Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Displays GUI Graphics Windows Technology

Windows 8 and Screen Resolution: WXGA Still Most Popular 382

Posted by timothy
from the how-tight-are-your-pixels? dept.
jones_supa writes "The Building Windows 8 blog comes up with a detailed post explaining the improved support of Windows 8 regarding different screen sizes, resolutions and pixel densities. Early on, the Windows team explored an inch-based scaling system, but found out that bitmaps would look blurry when scaled to unpredictable sizes. They ended up choosing three predefined scale percentages: 100%/140%/180%. The article goes on pondering the best solutions to make each app look good on different screens. Also shown: the distribution of resolutions being used today with Windows 7, 1366x768 having a huge lead at 42%."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows 8 and Screen Resolution: WXGA Still Most Popular

Comments Filter:
  • 1366x768 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CockMonster (886033) on Saturday March 24, 2012 @01:52PM (#39461417)
    I hate this resolution. I seems to me that screen resolutions have gone backwards, it's nigh on impossible to do any development with this shitty resolution. My old 5 year old Dell laptop supports 1600x1200 compared to my more modern Acer laptop despite the Acer having a far more powerful graphics card. It's not even a native HD resolution so your graphics card has to scale the 720p image up to display it on fullscreen... which totally defeats the purpose of 720p as the scaling hardware is probably crap. It seems to me that laptop manufacturers are shooting themselves in the foot with this crap.
  • Re:1366x768 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) <taiki@cUMLAUTox.net minus punct> on Saturday March 24, 2012 @02:02PM (#39461473)

    DPI probably has something to do with it.

    Having arbitrarily high screen resolutions at small to medium(13 to 15 inch) range is a goddamned nightmare on the eyes.

    And yes there's probably HDTV to blame too, as HDTV has been a big push behind LCD panel production making 1366x768 screens cheap as hell too.

  • Re:1366x768 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hjf (703092) on Saturday March 24, 2012 @02:21PM (#39461599) Homepage

    Thanks for taking care of the troll. I'm in the exact situation as you. I'm a photographer and I can really use vertical space (google for Lightroom and you'll see how it's arranged and why a big, high res monitor matters.

  • Re:WTF is WXGA?! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mr Z (6791) on Saturday March 24, 2012 @02:45PM (#39461737) Homepage Journal

    1080p is a thousand times more descriptive than UXWVGA or what have you, because it tells you both the vertical resolution and the fact that it's progressive scan (the 'p') as opposed to interlaced. TVs only come in a small number of aspect ratios (4:3 and 16:9), so the horizontal resolution is implied by the vertical.

    And to boot, the "GA" part, which has alternately stood for "graphics adaptor" (eg. CGA == Color Graphics Adaptor) and "graphics array" (VGA == "Video Graphics Array"), is just stupid. That video card names somehow became a handle for resolutions is just silly, since originally, all these cards were capable of multiple resolutions. (Ok, the MDA wasn't, but then the MDA didn't end in 'GA' now did it?)

    I guess this all happened around the time of the second wave of "SuperVGA" cards. The first wave did 800x600, and the newer ones could do 1024x768, and needed some way to distinguish themselves. Once XGA came along, the alphabet soup resolution plague [wikimedia.org] was here to stay.

  • by cpu6502 (1960974) on Saturday March 24, 2012 @02:56PM (#39461805)

    Because they didn't break. Throwing-away a still working piece of equipment is what is filling-up landfills and damaging the environment. In addition to the 4:3 CRT and LCD screens, I also still use a TV set from the 70s, a second set from the 90s, a Pentium 4 computer, a Pentium 3 laptop, a Dolby 5.1 surround stereo, and 1987 and 97 cars..... rather than toss them in the trash, I just keep using them until they die. THEN I will upgrade.

  • Re:1366x768 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by donatzsky (91033) on Saturday March 24, 2012 @03:22PM (#39461961) Homepage

    Let me introduce you to the Dell UltraSharp monitors: http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/sna.aspx?c=us&cs=ussoho1&l=en&s=soho&~topic=ultrasharp_monitor [dell.com]

    High-quality IPS panels that can be adjusted every which way. 24" and smaller can pivot as well.

    Not terribly expensive, and if you buy them on Amazon etc. they're usually a good deal cheaper.

  • Netbooks? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by xlsior (524145) on Saturday March 24, 2012 @03:23PM (#39461969) Homepage
    The graph on that page shows that in 1024x600 only "desktop apps" will be supported, not Metro, which will require a minimum of 1024x768. ....Which means that a large percentage of currentNetbooks won't be compatible with Win8/Metro.
  • Re:WTF is WXGA?! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Mr Z (6791) on Saturday March 24, 2012 @04:44PM (#39462413) Homepage Journal
    I'm beginning to wonder if they just take a handful of high-value tiles from Scrabble, put them in a dice cup to shake 'em up, and then pull out letters until they get something unique. Perhaps not, or we'd have resolutions with Js and Ks in them. ;-)
  • Re:Affordable? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24, 2012 @10:51PM (#39463969)

    1) Rent.

    2) Never get married.

    3) Engineering is for suckers.

    4) Use a bike.

    5) Learn to cook.

    You sound like every other suburbanite career-driven loser who can't figure out why he can't buy a few toys now and again. Enjoy your brainwashing, debt and vassal-like existence, oh excuse me, "career".

panic: kernel trap (ignored)

Working...