Samsung Series 9 laptop prototype has 2560x1440 display

Is Apple finally getting some competition for its MacBook Pro Retina display? It sure looks like Samsung is going to give Apple a run for its money in the near future. As part of ths IFA trade show in Berlin today, the company was showing off a prototype of a new Series 9 notebook running on Windows 8 with a super high resolution display.

How high? According to the YouTube video on MobileGeeks.com, The Samsung Series 9 WQHD's resolution taps out at 2560x1440. While that's still short of the MacBook Pro's 2880x1800 resolution, it's definitely a step in the right direction. Furthermore, the screen itself has a matte finish, which should make it very easy to view without a lot of glare.

Unfortunately, there's no word when we can expect to see this version of the laptop on store shelves or how much it will cost, but you can bet this won't be the last Windows notebook with such a high resolution screen.

Via: Engadget
Source: MobileGeeks.com YouTube video

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Acer reveals Windows 8-based PCs and tablets

Next Story

The other star of the Republican National Convention? Google

30 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Microsoft's default Windows 8 wallpapers are going to look nice and blurry on it. After all, the company is under the impression nobody owns screens with a resolution higher than 1920 x 1200.

.Neo said,
Microsoft's default Windows 8 wallpapers are going to look nice and blurry on it. After all, the company is under the impression nobody owns screens with a resolution higher than 1920 x 1200.

What makes you come to that conclusion? last I check my 30 inch monitors are both running at 2560*1600 and I see no issue with it as it scales very well no matter what monitor I set it up with.

nickcruz said,

What makes you come to that conclusion? last I check my 30 inch monitors are both running at 2560*1600 and I see no issue with it as it scales very well no matter what monitor I set it up with.

Keyword is "default." Microsoft's stock set of wallpapers in Windows 8 are indeed 1920x1200. That said, at least it was better than Bliss's 800x600.

Companies usually put their own wallpaper on devices as well, I don't see it being that much of an issue. Also, the resolution on a small display won't make the quality that bad.

gzAsher said,
Waiting for Apple to file a lawsuit because they "invented" high resolutions on laptops.

Which they buy from Samsung.

aren't some of you the same people that said "that resolution is just too high to be practical" when apple came out with it? Now that some else is doing it you now say "awesome"? this is why the apple haters are laughed at. A bunch of hypocrites mostly.

rippleman said,
aren't some of you the same people that said "that resolution is just too high to be practical" when apple came out with it? Now that some else is doing it you now say "awesome"? this is why the apple haters are laughed at. A bunch of hypocrites mostly.

Is it the very same group of people who said that? Are you sure that the people above you who commented saying they like it were here saying that resolution was pointless? Unless you confirm they are the exact same people, what you have here are 2 different groups of people with different opinions.

1/10 because I replied to you.

rippleman said,
aren't some of you the same people that said "that resolution is just too high to be practical" when apple came out with it? Now that some else is doing it you now say "awesome"? this is why the apple haters are laughed at. A bunch of hypocrites mostly.

No, you missed half of the argument. It's more of a DPI vs quality/speed/application issue.

Rudy said,
How's the support for this in Windows?

Support at that resolution has been standard for quite some time now. I remember my Nvidia 8600gt supporting up to that resolution.

Shadier said,

Support at that resolution has been standard for quite some time now. I remember my Nvidia 8600gt supporting up to that resolution.
I remember resolution "independence" in WinXP was an absolute joke. From what I heard Win7 wasn't all that much better (but I'm asking because I don't trust it 100%). I would love to see a screenshot of Windows running at that resolution (and hopefully text and images won't be so small that a reasonable person can't read them)

Rudy said,
How's the support for this in Windows?

Assuming you were to double the horizontal/vertical resolution of a screen,, naturally controls should scale up as such?

That would be the case if you ran an app that wasn't DPI-aware. But then you'd get nasty stretching - however the DWM does apply a smoothing filter to the result, so it isn't a straight up nearest neighbour resize that iOS and OS X does.

