080p as my GPU isn't beefy enough to drive 4k 60hz in anything but normal desktop usage.

 

[poofyhairguy]

They're both shit, unless we're talking about a five inch smartphone.

Meh, even on a smartphone I want 1080p.

Funny how we are about to enter 2015 and low-end 720p IPS phone screens are murdering the crap out of the average 768p TN in laptops in everything but raw resolution. Even the 1080p IPS on my Lenovo laptop isn't RGB stripe and that is already by far the best in its price bracket.

That is because there isn't a laptop subsidy with two year contract.

 

[jlee]

i've been eyeing that 28" 3840x2160 (8:5) samsung monitor for $530... if it drops to $400 new I would jump on it without question. 60Hz of 4k goodness. It only works over displayport but that's not an issue with most modern GPUs.

I just wouldnt be able to game at full resolution and would have to play my games at 1080p as my GPU isn't beefy enough to drive 4k 60hz in anything but normal desktop usage.

I grabbed one of those from meh.com for $330 last week.

 

[Bob the Coder]

Just picked up a Dell U2415 (1920 x 1200, minimal bezel) and it's gorgeous. What a wonderful monitor. I tried a 4k display, but it caused a ton of eyestrain.

 

[HN]

i swear there was a time when 24" monitors were 1920x1200 and they were the shit (dell 2405fpw being king for most of us!).

then i started noticing monitors only going up to 1920x1080 and i'm like, wtf? why are we regressing? then i realized people were lapping it up because the marketing had slapped the 'HD' moniker on everything and people got suckered in.

long live the 2405FPW! (which i still have )

 

[mnewsham]

I grabbed one of those from meh.com for $330 last week.

I heard about that, but I had never used meh.com before and didn't know anyone personally who had, and while im not against refurbs, I do prefer new when it comes to certain things. Have you received it yet? Let me know how beautiful it is! :thumbsup:

 

[Ichinisan]

Are oem desktop computers even coming with 1366x768 monitors anymore?I know most if not all these days are coming with 20'' 1600x900 and maybe the more expensive ones go right up to 23'' 1080p.

Using my computer for netflix/gaming and youtube with casual web surfing,my 1366x768 panel doesn't bother me much.Can't use 16:10 cause 16:9 content with black bars pretty much irritates the hell out of me.

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.

 

[jlee]

I heard about that, but I had never used meh.com before and didn't know anyone personally who had, and while im not against refurbs, I do prefer new when it comes to certain things. Have you received it yet? Let me know how beautiful it is! :thumbsup:

Meh was created by the same guy who made woot.com (woot used to be awesome - before he sold it).

I don't have it yet, but I am hoping it shows up soon!

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

hmm. maybe I should upgrade. I'm still using dual 1080 monitors but it was set up for competitive cs:go. 120hz monitor but kept my in game detail low. i'm more of a casual gamer at this point though.

 

[Ichinisan]

i swear there was a time when 24" monitors were 1920x1200 and they were the shit (dell 2405fpw being king for most of us!).

then i started noticing monitors only going up to 1920x1080 and i'm like, wtf? why are we regressing? then i realized people were lapping it up because the marketing had slapped the 'HD' moniker on everything and people got suckered in.

long live the 2405FPW! (which i still have )

I'm irritated that no one will make a 30-inch 1920x1200. Don't laugh.

It would be decent for gaming because mid-range video cards can handle the resolution and it's *still* higher resolution than a "full HD" TV.

My eyesight is so terrible, a 30-inch 1920x1200 display would be the ultimate relief I've been waiting for. At 30 inches, 2560x1600 causes a lot of strain for my poor eyes. Tweaking OS settings for DPI always causes huge undesired effects and compatibility problems. I'm absolutely forced to use standard DPI settings with my 30-inch 2560x1600 display.

I know such a low DPI wouldn't be optimal for programmers, but someone really needs to make an *affordable* 30-inch 1920x1200 IPS for general computing and gaming. I think there's untapped market potential there.

I have a couple of displays with 1920x1200 27.5-inch viewable area. The DPI is almost perfect for my weak eyes (I'd still prefer a bit bigger), but they are TN panels and look horrible. I'm pretty sure there's only one manufacturer for this panel. Hanns-G/Hannspree/I-Inc is all the same. I think there's a Viewsonic monitor that used one of these panels too.

 

[Carson Dyle]

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

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

 

[SsupernovaE]

As my father in law would say that would be as useless as tits on a boar hog. Think about it. The screen would have to be enormous to get any real advantage out of it. The real problem from my perspective is that the qualities of mobile displays has become awful. No, not your tablet, but in laptops. I work with a 17" laptop and can do most non-critical work on it and it has a 1920x1080 display. That gives me vertical space, but these 1300 something displays are terrible. Bumping that up to "retina" resolutions? That can be useful for some applications, but not as much as people think, and I have absolutely no interest replacing my 65" LED TV with 4k. None.

Display quality is far from just resolution, and the same is true with cameras. What we need is accurate color with a wide gamut and a much greater dynamic range. Greater color depth. We've gone backwards in the latter, and it's among the most important for any critical work. Yeah, you can get special monitors and professional video cards, but they should be the standard and not the exception. When that happens I'll reconsider 4k.

This is why I have an HP zBook with a 10-bit IPS Dreamcolor panel. Hands down the most beautiful screen I've seen on a laptop. The ultra wide color gamut, the brightness, the contrast ratio. Beautiful.