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.
LOL ... (Score:5, Interesting)
My wife was just bitching about her new work laptop today because it's got a smaller screen than her old one. This is the resolution she's running at.
I find it kind of pathetic that in this day and age companies are rolling out laptops to their employees with something which is only modestly better than 1024x768, which I was running in '91.
Reminds me of a monitor I got with a work PC a couple of years back -- it was a widescreen monitor, but it's native resolution was still 4:3. Which basically meant it couldn't draw circles, and was optimized more to be a TV than a computer monitor. WTF is the point in doing that? It looked like crap as a computer monitor.
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Interesting)
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
You might believe that, but studies show that long lines fatigue the eyes. Typography is well established science, and the 80 character limit is actually on the high end of what is recommended.
Given the propensity for humans to fool themselves about their actual capabilities, (e.g., I'm a great multitasker!), doesn't it make sense to listen to the experts?
you've got to be kidding (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a system where I'm doing some testing. It has a shelf of multiple blade servers, each of which has a terminal displaying current status. I have another few windows open controlling traffic generation tools, another one showing the steps to take for the testcase.
In an ideal world I want to have all of these open and visible simultaneously without needing to flick through them manually. With a 1920x1200 monitor this is possible, barely.
Unbelievably sad... (Score:5, Interesting)
...to think that screen resolution (dpi) has been essentially static for over ten years. My 1999 laptop had a 1024x768 display. The new laptop I was just issued at work has 1366x768 -- a downgrade, IMHO, from the previous laptop's 1280x800.
I've been thinking of getting a 17" MBP (1920x1200) for personal use, but I'm holding out in light of rumors that the new models might have double-res screens. After using a 4G iPad, I've realized that a 200+dpi laptop or desktop display is worth whatever extra it costs. I'd take a 15" 2880x1800 display over a 17" 1920x1200 in a heartbeat, and I'd easily drop an extra grand for it.
I'm not going to cheap out on something can increase or decrease my eyestrain for many hours a day.
Re:keep the same vertical, add horizontal (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
Riiiight. What if you need access to three or more windows, and need to switch back and forth between them quickly. Maybe copy-n-paste between them, and just plain compare them visually. I have three "meld" windows, and two bash windows open -- not to mention this browser and my windows-VM.
Right now, I arm running a 2560x1600 30" central monitor, and a pair of 1200x1600 (portrait mode) on either side. So, my desktop is 4960x1600 (almost 8 million pixels). I am using every square inch, and could probably use a little more.
I got so spoiled by this, I decided to buy a 2560x1600 for home use -- and I will never go back.
Re:LOL ... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm starting to look round for a replacement for my current 15.4" laptop, because after a few years heavy use, bits are starting to fail. It's got a great 1680x1050 screen, and I certainly don't want to spend money to trade down from that.
I'm another guy who likes lots of vertical screen space.
Although there are hundreds of new laptops out there, all proudly showing off their processor / RAM / disk specs, ones with a decent vertical screen resolution are few and far between - unless you go for a 17" screen, which means lugging around a larger laptop, which I don't really want. Yes, I know I can plug in an external monitor. But then it's no longer portable, is it?
Pretty ironic that general-purpose (portable) computers are now seemingly stuck with 16x9 screens, designed for the passive consumption of media, whereas an iTablet device aimed more towards the passive consumption of media (than a general-purpose laptop is) comes with a super-high-res 4x3 screen. That same iCompany is one of the few who also sells laptops with high-res 1920x1200 screens, albeit 17" (and pricy).
No wonder *other* tech companies are having a hard time flogging kit.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Another reason to let XP die. People say its fine but its holding all of us back just like IE 6 and 7 are holding the best web experience to our phones only.
2. I will say my theory on why laptops only carry crappy 1366 x 768 is because cost accountants and not engineers make the decisions. Worse, because of economies of scale if you wanted to make a laptop screen with a better resolution it would significantly increase the cost forcing you to only include 1366 x 768 and making the problem worse. No one makes anything but 1366 for laptops so your customers would have to pay $$$$ and you would lose money.
I hate Apple these days but they are the only ones who make screens that do not get dark when sunlights hits them and are not cheap pieces of plastic crap. They have the power with economics of scale but even for them it raises the cost of the units. The race to the bottom is getting very old.
Retina may help but the demand for XP is quite huge from corporate on new equipment sadly and no cost accountant can justify spending more than .02% on any product.
3. Consumers are stupid. The Joe Six packs who bought P IV over the AthlonXPs because the Pentium IV was 3.2 ghz while the AthlonXP is only 1.8 ghz! Wow it must suck. 1366 is a bigger number than 1200 therefore to Joe 1366 must somehow be better probably witthout looking at the second number.