Linus Torvalds: 2560x1600 Needs To Be Next Standard


Recommended Posts

Try disabling font anti-aliasing and you'll quickly start seeing individual pixels.

But we have anti-aliasing? Doesn't really answer my question. I suppose I could see AA becoming irrelevant with it, but any gains from turning off AA would be lost with rendering at an increased resolution. So I still don't really see the point unless the performance gain from no AA outweighs the loss from resolution.

I find it hard to believe it makes any actual difference to viewing photos either. Unless it can mysteriously extract additional pixels from the photo data, all it would do is "zoom out" the photo.

He is right, but the OS must be able to scale with the resolution. I don't want everything to be too small to read because of the crazy resolution. Apple and Google seem to be making a good job at scaling iOS and Android to fit any resolution and still being usable.

But yes, when I see that my Galaxy S3 has more pixels than some laptop, it's getting ridiculous.

You could even have a 10000dpi display but until desktop operating systems will do proper DPI scaling on very high resolutions displays it's completely pointless.

Windows scaling starts looking horrible from 200% DPIs and above (cursors and icons all look jagged) and there are still many applications that look horrible or ignore the scaling like Adobe's (also DPI settings seem to be ignored by Metro), OS X cheats by upscaling a lower resolution unless the application is "retina-aware" and Linux is probably the one with most issues but it depends, it can be either somewhat acceptable or horrible depending on the distro/desktop environment.

It is actually quite funny that it was Linus Torvalds complaining about this issue when most linux distributions recommend lowering the resolution on the retina macbooks basically tossing the extra pixels in the trash. If it's not done properly it just becomes a waste of CPU/GPU/power: it would be far better to have a reasonable resolution (1080p minimum?) that works well with the operating system rather than some insanely high-DPI display where everything looks like crap and movies still show with the annoying bars due to weird aspect ratios.

I think Apple approach was the best because they always tried to double the resolutions on their devices to make the transition the least painful they could and on the retina display their use of a whitelist system (only tested applications will work in native mode) has avoided the issues with all the applications that don't render properly. I still wonder why Windows still uses the cheapest scaling algorithms for some parts the UI, it's not like the recent CPUs couldn't scale a 32x32/48x48 cursor.

NOTE: This post is only exclusively about desktop operating systems, not phones or tablets where the UIs have been tailored for DPI scaling from the start.

But we have anti-aliasing? Doesn't really answer my question. I suppose I could see AA becoming irrelevant with it, but any gains from turning off AA would be lost with rendering at an increased resolution. So I still don't really see the point unless the performance gain from no AA outweighs the loss from resolution.

I find it hard to believe it makes any actual difference to viewing photos either. Unless it can mysteriously extract additional pixels from the photo data, all it would do is "zoom out" the photo.

That's kind of the point, we're using anti-aliasing (for nearly everything) because we have such low resolution devices. Increasing the resolution negates the need for anti-aliasing. Photos see an improvement since they're often scaled down for display, showing them at their normal resolution allows for more fine detail.

Compare proper 1920x1080 video to a scaled 960x540 copy, the overall image will be the same, but you'll be missing out on fine detail.

I'm really not sure I understand this trend of squeezing more pixels into the same physical space. Have we suddenly evolved to have mega awesome eyes that can see individual pixels at 5 feet away? :wacko: Using my computer, netbook or phone I can't see the individual pixels unless my eyes are too close to the screen. Maybe I'm not understanding something but it seems like pointless number increases to me, much like camera megapixels.

The point is that breaking the 300 PPI barrier supposedly makes it nigh on impossible to see individual pixels, even at close range. For devices like tablets that are usually used pretty close up it will make a difference.

The point is that breaking the 300 PPI barrier supposedly makes it nigh on impossible to see individual pixels, even at close range. For devices like tablets that are usually used pretty close up it will make a difference.

On a smartphone or tablet it definitely makes sense and you can clearly see the difference. However, I'm using my 27-inch iMac at a comfortable 50 cm away and it already becomes increasingly hard to see the individual pixels. I have no doubt a "retina" iMac will be nicer, but the issue isn't as pressing as on - let's say - an iPhone.

And we'll pay out the rear for it. I can't see a huge difference between my desktop running 1280*1024 (19" CRT) vs my laptop running 1366*768 (15.6"). Maybe it's my need for glasses that blinds me, or it's just a big marketing scam like most crap is.

The standard should be 300ppi for mobile hardware (phones and tablets) and 150ppi for computers (laptops and desktops), considering you're usually not holding the second two close to your face so there's no need to push it as far as mobile devices go. Just think of the clear text and the eyes saved if this was to become a standard.

