Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Displays Upgrades Hardware

HDTV Has Ruined the LCD Market 952

Posted by timothy
from the but-it's-got-raisins-you-like-raisins dept.
alvin67 writes "Microsoft Evangelist Pete Brown rants about the lack of pixels available in today's LCD screens: 'OK, that's it. I've had it. I want my pixels, damn it! For a while, screen resolution has been going up on our desktop displays. The trend was good, as I've always wanted the largest monitor with the highest DPI that I could afford. I mean, I used to have one of the first hulking 17-inch CRTs on my desk. I later upgraded to a 21-inch job that was so huge, that if you didn't stick it in a corner, it took up the whole desk. It was flat-panel, though and full of pixels. It cost me around $1,100 at the time." After some years of improvements, we've regressed, in Brown's opinion: "At the rate we were going for a while, we should have had twice or three times the DPI on a 24- or 23-inch screen. But nooo."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

HDTV Has Ruined the LCD Market

Comments Filter:
  • by PhrostyMcByte (589271) <phrosty@gmail.com> on Thursday April 22, 2010 @07:40PM (#31948774) Homepage
    When Windows Vista added better support for high DPI and scRGB for 16-bit-per-component color with higher gamuts, I was really looking forward to some awesome screens. Given that screens stopped being able to compete with response times and contrast, it seemed like the next thing for them to go for. Unfortunately, it's basically just been ignored.
    • by Sycraft-fu (314770)

      You can get high gamut monitors all over the place. The problem is that very few apps deal with colour management. Windows Vista and 7 have powerful colour management built in so they can be aware of the gamut of different devices and let apps know. However most apps don't check, and even some of those that can don't by default (Firefox can, but doesn't unless manually told to).

      Now if you mean panels with greater bit depth for smoother colour gradients, those are here though pretty scarce. The problem is th

    • by djrobxx (1095215) on Thursday April 22, 2010 @09:14PM (#31949794)
      People with less than perfect vision find modern screens with high DPI tough to read - and frustratingly, the only fix that works with everything is running at non-native resolution. Vista definitely improved higher-DPI support. IE8 was another huge step. But large fonts support still breaks lots of applications, even popular ones. Try using large fonts with Trillian or many Adobe products. OSX still doesn't support DPI changing at all. It seems to be a dropped Leopard feature. There's some hacks you can do to modify DPI, but the result is more broken than XP's large font mode. I really don't get why we've been able to have printers scale documents beautifully from 150DPI to 1200DPI, but we're unable to solve the same problem on the display!
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Because NeXT is dead... :(

        • by bar-agent (698856) on Thursday April 22, 2010 @10:36PM (#31950564)

          Because NeXT is dead... :(

          An explanation, for those who don't know:

          NeXT supported "Display PostScript," which is basically what it sounds like. Thus, unlimited scaling and DPI, splines, fonts, etc.... Basically, applying laser printer techniques to your screen.

          • by mrchaotica (681592) * on Thursday April 22, 2010 @11:34PM (#31951014)

            NeXT supported "Display PostScript," which is basically what it sounds like.

            And of course, OS X uses "Display PDF" which should still do all that stuff too... yet it doesn't, for no good reason.

            • by sco08y (615665) on Friday April 23, 2010 @03:34AM (#31952366)

              OS X does do all that stuff and has been resolution independent under the hood since at least 10.5. If you have Developer Tools installed, Quartz Debug can alter the UI resolution.

              Most apps have issues, even some Apple apps are still glitchy. Interestingly, in 10.6, I noticed that iTunes will actually zoom the whole window, indicating that they have an upgrade path for non-resolution independent apps. So we'll probably see it working smoothly by 10.7.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by beelsebob (529313)

            OS X uses "Display PDF", Display PostScript's successor. It basically does the exact same thing, but with rather more flexibility, unfortunately, apple's 3D accelerated implementations are a bit buggy at the moment :(. Changing the base resolution in 10.6 actually gets surprisingly close to what it should do though, so there's hope yet.

