Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Displays The Internet Stats Technology

1366x768 Monitors Top 1024x768 For the First Time 394

Posted by timothy
from the hope-it's-not-like-the-rocky-movies dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

1366x768 Monitors Top 1024x768 For the First Time

Comments Filter:
  • Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hatta (162192) on Thursday April 12, 2012 @02:42PM (#39662295) Journal

    768 lines of resolution is too few.

    • Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12, 2012 @02:44PM (#39662331)

      The point is that 16:9 now beats 4:3.

      • Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Hatta (162192) on Thursday April 12, 2012 @02:50PM (#39662467) Journal

        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.

        • by erroneus (253617) on Thursday April 12, 2012 @02:53PM (#39662531) Homepage

          Why do I always have to be the one to point out that porn looks better in wide screen?

        • by cos(0) (455098)

          I run my desktop monitors at work in portrait orientation, like God intended.

        • Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by gstoddart (321705) on Thursday April 12, 2012 @03:05PM (#39662781) Homepage

          Horizontal resolution is entirely irrelevant.

          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, Informative)

            by spottedkangaroo (451692) * on Thursday April 12, 2012 @03:14PM (#39662925) Homepage

            It's not bullshit, it's straight up harder on your eyes if you're doing a lot of scanning. If you're spending a long time concentrating on the various parts of the line (like in code) ymmv, but in general, your eyes scan like shit if the text is too wide. However, it's not a number of characters, it's a certain angular width... so distance to the monitor and dpi matter just as much. I also expect the angle differs for everyone.

            Personally, I use a 4:3 section of the screen for code ... and maximize (16:9) if I'm working with really long lines. I also use a pretty big font these days... other words ... blah.

            But his point was that, for text tracking, your eyes do best in a narrower area. I bet you read web pages more than you write code.

            • So you're saying that we should buy monitors based on the minimum-width task we use them for? Or is it that we should buy monitors that conform to your personal preferences?

              Also, do you realize that you're implicitly agreeing with the post that states that our ability to take advantage of horizontal resolution is limited (peaking 80 characters, apparently, I wish he would have specified what the efficiency curve is like and what the by-god conversion factor of characters-to-pixels is), while our ability to

          • Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Hatta (162192) on Thursday April 12, 2012 @03:33PM (#39663371) Journal

            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?

            • by gstoddart (321705)

              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.

              But you're only talking about reading text. My browser windows aren't as wide as my whole screen, but I do have two side by side. So I don't have a 400 line row of text, but I have a larger number of normal sized windows visible at once.

              Not absolutely every task that people do is just reading text, but I regularly s

          •        PROGRAM MAIN
                   PRINT *, 'Of Course we all know that 80 column text is the limit',
            1      ' to what we would ever need to type.'
                   END
        • by Tarlus (1000874)

          Horizontal resolution is entirely irrelevant.

          That really depends on what you use it for. Having two pages of a document rendered side-by-side, or having two separate documents open on the screen is very useful to me. Sometimes I find myself having to look back and forth between different drafts of a document, and it is very helpful. Sometimes I have a spreadsheet with many columns that is far easier to view with a wide resolution. Yet other times, I may have VIM running full screen in vsplit mode which greatly facilitates web development.

          And these wer

      • by frisket (149522)

        The point is that 16:9 now beats 4:3.

        Which is a step backwards for anyone working in publishing or document engineering, where you still need height, not width...for the moment.

      • Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gstrickler (920733) on Thursday April 12, 2012 @03:06PM (#39662791)

        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.

        • i have heard people say this...what is so great about 16:10 over 16:9? i guess i don't have a preference either way, my work monitors are 16:10...my home monitors are 16:9 i don't see much of a difference.

          both work and home are way over 1366x768 that just isn't a high enough resolution.

          i run 3 monitors at work, though i often have a difficult time figuring what to put on the 3rd monitor

          • 16:10 allows the windows taskbar and window titlebar to remain on the screen without obstructing a 16:9 video, while still letting the video take the full monitor width.
      • by Tharsman (1364603)

        If that's the news this article attempts to cover, then they are frigging late. When you download their CSV and sum all their 4:3 resolutions you will find that 16:9 beat it in July 2011.

        This seems to be the current distribution for aspect ratios:

        16:9 - 32.98%
        8:5 - 24.85%
        4:3 - 21.47%
        5:4 - 7.36%
        5:3 - 3.74%
        3:4 - 2.05% ?? Portrait mode iPads using desktop browser user agents? They area ll 768x1024.
        7.58% Unknown/Other(some may fit in above categories but unidentified in CSV)

      • by tverbeek (457094)

        The point is that 16:9 now beats 4:3.

