Jump to content



Photo

  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#16 The_Decryptor

The_Decryptor

    STEAL THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

  • 19,508 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 02
  • Location: Sol System
  • OS: iSymbian 9.2 SP24.8 Mars Bar

Posted 18 May 2013 - 05:53

becausewith that res you get high enough pixel density that you don't see pixels and you get nice sharp pictures without the need for AA and crap like that, just nice sharp images.

his ideal is unrealistic for the moment though. in the future it will happen, and not because he said this, but because people want the nice clean sharp images they have on devices like the ipad and higher end Androids.


Yeah, Toshiba just showed off a 20 inch panel with a res of 3840x2160 (so a "4K" resolution) a few months ago for a future tablet, eventually that tech will work it's way to desktops.

And we're finally getting to the point where desktop operating systems can handle the increased density, Windows has always had issues with it, but they made a big push to fix it with 8.


#17 Wakers

Wakers

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,865 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 07

Posted 18 May 2013 - 08:24

Giving laptops that screen resolution won't solve anything?

It will **** off a large number of customers as laptop hardware is still struggling to play games properly at 1080p. The hardware isn't there to support higher resolutions.

Most people will go and buy from the bargain end - these have difficultly playing blu-rays smoothly ffs.

#18 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 22,109 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 18 May 2013 - 08:36

Giving laptops that screen resolution won't solve anything?

It will **** off a large number of customers as laptop hardware is still struggling to play games properly at 1080p. The hardware isn't there to support higher resolutions.

Most people will go and buy from the bargain end - these have difficultly playing blu-rays smoothly ffs.


Ah but that's the thing, with such a high pixel density, you don't need to play games at native res, you can still play them at 720p or 1080 or whatever your omputer can handle, and unlike playing at a non native res on todays low dpi screens, it won't look like crap. it'll be much more like the old days of CRT when you could use any res and it wouldn't look weird to run a non native res.

#19 TheLegendOfMart

TheLegendOfMart

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,281 posts
  • Joined: 01-October 01
  • Location: England

Posted 18 May 2013 - 08:38

I think it needs it especially when laptops thesedays can still come with sub 1080p displays. I think 4K on desktop and 2K on notebooks would be a glorious thing.

#20 suprNOVA

suprNOVA

    devSquad

  • 893 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 10
  • Location: Vancouver, Canada
  • OS: Windows 7/8 and Mac OS X Yosmite
  • Phone: Blackberry Z10

Posted 18 May 2013 - 08:49

for sure. can see this happening in the near future. pc companies will have to start to compete. i see the retina macbooks on display at work all the time and the clarity of text is awesome. it feels good when you read something.

#21 Osiris

Osiris

    Neowinian God!

  • 11,469 posts
  • Joined: 31-October 01
  • Location: Australia
  • OS: WIndows 8.2
  • Phone: Nokia 930

Posted 18 May 2013 - 09:19

I don't know why but this guy always just comes off as a whinger. I agree it would be nice if they did but the standard is moving and they are getting there, can't ignore cost factors etc plus if there was that much of a demand from cosumers we'd have it. For now a portion of them have that option and as costs come down more and more will too. In the interim stop bitching.

#22 ingramator

ingramator

    Hacker

  • 1,819 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 12
  • OS: Windows 7/8, OSX 10.8, Linux/UNIX/BSD
  • Phone: Lumia 920, iPhone 5, GS3

Posted 18 May 2013 - 09:36

Sorry but I don't want my laptop having a 2 hour battery life, would much rather a lower res screen and be able to do some GPU intensive tasks for twice as long.

#23 Phouchg

Phouchg

    has stopped responding

  • 5,689 posts
  • Joined: 28-March 11

Posted 18 May 2013 - 09:42

I don't think resolution has that much impact on battery life. Backlight eats a lot more.

#24 68k

68k

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 10
  • Location: Australia

Posted 18 May 2013 - 09:59

It's 2013, and 1366 x768 is still the resolution on over 50% of laptops out there.

Use a Retina display for a few days, then go back to a standard LCD. You'll pickup the difference instantly. You'll notice the pixels.

Ultra-high res displays are the "next big thing" in PC technology. Laptop manufacturers are don't seem to be pushing it forward at the moment (except for Apple). Of course, with more pixels comes more graphics card power requirements (reducing battery life).

I 100% agree with pretty much everything Linus says.

It's time PC display technology moved ahead!

#25 francescob

francescob

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,242 posts
  • Joined: 04-November 08

Posted 18 May 2013 - 10:05

So, will the quad-sli required to get the same games running at that resolution fit in the SD card reader? Or should I go for a laptop with a compactflash reader instead?

#26 TheExperiment

TheExperiment

    Reality Bomb

  • 5,541 posts
  • Joined: 11-October 03
  • Location: Everywhere
  • OS: 8.1 x64

Posted 18 May 2013 - 10:08

I'd be fine with all laptops being 1080p. I use 1080p on my 24" mon. I don't see any need to upgrade.

#27 francescob

francescob

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,242 posts
  • Joined: 04-November 08

Posted 18 May 2013 - 10:17

Almost every website is designed for 1024x768, especially now that smartphones/tablets come with 1024 as fixed viewport size. Until new flexible layout systems are standardized (HTML5 still hasn't solved the issue and probably will leave it unsolved) 1366x768 with 125% DPI or 1920x1080 with 150% DPI should be more than enough for everybody and are perfect with IGPs. I'd rather have a non-16:9 laptop instead, it's ridiculous how bad anything non-video related is on a 16:9/16:10 display. Let's hope the new 21:9 ratio won't catch on!

#28 The_Decryptor

The_Decryptor

    STEAL THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

  • 19,508 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 02
  • Location: Sol System
  • OS: iSymbian 9.2 SP24.8 Mars Bar

Posted 18 May 2013 - 10:26

Layout has nothing to do with HTML, you're thinking CSS (And it's had flexible layouts solved for years, but nobody uses them because they only know how to do floats)

#29 IntegralDerivative

IntegralDerivative

    Math is the abstract key that unlocks the physical universe

  • 481 posts
  • Joined: 27-August 12
  • Location: Philippines
  • OS: Windows 8.1, Windows 7, Android 4.2.1
  • Phone: O+ 8.91

Posted 18 May 2013 - 10:31

1366x768 11.6" user here, can't see any pixels. :woot:

#30 francescob

francescob

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,242 posts
  • Joined: 04-November 08

Posted 18 May 2013 - 11:31

Layout has nothing to do with HTML, you're thinking CSS (And it's had flexible layouts solved for years, but nobody uses them because they only know how to do floats)

I wrote HTML5 (no space between) that means means HTML 5, CSS 3 and the other evil related technologies. We had flexible layouts 'solved' as in hacked together for more than a decade, yes, but the support for the real flexible display models (like the exemplary display: flex;) is still in the 'complete mess' stage. We could get rounded corners 10+ years ago too but they were certainly nowhere as convenient as a simple border-radius.