      • by cgenman (325138) on Friday April 23, 2010 @12:33AM (#31951418) Homepage

        Second this. Vista / Windows 7 were both scheduled to handle resolution-independent UI rendering, and neither of them can. Until the OS can render icons at 3/4ths of an inch at super-high DPI, most people will want a screen appropriately sized for their inputs. Similarly, web pages and other rendering will need to be resolution-independent... though the OS comes first.

        I'm a bit surprised this rant is coming from a Microsoft Evangelist, considering that this is something that Microsoft has promised to fix for years.

        • by Blakey Rat (99501) on Friday April 23, 2010 @08:39AM (#31954460)

          Second this. Vista / Windows 7 were both scheduled to handle resolution-independent UI rendering, and neither of them can. Until the OS can render icons at 3/4ths of an inch at super-high DPI, most people will want a screen appropriately sized for their inputs. Similarly, web pages and other rendering will need to be resolution-independent... though the OS comes first.

          Have you tried it in Vista/Windows 7? It's really, really good... I'm not sure exactly how they could improve it, frankly, except maybe increasing the possible magnification factor. (IIRC, it stops at 200% now.) Whenever I see complaints like yours, I have to kind of wonder if you've actually tried using the feature, or if you're just ranting from habit...

          Either way, I think you're being really unfair, especially compared to Apple who has been promising the same thing in OS X since version freakin' 10.2 and hasn't shown the teeniest bit of progress in all that time.

          Make sure you turn off "XP-style DPI scaling" when you set it-- the XP-style scaling still leaves layout up to the app, which is why apps that don't use native layout tools (like Adobe apps and GTK+ apps) will still look correct.

  • by Bigjeff5 (1143585) on Thursday April 22, 2010 @07:40PM (#31948778)

    Seriously, I used to hunt for pixels too, but after about 1280x1024 I stopped caring.

    I don't like my desktop at much higher resolution than that, it becomes uncomfortable. I know gamers and drafters really want giant screens at massive resolutions, but besides them who else really wants it? 2560x2048 resolution doesn't exactly help me see my web pages or documents any better - in fact it can make them downright hard to see, so why do I need it?

    Unfortunately for Pete Brown, I think more people fall into my category than do his, or he wouldn't have anything to complain about.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dotgain (630123)

      I know gamers and drafters really want giant screens at massive resolutions, but besides them who else really wants it?

      People with good eyesight who use complicated applications or requirements.

    • by Tumbleweed (3706) on Thursday April 22, 2010 @07:44PM (#31948838)

      I know gamers and drafters really want giant screens at massive resolutions, but besides them who else really wants it? 2560x2048 resolution doesn't exactly help me see my web pages or documents any better - in fact it can make them downright hard to see, so why do I need it?

      This is a combination of bad UI in operating systems and programs, and user cluelessness about how to make use of high resolution displays. What you want to do is configure your system to display things larger. The OS and programs should make sure they either default to that on a high res display, or at least make it really apparent that you should with popup boxes when you first set up the machine/program.

      Some OSes and programs also don't always work well with very large size fonts, though modern ones should.

      You really WANT super-high res displays with 'normal' size letters - your text will be far crisper that way than even font smudging, err, anti-aliasing, at lower resolutions.

      • by Jazz-Masta (240659) on Thursday April 22, 2010 @07:56PM (#31949000)

        This is a combination of bad UI in operating systems and programs, and user cluelessness about how to make use of high resolution displays.

        It is mostly bad UI.

        Changing the font size or DPI settings in Windows wreaks havoc on many programs. Some mainstream applications handle it nicely, but a change to either setting destroys a number of industry applications that my clients use.

        • by Z34107 (925136) on Thursday April 22, 2010 @09:00PM (#31949688)

          This is a lot better on Vista/7. Legacy programs at high DPI are bitmap enlarged to maintain correct proportions. (Although yes, this does make some programs look fuzzy.) Smarter programs that handle DPI properly can set a flag in their application manifest if they handle different DPI properly. .NET programs written using WPF are entirely vector based, and so scale to any resolution.

          This was wonderful for my grandparents - they had been running XP at 640x480 because of their poor vision. When they got a Windows 7 computer, we ran the screen at its native resolution and just turned the DPI settings way down.

          • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Thursday April 22, 2010 @11:35PM (#31951046) Journal

            .NET programs written using WPF are entirely vector based, and so scale to any resolution.