Right now I'm using a 24" LG @ 1080p, the pixel grid is visible from where I'm sitting if I lean just a bit towards it.

The standard should be 300ppi for mobile hardware (phones and tablets) and 150ppi for computers (laptops and desktops), considering you're usually not holding the second two close to your face so there's no need to push it as far as mobile devices go. Just think of the clear text and the eyes saved if this was to become a standard.

Right now I'm using a 24" LG @ 1080p, the pixel grid is visible from where I'm sitting if I lean just a bit towards it.

I'd argue 330+ for mobile devices, 270+ for laptops, 200+ for desktop displays.

Currently I have:

iPhone 4: 960x640 @ 326ppi (and really good during normal operation)

Nexus 7: 1280x800 @ 216ppi (noticably lower than the iPhone) - this would be better in 330ppi range for day to day usage.

Thinkpad Edge 11: 1366x768 @ 135ppi (unacceptably low) - I would be very happy if this was in the 270ppi range for day to day usage.

Dell U2711: 2560x1440 @ 109ppi (low but marginally better than the Thinkpad) - it would be better if this was in the 200ppi range for day to day usage.

I'm more in line with these later opinions that understand PPI values should vary depending on device type. Resolution is not a simple matter of pixels and PPI. Anyone who establishes their opinion on display standards with just these two values does not understand display ergonomics.

At the lowest level, you want to begin with how far your eyes are from the screen. A smartphone, laptop, desktop, and television are all viewed at different distances--and even then, those distances aren't common for all people. You might sit comfortably anywhere from 1'-2.5' from your laptop display while doing work. Pixel density will have dramatically different effects depending on where you fall in this range.

Once you establish your comfort zone with displays, you need to determine which range of PPI values match it. That is, which PPIs make pixels indistinguishable at the high and low end of this zone (turn off font smoothing if you want to get really serious about it, but at that point you're going beyond what reality will ever throw at you--your choice). Hang on to these two values, because you can map these against the final cost of the display when you make your decision.

Now, take your preference for aspect ratio. Throw it away. It's meaningless. It doesn't matter. It's one of those things people take way too seriously and defend to the death with nothing but flawed anecdotal evidence and studies on FoV they don't even understand. What matters is perceived space. A 24" 16:9 display will have just as much physical vertical space as a 23" 16:10 display, and cost the same or less simply because 16:9 panels are in higher demand. It's not a matter of losing vertical space with 16:9--you're gaining horizontal space.

It's a lot easier to wrap your mind around if you give these two ratios a common denominator. It isn't about 16:10 vs. 16:9 (where the vertical value appears lower). It's 160:90 [16:9] vs. 144:90 [16:10]. This more accurately represents what you get for your dollar.

Now, ask yourself what the vertical height was of the 16:10 display you so fell in love with, and find out what diagonal length a 16:9 monitor has to be to have the same vertical height. Make this your minimum display size.

At this point, you know the physical size of the monitor you want, and the pixel densities to match. Congratulations, you have an informed opinion.

/my 16:9 27" 2560x1440 monitor lets me see more than your 1920x1200 16:10 display ever will, so come off it already. AR doesn't matter.

I think he's right. It's kind of ridiculous to have a 1280x720 (and higher) screen res. on a 4.5" phone, yet have a laptop's 13" screen be only 1366x768px. Maybe the screens don't need to be 2560x1600, but at least have 1600x900 instead of 1366x768.

/my 16:9 27" 2560x1440 monitor lets me see more than your 1920x1200 16:10 display ever will, so come off it already. AR doesn't matter.

The extra space on the top and bottom is useful for us that create and edit 16:9 content. Congratulations, you've completely missed the point of 16:10.

The extra space on the top and bottom is useful for us that create and edit 16:9 content. Congratulations, you've completely missed the point of 16:10.

You're being snarky, but for making it to the bottom of my post, you completely missed the point.

Think, for a second, in terms of actual physical space: actual inches in the physical real world. A 23" 16:10 display gives you extra vertical space to work on 16:9 video, yes. But a 24" 16:9 display gives you the same extra vertical space, PLUS extra horizontal space, while the amount of actual physical space the video takes up on the screen is the same.

THAT is my point. Aspect ratio doesn't matter when the fact is a PHYSICALLY LARGER display is more affordable at 16:9 than 16:10. Let me actually draw a picture for you, because I think this is something people are genuinely having trouble making their brains process. Note that the attached picture is to compare the two aspect ratios where the video frame is given the exact same real-world physical space. You have the exact same space for the video frame, the exact same extra vertical space for editing controls, plus bonus extra horizontal space for whatever you desire, all on a monitor that costs the same price. You only lose the extra vertical work space if you decide to give the video frame more physical area, but at that point you'd need a physically even larger 16:10 display, which would add to the pricetag, and--guess what--a larger still 16:9 display will be available yet again at that same new higher price.

