Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Displays Graphics Portables

Linus Torvalds Advocates For 2560x1600 Standard Laptop Displays 661

beeudoublez points out a Google+ post by Linus Torvalds arguing that today's standard laptop display resolution is unreasonably low. He said, "...with even a $399 tablet doing 2560x1600 pixel displays, can we please just make that the new standard laptop resolution? Even at 11"? Please. Stop with the 'retina' crap, just call it 'reasonable resolution.' The fact that laptops stagnated ten years ago (and even regressed, in many cases) at around half that in both directions is just sad. I still don't want big luggable laptops, but that 1366x768 is so last century."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linus Torvalds Advocates For 2560x1600 Standard Laptop Displays

Comments Filter:
  • Agree 100% (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @04:58PM (#41835069)

    My 7 year old laptop had a 1920x1200 resolution and when I bought a new one a few months ago I had to look all over just to find one that had a 1920x1080 resolution.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @05:14PM (#41835295)

    How about 4K standard desktop resolution for 22" monitors? All this DPI fighting needs to leak over into desktops eventually.

    It's called the IBM T221, with a 3840 x 2400 resolution, 22" size and it's been around since 2001, although the $5,000+ price when new put some people off ($600 to $900 on a certain auction site). Sharp currently makes a 3840 x 2160 panel (no electronics) for around the same price in sample quantities. Remember, if each pixel has 3 transistors (one per color) you're looking at 27.6 MILLION PARTS per panel, right now that means a lot of defects and a large price to cover the costs.

  • Re:Agree 100% (Score:5, Informative)

    by pixelpusher220 ( 529617 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @05:22PM (#41835391)
    Hell, the 'step down' is happening among monitors as well. I have 1920x1200 on my monitors and everything I see in a reasonable consumer space has gone 'down' to just HD pixels of 1920x1080.

    And my 24/28" monitors weren't anything special, under $500 a few years ago.
  • Re:Complainer (Score:5, Informative)

    by bloodhawk ( 813939 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @05:23PM (#41835405)
    Apple don't make display's, So no they have NOT produced displays better than anyone elses, they have simply rebadged displays made by the big manufacturers. There are only 3 or 4 large display manufacturers in the world that supply everyone.
  • by beelsebob ( 529313 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @05:24PM (#41835407)

    It's a shame you've been modded down. The answer is no, unfortunately. More so, there's also no current display cable standard capable of transmitting the resolutions needed for desktop monitors to be doubled up.

    A few of examples:
    The Intel HD {2000 | 2500 | 3000 | 4000} you'll find on pretty much all intel CPUs of late, and hence in 90% of desktop computers sold just now has a maximum framebuffer and texture size of 4096x4096. The road map for haswell and broadwell does not indicate this increasing. So for 27" monitors, where you'd want at least 5120x2880, that's simply not good enough.

    Similarly, HDMI maxes out currently at 2560x1600, DVI at the same, and even Display Port at 3840x2160, so again – not good enough.

  • by bertok ( 226922 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @05:33PM (#41835507)

    The problem with laptop and desktop LCDs, is that they adhere to the 1080p TV display spec, probably to shave cents of some controller somewhere, or to share a production line. Apparently it's vital that the hundreds of millions of computer displays made each year have everything in common with the non-existent 15" TV market, or whatever the fuck.

    Luckily, there's a lot of progress on making 4K resolution [] the new standard for video, which means that it should trickle "down" to computer displays. Despite the name, the new standard will have 3840 x 2160 resolution, but that is still notably higher than what Linus is asking for, providing 183 dpi even on a 24" display!

    If you can't wait, there's going to be affordable 4K TVs appearing soon with HDMI input. Just replace the monitor on you desk with a TV mounted on the wall behind your desk. You'll probably need a new video card, but the good thing is that most OS-es now hardware accelerate desktop composition, so the result should be silky smooth. You might even be able to get 120Hz going, but don't hold your breath: display connectors haven't caught up with the required bandwidth. Your 3D card might be able to generate a 48-bit 8.3 megapixel image at 120Hz, but that's almost 50 Gbps, and there is no PC video standard that will carry that.

    Next, the operating system vendors need to get their heads out of their asses and finish implementing proper multi-resolution support instead of the half-assed job they've been getting away with for decades because of the persistent assumption that higher-resolution = bigger-surface-area!

  • Re:Amen! (Score:5, Informative)

    by CadentOrange ( 2429626 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @05:45PM (#41835703)
    You get 6 - 7 hours battery life on the 15" retina Macbook Pro. Power consumption of these screens is fine.
  • Re:Agree 100% (Score:2, Informative)

    by should_be_linear ( 779431 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @05:46PM (#41835705)
    Reason is: Microsoft Windows. Many applications, including Desktop itself, was not fully scalable for many years, and I am not sure even what is current status. Especially if we caunt all Total Commanders, WinRars etc. that must be installed from 3rd party, to get anything done.
  • by KingMotley ( 944240 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @05:50PM (#41835747) Journal

    3840x2160 *IS* what most people call 4k resolution. So I think you've answered your own question, just flip no to yes.