            This is mostly correct, but (having worked on a large real-world WPF application) there is a catch. There's nothing precluding a WPF application from using bitmaps in its UI - there is full support for that - and, of course, the bitmaps can't be scaled smoothly. They will be scaled, but you'll get the same "blurred pixels" effect.

            This is why VS2010 doesn't scale perfectly, to give an example. In contrast, Expression Blend uses XAML vector images for its icons - and therefore scales everything smoothly.

      • by tsotha (720379) on Thursday April 22, 2010 @08:03PM (#31949070)

        This is a combination of bad UI in operating systems and programs, and user cluelessness about how to make use of high resolution displays.

        This is something that drives me crazy. I bought a screen with a relatively high DPI, and on half the websites I visit now the content is provided on some kind of fixed size (in pixels) flash thingee. It sits in the upper left corner of my monitor and I need a magnifying glass to read it. A higher DPI makes for some ultra-smooth fonts and allows for detailed images, but only if the moron creating content didn't decide to do everything in pixels.

        • by npsimons (32752) * on Thursday April 22, 2010 @08:43PM (#31949522) Homepage Journal

          This is something that drives me crazy. I bought a screen with a relatively high DPI, and on half the websites I visit now the content is provided on some kind of fixed size (in pixels) flash thingee.

          This is just another in a long line of examples of why Flash is Evil.

    • by PhrostyMcByte (589271) <phrosty@gmail.com> on Thursday April 22, 2010 @07:47PM (#31948880) Homepage
      You're doing it wrong. You should be increasing the DPI setting in your operating system, which will let you increase the size of things but will let them have far more detail. This should lead to a better browsing experience because the text will be more legible.
      • by Bourdain (683477) on Thursday April 22, 2010 @08:12PM (#31949186)
        This only works, to varying extents, in the more modern OS's.

        For example, the relevant application(s) has to be DPI aware as well as either have additional higher resolution raster based graphics or use something like SVG [slashdot.org]
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by TopSpin (753)

      People do care. Just not about resolution. People care about price.

      How many 1080i/p TVs are sold for every WUXGA (1920x1200) display? 10-1? 50-1? I don't know but I'm betting there are a lot more TVs being shifted. The LCD manufacturers have most of their capacity allocated to HDTV panels. This makes for low, low prices.

      So when Joe Blow waddles his 290lbs ass into Best Buy to pick up a display he has a choice; he can get the super-cheap on-sale rebated HDTV that works just fine with his 'puter d

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Freedom Bug (86180)

      30" screens are great for developers, too. Everybody knows how useful multiple displays are, but nobody seems to realize just how much better a 30" 2560x1600 screen is than a couple of 21" screens, even though you're pushing about the same number of pixels and display area.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Chuck Chunder (21021)

      2560x2048 resolution doesn't exactly help me see my web pages or documents any better

      I think for people who are mostly a "consumer" of information (and that is most people) you are pretty much spot on, there are diminishing returns.

      On the other hand if you are in some way producer, especially of something remotely complex, then the increased resolution is definately useful as it provides room to both see what you are producing and have the relevant tools available (eg an IDE or photoshop) and possibly so

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 22, 2010 @07:43PM (#31948822)

    ...Because I know you spend all day reading Slashdot instead of what you are supposed to be doing...

    Would you please stop making disgusting sounds with your dentures???

    Please?

  • Laptop pains too (Score:3, Insightful)

    by stokessd (89903) on Thursday April 22, 2010 @07:44PM (#31948830) Homepage

    I feel your pain. I have a 17" laptop screen that is 1920x1200. By that token a high dpi 30" screen should be a lot more than ~2500x1600

    I would also love a second display for my laptop but good luck finding a desktop monitor of any size with the same DPI as the laptop. As a result I've got small windows and big windows.

    Sheldon

  • by slashuzer (580287) on Thursday April 22, 2010 @07:45PM (#31948862) Homepage
    Frankly for most people the existing 'HDTV' resolution has more than enough pixels, to get full benefit from increased number of pixels you would need a larger screen and sit closer to it. As it is, reading text on these high DPI screens is hard enough, and I often find myself increasing the default font size. This issue is particularly pronounced in laptop screens.