        Yes, demonstrating that our computers are slowly being turned into movie-playback devices. For pretty much any other use, a closer-to-square aspect ratio such as 4:3 (or 3:4) makes more sense, a general format that has stood the test of centuries of use. The default UI configurations of desktop/laptop OSes are all designed for screens in that ratio, most web pages work best on narrower/taller screens, and you need a pretty big monitor before a word-processor's widescre

    • by slaker (53818)

      The bullshit argument that some people seem to trot out is that widescreen resolutions represent "extra pixels" over the tallscreen equivalent. And that's just not true:

      19" desktop or 15" laptop "tall" screen: 1280 x 1024 = 1.31 million pixels
      19" desktop "wide" or 15" laptop screen: 1366 x 768 = 1.04 million pixels.

      Simple math tells me that more stuff fits on the taller screen (which at that resolution is really 5:4 rather than 4:3, but whatever).

      At least in the Windows world there really is a lot of stuff

  • Writing this comment on a HP ProBook 4530s with a 1366x768 screen.
  • LOL ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gstoddart (321705) on Thursday April 12, 2012 @02:45PM (#39662333) Homepage

    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.

    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:LOL ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by White Flame (1074973) on Thursday April 12, 2012 @02:55PM (#39662555)

      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.

    • by DarkOx (621550)

      Resolution and aspect ratio SHOULD NOT be tied together like that. If they are it means your display subsystem is naive and generally crap.

      • by Hatta (162192)

        Resolution and aspect ratio are tied on any digital display technology. The aspect ratio of your display is a function of the resolution and the aspect ratio of the pixels.

    • The real pathetic thing is that our GUIs are still tied to the pixel as the native scaling unit.

      Unfortunately, they're likely to stay that way, as our current DPIs are low enough that scaled interfaces are much worse looking that pixel-aligned. Here's holding out hope that the iPad's doubled resolution thing catches on--it becoming popular, and allowing us the leeway to scale UIs without them looking like shit is the only path I can see to finally decoupling from pixels. Once that's done, we'll finally stop

    • Re:LOL ... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by mickwd (196449) on Thursday April 12, 2012 @04:08PM (#39664083)

      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.

  • by purpledinoz (573045) on Thursday April 12, 2012 @02:46PM (#39662375)
    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???
    • by gstoddart (321705)

      Why isn't our screen resolution improving along with out CPU speed, RAM capacity, HD capacity, and virtually everything else???

      To maximize profits. Higher resolution would cost more.

    • Small text (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Aqualung812 (959532) on Thursday April 12, 2012 @02:54PM (#39662543)

      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.

    • by JDG1980 (2438906) on Thursday April 12, 2012 @02:55PM (#39662563)

      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.

      • by toejam13 (958243)

        Which is a problem with the OS. When you use a higher DPI, it only seems to scale some objects while others remain the same size.

        The solution would be to map bitmap objects onto a texture and then scale it in proportion to the desktop scale factor. Vector objects are then rendered to scale and merged in. Applications should actually be DPI agnostic since it is the job of the desktop rendering engine to scale.

        Obviously scaling bitmap objects upward isn't ideal, but there are plenty of ways to compensate f

      • Ironic that you say Apple will solve the resolution deadlock.

        My personal computer is a laptop with a 15.6" 1080p display. It's beautifully sharp. I've been running Windows 7 at 125% DPI scaling for over a year on it, and hadn't yet encountered a program that had any significant issues with the higher DPI settings.

        And then I bought a 2012 iPad, which has an amazing high DPI screen. But the reason why it's so incredibly high DPI is because iOS has the worst resolution independence in the computing industry. I

    • by x1r8a3k (1170111)
      The average user doesn't care. As long as it has the HD badge, it's impressive sounding.

      Besides, if you only do email and facebook it doesn't make much of a difference.
    • Because displays are tied to movie decoding, not desktop productivity. Everybody seems to be confused as to what more than 1080 pixels vertical would possibly be used for. Yet everybody who gets to use their Facebooks and Yahoo mails on a decent display vs their dinky laptop always says "Wow, this is nice".

      • Everybody seems to be confused as to what more than 1080 pixels vertical would possibly be used for.

        Except that the resolution quoted is 1366x768. That's not even close to 1080. It's enough to allow it to be called 'HD' at 720p, though - which is why your argument still stands; as long as people can watch a video and do some facebook/twitter/e-mail/general web browsing, they don't really need the higher resolution.

