1366x768 Monitors Top 1024x768 For the First Time 394
mpol writes "Statcounter released new statistics today and 1366x768 is now the most used screen resolution on the internet. These screens are available in most cheap laptops, and therefore probably sold and used very much. With 19.2%, it is beating the old 4:3 resolution, which still has 18.6% usage share. (But as you know, you have lies, damn lies, and statistics.)"
The numbers are still close, but it sounds like the tide has turned.
Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
768 lines of resolution is too few.
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is that 16:9 now beats 4:3.
Why is screen resolution not improving? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Horizontal resolution is entirely irrelevant. Your ability to read lines peaks at about 80 characters. There's no limit to how long a column of text can be. Therefore, vertical resolution is the important issue.
1366x768 (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it still the nineteenth century ????
1920*1080 should be standard by now.
Re:1366x768 (Score:5, Insightful)
No, 1920x1200 should be standard.
Small text (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't you know that higher resolution means smaller text?
Sure, when you have a proper application & OS, you can resize the text all you want, and also get the benefits of much better graphics.
However, most end user reaction to seeing over 2000 lines was "The text is too small. Change it back."
Why give them something better* & more expensive if they don't want it?
*I suppose that better could be that lower res = lower graphics card power use = longer battery life & cheaper cost.
Re:LOL ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the loss of vertical space between the prior "common" laptop resolution of 1280x800 (which was also a more useful 16:10 instead of 16:9) and 1366x768 is definitely noticeable. Many browser-based games won't even fit in 768 pixels without fullscreening (as in completely removing titlebars) the browser.
Re:Why is screen resolution not improving? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been looking into replacing my current laptop, which has a 1680x1050 resolution. But I see that MOST laptops nowadays have this crappy 1366x768 screen. What gives? Why isn't our screen resolution improving along with out CPU speed, RAM capacity, HD capacity, and virtually everything else???
Because operating systems can't yet do DPI scaling that works 100% perfectly on all applications. Windows 7 is much better at this than XP was, but there are still lots of rogue applications which won't behave themselves properly at anything but the standard DPI setting. Not long ago I filed a bug report on an integrated library system (ILS) application used at my workplace; some of the toolbar icons are solid black if you set 120 dpi, but display fine at the standard setting. Many other programs I've used have text spilling over the edges, overlapping, etc. if anything other than the default DPI setting is used.
My feeling is that Apple is going to solve the deadlock; they're less afraid to break old stuff (in large part because they don't have nearly so many businesses running their software and depending on it supporting legacy apps). And they've already rolled out "Retina displays" in the iPhone and iPad; rumor has it that the MacBook may be next.
1920x1200 getting hard to find anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
My wife and I have 1920x1200 screens on our desktops and laptops. The laptops are getting old and have become almost impossible to replace unless we want to step into the "mobile CAD workstation" market of laptop at 3 times the cost we paid for her Dell. Even desktop screens have all moved down from 1200 vertical lines to 1080 "HD". I had hoped my 24 to 27 inch screens would have bumped up to 2560x1600 by now but it's going the opposite direction.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to be blunt, but horseshit.
I knew people who used 132 columns on VT100's almost 20 years ago. I find 80 columns for code to be too small.
And, having upgraded to a widescreen monitor several years ago, I can have two windows side by side or overlapping and have more on the screen. I've got a Visio diagram I keep open most of the time with my network diagram on it, and it's the width of the screen that allows me to see more, and several applications I use can present more information on a wider screen. Throw in virtual desktops, and I've got 10+ square feet of screen available to me.
Not everything is just plain text displayed in courier font.
What you say is your opinion (and your welcome to it), but having the wider screen for a vast number of us is more productive. Hell, the company I work for, dual widescreen monitors is the norm for *everyone* -- which gives you a lot more horizontal resolution than vertical. The ability to look at things side by side is damned useful. If it wasn't for the fact that I'd need to buy a second video card, I'd have added a second widescreen monitor to my home machine.
However, I know for *some* applications, flipping a widescreen monitor 90 degrees to give you a tall screen works. For me not so much since I'm not editing documents that much.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that 16:9 is fine for HDTV, but it sucks for computers. 16:10 is better, and some people prefer 16:12 (4:3). Vertical space is usually more constricted than horizontal space for computers, therefore, decreases in screen height are far more constraining, and not offset by increases in width.
Still using a 16:10 display, will not buy 16:9 unless that's the only option I can afford.
Screens are getting wider... (Score:5, Insightful)
... and web pages are getting narrower.
and while we are at it, why are 27" monitors the same resolution as 14" laptop screens?
and why is the highest resolution device easily available a 10.7" iPad ?
The world makes no sense to me.
1366x768 is so 20 years ago (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:1366x768 (Score:5, Insightful)
(typed on a 2560x1600 monitor)
keep the same vertical, add horizontal (Score:5, Insightful)
I went from a 21" 1600x1200 monitor to a 24" 1920x1200. There's no downside.