    What I do want is more vertical resolution. The 16:9 craze means today we buy displays that are physcially larger and have more pixels overall than ten years ago, yet do not provide any more area for vertical display. You still have to scroll down far too much. It would be nice if someone still made decent, affordable 4:3 displays; a 1600 X 1200 in 21" format is going to be a killer!

    • by aztektum (170569) on Thursday April 22, 2010 @08:29PM (#31949378)

      Frankly for most people the existing 'HDTV' resolution has more than enough pixels

      Yeah and 640k was enough for everyone.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by radish (98371)

      Agreed - I'm using a pair of 1600x1200 20" LCDs and as much as I'd like to upgrade, there's just nothing out there which really feels like an upgrade for sensible money. Oh well!

  • by Jazz-Masta (240659) on Thursday April 22, 2010 @07:49PM (#31948914)

    I agree with increasing DPI on a screen, to a point.

    I find a 22" screen with 1680x1050 is perfect. The new 21.5" screens with 1920x1080 are a bit too "small" when dealing with XP and the native resolution.

    Most business users I deal with still want 4:3 screens. 16:9 and 16:10 screens are far too short vertically. Many people still want to see a full page of text on a screen. Widescreen works well for spreadsheets and databases.

    I would also like to see more screens with a lower DPI for older users. I have yet to set a 20", 21.5" or 22" screen at native resolution for older workers. Most tend to move to a ~1440x900 or even ~1280x800 from the 1680x1050 or 1920x1080. When I move to those resolutions, or any resolution that keeps the same aspect ratio, but is not the native resolution, the LCDs are blurry (even more troublesome for older users).

    Not everyone watches movies on their computers all day, in fact, I would believe most people view more vertical than horizontal documents for the better part of the day - both at work and at home.

    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Thursday April 22, 2010 @08:01PM (#31949046) Journal
      16:9 and 16:10 screens actually kick ass for text, assuming you have the right setup.

      Most programs and websites(in terms of sidebars and toolbars and stuff) are still laid out for screens that are wider than they are tall, so you do usually need one monitor in the usual configuration.

      Your second monitor, though, you just rotate so that it is now taller than it is wide, and offers rather more horizontal resolution than any but the nicest 4:3 monitors ever did.

      All but the cheapest video cards support dual monitors(and we are talking really cheap here. the 20-30 dollar card might not; but for $50 you'll have a hard time not getting dual monitor support, albeit often 1VGA, 1DVI), and the software is mature enough(you'll have to suffer through looking at your BIOS bootup sideways on one of the screens; but you'll survive).

      Unless your environment is quite space constrained, or has to fit in a laptop bag and go with you, a second monitor, rotated so that its dimensions closely match those of your common paper document, is a fairly cheap way to make an office-type worker's life more pleasant and productive.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by PhrostyMcByte (589271)
      Don't think of sizes in terms of pixels -- think of them in inches. The current thing on your screen that takes up 10 inches of space, wouldn't you like it to have twice the detail, while staying at 10 inches? I'd love for my text to have twice the detail, becoming easier to read. Maybe websites could start using serif fonts, which are generally regarded as more legible but also tough to use on most present-day monitors because of the low DPI. That's what high DPI is for -- more detail, not to make thin
  • by gklinger (571901) on Thursday April 22, 2010 @07:50PM (#31948924)
    My monitor has ONE BIG PIXEL. It ain't easy to use but I get by.
  • Which do you want? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by voss (52565) on Thursday April 22, 2010 @07:50PM (#31948932)

    The 2560 monitor that sells for $1200 or the 1920 monitor that sells for $200-300? the market has decided.
    The 1080p standard is beneficial to both computer users and tv watchers in driving prices down.

    1440p is probably the next stepping point thats 2736x1440, its less of a step than 2160p.

  • by zill (1690130) on Thursday April 22, 2010 @07:56PM (#31948992)
    Display resolution and pixel pitch peaked back in 2001 with the introduction of IBM T220 [wikipedia.org]. Even now, no production display can top its resolution and pixel pitch.

    Why aren't we all using WQUXGA, WHSXGA, or even WHUXGA display right now?
    Simple, there's no demand for it.