        Higher resolution is available - it just generally costs a pretty penny more and usually com

    • Meanwhile, the iPad 3 has 2048 x 1536 in under 10 inches. That alone is almost enough for me to want one.
    • I had to search around for a decent resolution. I ended up with a 15" Sager with a 1920x1080 screen. 1366x768 is endemic though. You've gotta be picky about the resolution if you want something else.
    • by rolfwind (528248)

      You'd think it should. New iPad has 2048x1536 iirc, and that's just a lowly 9.7" screen.

    • Unfortunately, it seems that most of the world's laptop using population is too blind for decent pixel densities at typical desktop OS 100% scaling... I actually know people who WANT 1366x768 on a 15.6 inch laptop :(

    • by tlhIngan (30335)

      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 you've been shopping on price, not quality.

      Laptops cost the same as they always have. If your old one costed $2000 when you bought it, you should look at $1500-2000 laptops. Not $500.

      Because to get to $500, m

    • by sootman (158191)

      Mostly because people are idiots, and partly because OS manufacturers haven't figured out how to deal with high density displays.

      1) It's easy to see that one CPU is faster than another, or one laptop has more RAM or a bigger HDD than another, or that one screen is larger (in inches) than another, but most people's eyes will glaze over when trying to compare two pairs of numbers in the thousands. (Fun fact: a 20" 4:3 LCD at 1600x1200 has about 10% more pixels than a 20" widescreen LCD at 1680x1050.)

      2) Even t

  • by QuasiSteve (2042606) on Thursday April 12, 2012 @02:47PM (#39662389)

    uh oh... cue the aspect ratio people.. the ones complaining about 16:9 and saying 16:10 is so much better for computer work, only to be snubbed by the 4:3 people who don't know why anybody would want to work with any sort of 'wide screen' monitor, who in turn will be ridiculed by the CAD people stroking their 5:4 monitors, while the 16:9 folk just roll their eyes, and their monitor by 90 degrees, and put on a trollface.

    Now... where's my 32" 4k 3D 12bit 2.39:1...

    • by ifrag (984323)
      Unfortunately in some games (Starcraft II for example) 16:9 actually gives more game-world viewing space than 16:10. Was rather pissed about that when I was playing on my 16:10, but now I'm playing on a 16:9 like a real gamer!
      • Yeah, that's just bad game design, and something that does get exploited in other ways as well. People with a 3 monitor setup in an FPS, for example, can get a nice wide view that people on a single monitor cannot; even if they changed the field of view setting, everything would get compressed into that single screen.
        Unfortunately it's not something that's easily dealt with short of hard-limiting the screen real-estate that's actually used by the game.. and then you'd just get gamers complaining that on th

    • 16:9 monitors tend to be far to narrow to be useful in portrait mode, until you get to the 2560x1440, and even then 1440 wide isn't great.

      (posted from my 22" 4k 16:10)

    • That's the one reason I clicked on the link. I enjoy reading rants of connoisseurs [xkcd.com] on subjects I have no real opinions on. [xkcd.com]

      For a while, I was frequenting some sword forum. People have very strong opinions on the lord of the rings swords. A commonly held opinion was that stainless steel swords should be outlawed.

      Unfortunately, I got in too deep. I spent hundreds of dollars buying a high-carbon steel katana before I realized "Oh, right, it's 2005 AD. I have absolutely no need for a sword, regardless
  • Aren't most desktop monitors at least 1280x1024? Isn't 1024x768 something strictly limited to older CRTs? Or are there far more of those out there still being used than I suspect?

    • by frisket (149522)

      Aren't most desktop monitors at least 1280x1024? Isn't 1024x768 something strictly limited to older CRTs? Or are there far more of those out there still being used than I suspect?

      This old Dell Latitude laptop is 1400×1050. Most laptops I can find have something like 868 pixels high which is not enough for my work. There are some with a higher vertical resolution, but they are not physically big (high) enough: the dots are there, but they're so small you'd need to wear magnifying lenses to do any work on documents. It's because manufacturers have found the big market is in domestic use watching pr0n videos, not in business or engineering.

    • by windcask (1795642)

      Aren't most desktop monitors at least 1280x1024? Isn't 1024x768 something strictly limited to older CRTs? Or are there far more of those out there still being used than I suspect?

      Go back in the server room in your office. See the little dark blue 4:3 Dell 15" LCD that's either attached to a server KVM or otherwise sitting in a corner with its cord tied around the base? That's 1024x768. There's a few left in every office, not quite crappy enough to put out to pasture on the shop floor but too old and small to be of practical use for the desk jockeys.