But for the high-DPI aware apps, the proportions on controls are often off. You'd get things such as text on IE tabs that are scaled up, but the size of the tab itself isn't resized to fit the larger text.

Who knows, maybe Windows 8 might handle it better. I'm running under the assumption scaling in Windows 8 is the same as 7 until I can make a comparison myself at home. But with WinRT on the block, I can't see Microsoft placing too much incentive on getting Win32 apps to look and feel right when running anything higher than 96 DPI.

Apple on the other hand would have better success in this area considering they can control what screen sizes their OS can go on, and from my observations of non-Retina apps on a Retina MBP, the nearest neighbour scaling does away with any potential blurriness in an app, and it's naturally computationally cheaper than smoothing the result.

Edited by Denis W., Aug 31 2012, 8:15pm :

Denis W said,

Assuming you were to double the DPI, naturally controls should be twice the size?

That would be the case if you ran an app that wasn't DPI-aware. But then you'd get nasty stretching - however the DWM does apply a smoothing filter to the result, so it isn't a straight up nearest neighbour resize that iOS and OS X does.

But for the high-DPI aware apps, the proportions on controls are often off. You'd get things such as text on IE tabs that are scaled up, but the size of the tab itself isn't resized to fit the larger text.

Who knows, maybe Windows 8 might handle it better. I'm running under the assumption scaling in Windows 8 is the same as 7 until I can make a comparison myself at home. But with WinRT on the block, I can't see Microsoft placing too much incentive on getting Win32 apps to look and feel right when running anything higher than 96 DPI.

What you are describing sounds more like XP Scaling mode in Windows Vista.

With a higher DPI setting, applications have two choices, allow Windows to modify my controls or allow Windows to stretch/resample me. (Even in Windows, people leave the XP Scaling mode on for compatibility, but should turn it off, as it is antiquated. Hit custom, and turn off XP Scaling).

As for the alignment issues, this rarely if ever happens with the new scaling modes.

What happens in Windows 7/8, is the OS draws the controls at the higher resolution sizes, so Tabs, Buttons, Fonts etc all get drawn at the native screen resolution.

This method also compensates for developers that didn't design the UI very well. By drawing everything in the 'render-er' at the native resolution, the alignment issues that happened in XP and previous versions no longer are a problem.

So even older applications, if they are not 'locked' to pixel to pixel mode, Windows 7/8 will properly scale the Application to the new native resolution just fine.

If the application is locked to pixel to pixel mode, that is when Windows 7/8 with just do a generic resample up to the resolution. (Like OS X, but doesn't look goofy) Windows resamples the image so it isn't distorted or blocky as you mentioned. Most users wouldn't even notice, as it doesn't make the Application look odd, just a bit 'blurry' if people are paying attention.

With WPF/.NET, content in IE9/10, Silverlight, and the new WinRT Metro Apps, scaling is an inherent part of the model, so designers target screen resolutions for 'bitmaps' but they can be resized or moved around (flowed) as the screen resolution/size changes automatically. The best example here is the new Solitaire or Chess that shipped in Vista/Windows7, people can see the cards/pieces get larger/smaller and maintain full resolution fidelity because of their inherent vector and bitmap supplied sizes.

Also to note...
With Windows, developers DO NOT have to redesign the application, it just works. In contrast, OS X requires crazy changes or does really horrid scaling because the framework was not truly designed for resolution independence.
****(Which is why you see Windows users twitch when Mac users complain that Office or Google hasn't released a new version of software to work with OS X's new resolutions.)

Web content has been completely resizable at native resolutions in IE since Vista was released, and with IE9 and IE10 can be 50ppi or 1000ppi and look awesome on both displays.

The Metro/Modern/WinRT applications also flow and look great at really high resolutions.

Rudy said,
I remember resolution "independence" in WinXP was an absolute joke. From what I heard Win7 wasn't all that much better (but I'm asking because I don't trust it 100%). I would love to see a screenshot of Windows running at that resolution (and hopefully text and images won't be so small that a reasonable person can't read them)

From 'what you heard'? Really?

Wow, can you get a more informed answer?