    Why isn't there any demand for it?
    Because 90% of the consumers are still watching 480p DVD and DTV broadcasts.
    Because lots of websites are still designed to be optimally viewing in 1024x768.
    Because most operating systems and applications have their font sizes hardcoded (Windows 7 only allow system fonts to be enlarged by 150% while OSX cannot adjust its system font size at all).
    • by Blakey Rat (99501) on Thursday April 22, 2010 @08:07PM (#31949124)

      Why aren't we all using WQUXGA, WHSXGA, or even WHUXGA display right now?

      Hopefully regardless of our opinions of pixel density, we can *all* agree to STOP USING THOSE RETARDED ABBREVIATIONS. How is a mortal human being supposed to know what the holy shit "WHUXGA" means in a practical sense? Just give us the actual resolution (in NUMBERS) and call it good. Thank you.

      Ahem.

      Anyway, I agree with your general sentiment about OS support for high-res displays, although it's getting much better. Progress has been slow. Maybe in another 5-10 years it literally will not matter what your DPI is, and desktops will all look the same regardless.

      I also want to add that is Pete Brown wants higher-res displays, he's perfectly welcome to start up a business providing same and seeing how well he does. If he's right, and there's a huge demand for these, he'll make a killing. (My guess is he's not and there isn't and he'll go broke.)

      • by Tumbleweed (3706) on Thursday April 22, 2010 @08:48PM (#31949550)

        How is a mortal human being supposed to know what the holy shit "WHUXGA" means in a practical sense?

        I'm pretty sure WHUXGA is a volcano in Iceland.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Bo'Bob'O (95398)

        It's worse then that even, they can't even decide what they mean. I've seen WXGA mean 1366x768, 1280x768, 1280x800, and 1280x720. I have even seen a projector that had a resolution that was a 17:10 aspect ratio. It probably wouldn't even bother me that much, except that many times, the only thing listed in the spec sheet is "WXGA" with no actual resolution listed.

    • by Namarrgon (105036) on Thursday April 22, 2010 @08:41PM (#31949504) Homepage

      Windows 7 only allow system fonts to be enlarged by 150%

      Not true. The Set Custom Text Size setting allows up to 500%, i.e. 480dpi.

  • get bigger displays (Score:4, Informative)

    by Tumbleweed (3706) on Thursday April 22, 2010 @07:56PM (#31948998)

    The market is getting there. New 22" and 24" displays are coming out that have 1920x1080 (or 1200) resolutions, and recent 27" displays like on the latest iMac and a Dell 27" display have 2560x1440 (the 16:9 version of the 16:10 2560x1600 30" displays). You should be careful about some of these monitors, as many of them are large gamut displays that require calibration, and they're generally not going to be for gaming, as they're H-IPS panels. But they're really beautiful. I'm waiting for some detailed reviews on the new HP zr24w display - 1920x1200 (16:10 FTW!) with regular color gamut. I want the wide viewing angles, but I'm not _that_ picky about color. $425, I think.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by evanbd (210358)
      Huh? A 24" display with 1920x1200 resolution is a completely boring 100 dpi or so. 27" at 2560x1440 is only 110 dpi or so. A high resolution display would be more like 150 dpi, ideally more like 200 dpi. Any idea where I can get a display that's at least 2560x1440, and at least 150 dpi?
  • by FudRucker (866063) on Thursday April 22, 2010 @08:04PM (#31949078)
    they learned to never give your customers what they really want, just give them something barely adequate and a year later market something just incrementally better thus prompting consumers to buy again, rinse & repeat & rinse & repeat until you can afford that retirement castle on the mountain,
  • high-DPI displays (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MobyDisk (75490) on Thursday April 22, 2010 @08:07PM (#31949108) Homepage

    The problem with high DPI displays is bad software support. Two things need to happen for this to work:

    1) Applications need to work properly with high DPIs.
    2) The OS needs to do a good job scaling old applications that don't respect DPI. That may include lying to them about the resolution and DPI, and stretching the window.

    For #1, we are getting better. But many modern apps *cough*iTunes*cough* completely botch it. In some cases text on buttons gets bigger but the button does not, so instead of "Configure" you get the top half of the letter C. Or maybe the text gets bigger, and it spaces just fine, but the column sizes still default incorrectly. It would be better if they just ignored DPI than supporting it half-way.