    • by JDG1980 (2438906)

      Aren't most desktop monitors at least 1280x1024? Isn't 1024x768 something strictly limited to older CRTs? Or are there far more of those out there still being used than I suspect?

      There are indeed a lot of old monitors still out therem especially in the hands of non-technical users with aging PCs. Also keep in mind that these resolution surveys are based on what resolution the user has selected, not necessarily the monitor's native resolution. A lot of less experienced users with bad eyesight will get a hi

    • This is harvesting statistics from web browser requests. Do some older browsers just fix their info to 1024x768 regardless of the actual display involved?

  • by Kenja (541830) on Thursday April 12, 2012 @02:50PM (#39662449)
    and how many are TVs with a DVI port?
    • by craznar (710808)

      TVs with DVI ports... all round.

      720p and 1080p - may have improved TV quality, but locked monitors into decade old resolutions.

  • 1366x768 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by polar red (215081)

    Is it still the nineteenth century ????
    1920*1080 should be standard by now.

    • Re:1366x768 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by franciscohs (1003004) on Thursday April 12, 2012 @02:53PM (#39662525)

      No, 1920x1200 should be standard.

      • Not on an 10"-13" screen, and it's iffy on a 15". Not everyone wants a 17" or larger laptop, too big and too heavy.

        1280x800 should be standard on 13", 1440x900 should be standard for 13", 15" should be 1440x900 or 1680x1050, unless you're going to double those similar to the new iPad.

      • Re:1366x768 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bgarcia (33222) on Thursday April 12, 2012 @03:10PM (#39662863) Homepage Journal
        Yep. We were well on our way to 16x10 being the new standard aspect ratio, with better & better resolutions. But then HDTV finally became popular, and a computer with an "HD screen" became something that could be advertised, and we've been stuck with 16x9 ratios with crappy 1366x768 resolutions (aka 720p) ever since.

        (typed on a 2560x1600 monitor)

      • Agreed. I bought my current desktop monitor several years ago when 1920x1200 was more common, and I LOVE it. 1920x1080 feels too cramped.
      • by KiloByte (825081)

        You mean, 1600x1200 or 1920x1440. 16x10 is useless even with pivot.

    • Read your own signature and you have the answer to your rhetoric question.
  • by DanLake (543142) <slashdotNO@SPAMlakepage.com> on Thursday April 12, 2012 @02:59PM (#39662661)

    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.

    • Macbook pro 17" is the easiest to find, but the Eurocom Montebello has it as an option, as does the Panasonic Toughbook 52 (in a 15" screen!). The first two are above $2K though, and I have no idea about the third.

  • by craznar (710808) on Thursday April 12, 2012 @03:06PM (#39662795) Homepage

    ... 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.

  • by Trondheim (2012498) on Thursday April 12, 2012 @03:06PM (#39662797)
    I remember saving my pennies in the early 90s for a video card that displayed 1024x768 (XGA for you old-timers). So here we are, some 20 years later, and the standard display resolution is only slightly better.
  • I prefer 16x10. I used to have two 16x10 monitors at work, one 19 inches, the other slightly smaller than that. I kept asking my boss to get me a match for the larger one, even sent the link where she could get the exact same model. She ended up getting me two new monitors, both 16x9. There is just not enough vertical space for be to be comfortable using them.

    I have an 1920x1200 at home, which makes me very comfortable.

  • by Above (100351) on Thursday April 12, 2012 @03:56PM (#39663851)

    Which on a 27" screen ranks as "acceptable". I would happily double it, 5120x2880 would make the screen a shade over 200dpi, which would probably make things look pretty similar to laser printer quality output on the scree, when adjusted for viewing distance.

    1366x768? That's a good resolution for a phone.

  • Unbelievably sad... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jeffb (2.718) (1189693) on Thursday April 12, 2012 @04:02PM (#39663953)

    ...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.

  • by BrookHarty (9119) on Thursday April 12, 2012 @04:47PM (#39664841) Homepage Journal

    I really hate how mainstream dropped 1920x1200 using mainstream terminology 1080p. Artificially limiting pixel height and pixel DPI has to be my few gripes at displays for both monitors and laptops. 1366x768 is useless and has a horrible DPI, but its been the standard size for years on laptops. Now Apple tablets and phones have higher dpi than most monitors. People want progress but the display glass monopoly has been holding progress back for years.

    1080p is a gold standard when 2048 or 4K should be making inroads other than Tablets or 30 inch displays.

I have not yet begun to byte!

Working...