Actually in Windows 7 the OS renders at the native resolution with control by control placement scaling, so fonts and buttons are rendered at the higher resolution and things with locked sizes like bitmaps are resampled up, which is smooth and unnoticeable.

Even in applications that lock to pixel to pixel, the OS resamples up the Application, so at the 'worst' it looks smoothed/blurred slightly.

Rudy said,
How's the support for this in Windows?

See my comments in the posts above.

Also to note, we have had 4096x2160 (and other variants of 4096xXXXX for several years in the PC world, we have an old display here from 2006, maybe early 2007?

Even on Laptops, 1920x1200 was a common resolution in the 2004/2005 timeframe, but soon after this is when BluRay hit and 720p and 1080p resolutions became the consumer choice for displays to match the HD movie content.


Vista's new display model and frameworks that has been evolved in Win7 and Win8 takes both resolution independence and app content flowing concepts very seriously.

thenetavenger said,
In contrast, OS X requires crazy changes or does really horrid scaling because the framework was not truly designed for resolution independence.

Which is a load of crap given that if you wrote your application using Cocoa and supply the higher resolution icons as part of the bundle plus not make any assumptions using pixel as a measurement then you won't have any problems. Most, if not all software that has been updated was done so within a few days and those taking longer tending to have mixed Carbon/Cocoa elements. As for Microsoft Office 2011 for Mac - Outlook 2011 which is a ground up write in Cocoa had no problems whilst the other three (Word, Excel and PowerPoint) had issues because their GUI is made up of mixed Cocoa/Carbon elements plus they use their own custom font rendering etc. How about instead of speaking from your backside you actually watch some WWDC videos that actually address said issues.

Oh, and side issue; Windows 8 and Office 2013 still don't scale up cleanly in desktop mode - so please, don't give me this crap that "Vista's new display model and frameworks that has been evolved in Win7 and Win8 takes both resolution independence and app content flowing concepts very seriously." when in Windows 8 they can't even scale up their own applications properly let alone their operating system components themselves.

Edited by Mr Nom Nom's, Sep 1 2012, 3:37am :

thenetavenger said,

...

Two points:

- XP scaling: what defines XP-style scaling? Just an increase of font sizes and larger window chrome?
- Resample up to resolution: As far as I know, Windows and OS X do the same thing when resampling an app up to a higher DPI, other than Windows applying a smoothing filter. Not sure what 'goofiness' you're referring to? Most of the OS X apps I saw that weren't Retina was a simple 2x dimension scale, keeping the same control proportions and such.

Here are a couple of examples of DPI scaling, 96 versus 144 DPI (1.5x):
- For IE: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/14697...dows%208%20-%2096%20DPI.png versus https://dl.dropbox.com/u/14697...ows%208%20-%20144%20DPI.png. Note the tab at 144 DPI isn't resized to a larger size despite the higher DPI.
- Explorer: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/14697...%20-%2096%20DPI%20-%201.png versus https://dl.dropbox.com/u/14697...20-%20144%20DPI%20-%201.png. Slightly annoying how the front facing 16x16 icons in 96 DPI are forgotten when sized up, so they use the side-facing larger icons in a higher DPI.
- Extra shot of scaled up apps: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/14697...20-%20144%20DPI%20-%202.png

I must say though, with the new theme scaling up looks nicer than scaling up Aero.

Edited by Denis W., Sep 1 2012, 3:11am :

This is a 13 inch display, so slightly higher DPI than the new MacBook Pro. Of course, Apple wins the marketing numbers game, as usual. Even more amazing is the one with the dual display, two 2560x1440 displays on the same chassis!

Subhadip said,
This is a 13 inch display, so slightly higher DPI than the new MacBook Pro. Of course, Apple wins the marketing numbers game, as usual. Even more amazing is the one with the dual display, two 2560x1440 displays on the same chassis!

Apple is rumored to be releasing a 13" Retina MBP either in September or October with a 13" 2560x1600 display. Basically the same as this but in 16:10 form. Since Samsung is one of Apple's main display providers the fact that they're working on products using similar panels makes a lot of sense.