    For #2, you basically need to scale the window and adjust the mouse coordinates to compensate. There's gonna be quirks, but it sure beats an app that is just too small to be usable. Also, scale it well (not bilinear!) so it isn't a blurry blob.

  • by Skapare (16644) on Thursday April 22, 2010 @08:08PM (#31949134) Homepage

    ... and even the LCD TV market, is the lack of a guarantee of NO DEAD OR STUCK PIXELS. Very few displays have any pixel issues. The industry says that fewer than one percent have problems with any pixels. Yet when you read the warranty details, they will treat a few (usually somewhere from 3 to 8 depending on manufacturer and pixel location on the screen) bad pixels as not covered by the warranty. OK, so they are cheap skates and want to screw over the fewer than 1% of the buyers that luck out and get one of their lemons.

    If the figure really is less than 1%, why not offer one of those "extended warranty"-like deals the retailers like to offer ... for a cost of say 3% to 5% of the purchase price ... but in this case an "absolutely zero dead or stuck pixels no matter what ... warranty"? If only 1% of units are bad, then they should make a killing at 3% to 5% of purchase price.

    Of course, not everyone would buy that. But if I'm going to plunk down big dollars for a 76 cm 2560x1600 display, I sure don't want to get a lemon with a bad pixel. I'd pay the 5% more to be sure I don't get one.

    They could even test units and segregate the stock, selling the flawless ones for more, and the flawed ones for a little less. Even if this price span is break even, this can attract more buyers ... some wanting the perfect units ... some wanting a discount. Come on you MBA bozos ... go after that market.

  • by brxndxn (461473) on Thursday April 22, 2010 @08:12PM (#31949188)

    On a computer screen, I want as much resolution as possible! And.. even on my hdtv, I want as much resolution as possible. Even in my living room, watching a Bluray at 1080p, I still see the pixels from 10-12 feet away on the couch. Maybe I'm more picky than the average person.. or maybe I have better eyes (not really.. i wear contacts)...

    But here's where I really get mad.. Half the people are posting that too high of resolution causes web pages to look too small.. or GUI's to look to funky.. That is where I have a problem! Why the hell don't we have vector graphics gui's by now? First, I blame Intel.. Intel sucks so bad at graphics that they cannot even run Aero properly.. still.. in 2010. Intel, your engineers are of average intelligence. And yet, your goddamn graphics chips are in half our computers. (Maybe some of you think Intel runs Aero fine.. but I'm still not happy with it.) Second.. WTF is Aero? It's a piece of shit GUI band-aid.. that's what it is. It adds like one 3d feature just so the dumbass consumer goes 'ohhh.. pretty candy'. Weren't we promised a vector-based GUI with Vista? So Microsoft, you suck too. Your management is incompetent and your programmers lack talent. Third.. Why the hell can't I take advantage of the contrast of a computer monitor and just have a black background? Why the hell am I pretty much forced with a white background and black text whether I'm running linux, Windows, FreeBSD, Apple, OS2, YourMom (an OS I wrote in like 5 minutes that's better than Windows 7.) Seriously.. every OS basically forces white background/black text.. Why not have vector-based black background with bright green text.. like in the 80's.. back when it was hilariously easy to read text on a crappy 14" CRT monitor? Fourth, fuck you both Firefox and Opera. You both should do a better job of seperating the CONTENT (read.. the fucking text) from the rest of the bullshit on the webpage. Let me, the viewer, decide what color I want for the background and text.. and figure out how to make it look halfway decent! IE, you don't even count because you are from Microsoft and therefore cannot innovate. Apple, do not think you're getting out of this.. You're still living in pixel land. Come on, Steve Jobs, force your overworked minions to develop the best goddamn vector graphics GUI in existence.. Then open the new OS to all platforms.. Then dominate the entire marketplace. Seriously.. the entire world will be scrambling to develop the highest resolution monitor.. Steve, if you don't do this, you have tiny balls. OMG, I almost forgot the monitor companies.. God you suck. I am using a Samsung 1920x1200 26" TV as my monitor right now.. Don't think I didn't notice you went from 16:10 to 16:9 behind my back.. I found the one TV on clearance that still had the 0:+1 more than everyone else.