    Yes, there are many competing 4k resolutions, but 3840x2160 is the most common of them, being given the moniker "4k UHD".

  • by BlueBlade ( 123303 ) <> on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @07:21PM (#41836573)

    2560x1600 isn't even "movie" widescreen, which is 16:9, it's 16:10. I like 16:10 a lot more than 16:9, and I wish it had become the standard for computer monitor instead of 16:9. So it could be worse...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @07:47PM (#41836783)

    LCDs still suck. They just suck less then they used to. I want BLACK backgrounds, not grey. I want an excellent color gamut. You can get passable color gamut but you still can't get much above 1000:1 real contrast ratios. Those million to one ratios are full on to full off, where the monitor turns down the backlight on the black test. Do an ANSI checkerboard test and you're around 1000:1 on the very best ones.
    I don't mind the lack of deflection distortions though.

  • by jo_ham ( 604554 ) <joham999@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @08:19PM (#41837033)

    Did Apple really do the high DPI display R&D? I thought they bought the displays from Samsung and LG (and maybe others), and that those displays varied in quality, suggesting that each manufacturer has their own process rather than just doing what uncle Apple tells them to.

    When he says "Apple invested a lot of money" into the process he means exactly that - Samsung and LG didn't just drop the cash on the R&D for those panels, even though they did the work. They did the work because Apple cut them a hefty cheque.

    See also, ARM CPUs made by Samsung - Apple gave them a huge bundle of setup cash to improve their facilities to get the A6 line of CPUs rolling.

    The point is that *even though Apple itself is not doing the actual work of lifting the pick, swinging it at the rock, collecting the coal*, they are still driving the market for those technologies that no other vendor is willing to pay for. Samsung will make high DPI panels for anyone who wants them - Apple is not special in that respect - but they were the first ones willing to pay for the R&D. Once that expensive R&D is paid for though, the "build to a price, race to the bottom" vendors will come knocking.

  • Re:Agree 100% (Score:4, Informative)

    by rrohbeck ( 944847 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @08:34PM (#41837155)

    Yay for Yamakasi and Crossover. Why isn't any of the big boys importing them yet? I'm a little hesitant to buy on eBay with questionable warranty.

  • by KingMotley ( 944240 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @08:40PM (#41837197) Journal

    Not sure what you were trying to say. Yes, people often assume 4k means vertical resolution, when it usually refers to horizontal. I believe I've said that.

    Other than you restating the obvious, as I said before, 3840x2160 is the most prevalent 4k resolution, not the 4096x3072 you gave. 4k by 3k would be an aspect ratio of 4:3, where 3840x2160 is 16:9. The ITU, which typically sets the standards approved 3840x2160 as well. The first 4k LCD tv, is also 3840x2160. I've never heard of any device that does 4096x3072 so I have no idea why you think that is the reference resolution. There ARE some 4096x2160, but I suspect those will disappear in time as well.

  • Re:Agree 100% (Score:4, Informative)

    by Guy Harris ( 3803 ) <> on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @09:24PM (#41837523)

    Fair enough. I don't think many here would begrudge you buying Apple for the hardware. The quality and design are clearly very high. All the problems I hear about Apple are about it's walled garden (purely a software issue).

    ...and it's only iOS where you have to jailbreak to climb over the walls; for OS X you aren't obliged to run App Store apps (or even apps from "registered developers", although the Gatekeeper default setting requires that you control+click those and select "Open" to launch binaries downloaded from a network not signed by a registered developer - compile the binary yourself, or download it with something that doesn't slap a quarantine extended attribute on it, and that's not an issue, though).

  • Re:Agree 100% (Score:5, Informative)

    by elashish14 ( 1302231 ) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (4clacforp)> on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @09:26PM (#41837539)

    There's just one reason why that wouldn't be very helpful:

    Retina display MacBook Pro does not play nicely with Linux ... []

  • by Guy Harris ( 3803 ) <> on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @09:29PM (#41837557)

    Linus is talking about laptops. You know, the topic of this discussion.

    And he's not bitching about screen real estate, he's bitching about pixel density, as per TFGPP:

    And the next technology journalist that asks you whether you want fonts that small, I'll just hunt down and give an atomic wedgie. I want pixels for high-quality fonts, and yes, I want my fonts small, but "high resolution" really doesn't equate "small fonts" like some less-than-gifted tech pundits seem to constantly think.

  • Re:Agree 100% (Score:4, Informative)

    by toddestan ( 632714 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @11:23PM (#41838349)

    It also doesn't help that monitors are sold by the diagonal of the screen, and by making them wider they can make the monitor smaller (by surface area) while still selling it at the same "size" (by diagonal measurement) as the old models.

Information is the inverse of entropy.