    So, imo, where the entire computer industry is screaming, "Look at me.. I'm soo great.. I have multitouch or I have a stupid 3d feature.. or I have 1080p!", remember that you still have a lot to do.. Please hurry up and get it done..

    AMD, you get a free pass.

    I have a lot more to bitch about.. but I'm busy.. and I only have so much karma to blow.

    • We actually do have a vector-based GUI in Vista/7.

      It works quite well on apps that are written to use it.

      Aero is also a desktop compositing engine, which means that the GPU handles a lot more of the screen redraw and such.

      It also handles such things as... raster-scaling GDI applications to the appropriate size (rather than relying on the GDI app to get the size right, they never do,) when you've got the DPI increased in Vista/7.

    • by TypoNAM (695420) on Thursday April 22, 2010 @08:48PM (#31949562)

      ... Fourth, fuck you both Firefox and Opera. You both should do a better job of separating the CONTENT (read.. the fucking text) from the rest of the bullshit on the webpage. Let me, the viewer, decide what color I want for the background and text.. and figure out how to make it look halfway decent!

      That's funny I can right now go to View -> Page Style -> No Style, and Firefox will display slashdot as linear context using my font and color settings in Tools -> Options -> Content tab. Of course this only works if the site only decorates the page using CSS. I think there's a Firefox add-on that allows you to override the site's CSS and replace it with your own in a user friendly manner.

    • by guidryp (702488) on Thursday April 22, 2010 @09:53PM (#31950146)

      "On a computer screen, I want as much resolution as possible! And.. even on my hdtv, I want as much resolution as possible. Even in my living room, watching a Bluray at 1080p, I still see the pixels from 10-12 feet away on the couch. Maybe I'm more picky than the average person.. or maybe I have better eyes (not really.. i wear contacts)..."

      Really that is shenanigans worthy. 12 feet away and you see pixels??? Just how big is your TV?

      I have 20:15 vision and pixels are invisible at 5 feet on my 40" TV (I just broke out a measuring tape).

  • by macraig (621737) <`mark.a.craig' `at' `gmail.com'> on Thursday April 22, 2010 @08:56PM (#31949648)

    Fuck this moronic pandering to people who want to do nothing with a computer but watch 1080p videos: I want my vertical resolution back. Stop stealing pixels from the top and bottom and tacking them onto the sides where I don't need them for document work.

  • by scdeimos (632778) on Thursday April 22, 2010 @10:35PM (#31950546)

    The 24-inch 600dpi display he so desperately wants requires a resolution of 12,000 x 7,500 pixels. A 600dpi, 24-bit colour 12,000 x 7,500 @ 60Hz display requires a 129.6Gbps communications bandwidth, which well and truly exceeds any (currently available) display bus connectivity.

    HDMI 1.4 has a maximum video bandwidth of 8.16Gbps. Even a 4-lane DisplayPort connection has a maximum bandwidth of only 17.2Gbps. It's not HDTV that's limited the progress of desktop display resolutions, it's the lack of a decent high-bandwidth display communications link.

    All this is academic, though. How many people would *really* be able to tell the difference between a 96dpi and 200dpi display on their desktop (IBM makes 200dpi displays, by the way), let alone a 600dpi display.

    • by grumbel (592662) <grumbel@gmx.de> on Thursday April 22, 2010 @11:46PM (#31951130) Homepage

      All this is academic, though. How many people would *really* be able to tell the difference between a 96dpi and 200dpi display on their desktop

      Basically all of them. The difference is extremely noticeable when it comes to fonts and other things that require pixels smaller then what a 96dpi display can produce to render properly. The difference between 200dpi and 600dpi might be a little trickier, as with 200dpi you can already start to render a font that looks like a print font, not like a screen font.

      But 96dpi is really extremely low and its a little depressing that computer power has increased by orders of magnitude, while the last big dpi jump was back when things switched from 320x200 to 640x480, everything after that has mostly about larger displays, not higher dpi displays.

Vitamin C deficiency is apauling.

Working...