Entirely because of the effect TV panels are having on the cost of displays, it remains economically feasible to always just buy a LARGER 16:9 monitor that can contain the same work space as the smaller 16:10.

This is very, very simple math here. Middle school level stuff. Please, please tell me this isn't still going over your head.

/something to think about: for 2560px wide displays, 16:9 will run you $700, 16:10 will run you $1200. you can either pay $500 dollars for those extra 160px in height, or buy two of the 16:9 monitors. $1200 for 2560x1600, or $1400 for 5120x1440. I would rather buy two slightly shorter displays than be punished with a 50% markup per pixel for one slightly taller display. In pure economical feasibility, telling yourself that 16:10 is the "better choice" is downright lunacy.

post-10281-0-84041300-1351972610.png

It's not about math, it feels unwieldy and doesn't work. You're missing the human element here.

Hang on here. I'm going into extreme detail to communicate my point of view, and all you're going to do is throw out a subjective remark like "it feels unwieldy" and conclude that it therefore "doesn't work"?

I see once you decide to believe something, you completely shut yourself off to even processing contradictory information. Can you even explain why it "doesn't work"? Or do you just say things and expect to be right by virtue of Having Spoken?

Hang on here. I'm going into extreme detail to communicate my point of view, and all you're going to do is throw out a subjective remark like "it feels unwieldy" and conclude that it therefore "doesn't work"?

I see once you decide to believe something, you completely shut yourself off to even processing contradictory information. Can you even explain why it "doesn't work"? Or do you just say things and expect to be right by virtue of Having Spoken?

Your point of view is nonsense, extreme detail, or otherwise. If it doesn't take you 5 seconds to realize the practical benefits of using a 16:10 monitor to edit 16:9 frames, then you're just dense.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • You've tried DuckDuckGo and Brave Search, now get serious with SearXNG by Paul Hill Over the last decade, it has become quite trendy to dump Google Search in favor of privacy-preserving alternatives such as DuckDuckGo, Startpage, and Brave Search. These search engines have done a very good job at highlighting dodgy practices by Google, such as adjusting search results based on what it thinks you’ll like (filter bubble) and stalking you around the web to advertise to you. While these search engines are good starting points when compared to non-private services like Google, there are still quite a few issues with them. For example, both DuckDuckGo and Brave Search require running non-free JavaScript in your web browser, which is comparable to running proprietary software on your computer, meaning you can be sure about what it’s actually doing in the background. Another issue is that these search engines are hosted on the respective companies’ servers, and you are using a service that you don’t control. Finally, DuckDuckGo, while offering privacy features, relies heavily on Microsoft’s infrastructure for its results and, in the past, has permitted Microsoft tracking scripts. If you are looking for a more private search solution than DuckDuckGo, Brave Search, and Startpage, then I recommend taking a look at SearXNG. It is a privacy-respecting metasearch engine that can be used via different public instances, which is useful for mobile users, or you can install it on your computer or server and run it locally with maximum control. Unlike Google, Bing, or Brave Search, which crawl the web and have their own search indexes, SearXNG is a metasearch engine, meaning it taps other search engines, stripping your identifying data, such as IP address, user agent, and cookies, in the process. Your search query is sent to the other search engines you enable before aggregating the results. SearXNG has deployment flexibility. If you are a casual user or a mobile user and don’t want to run SearXNG locally, you can use a public instance that is hosted by someone else. The main problem with this is that you are putting trust in the maintainer of the instance regarding stuff like logs that they may keep; good hosts should have a privacy policy explaining their policies. If you are trying to use SearXNG, you can also install the software on your device and then head to 127.0.0.1:8080 in your browser and search from there. While you don’t have to worry about a third-party admin like the public instances, search engines could ultimately block your IP address if they frown on you pulling in their search results locally. If you want to run it locally, it’s a good idea to use proxies or VPNs to hide your actual IP. You don’t have to worry about this with a public instance, as search engines never see your IP address. The main privacy benefit of using SearXNG is that it isolates your identity from the underlying engines that it’s capable of searching, such as Google and Bing. These search engines will only see requests coming from a generic server, so they can’t profile you and create a bubble filter that influences what results you see. This also ensures that your search engine doesn’t turn into an echo chamber that prevents you from reading alternative points of view. As a free software project, you are allowed to inspect SearXNG to make sure there are no negative features bundled inside. This sets it apart from the privacy search engines mentioned earlier because you can’t check their source code. As a meta search engine, you are not restricted to getting results from one source. Due to the fact that it scrapes content from other websites, your SearXNG instance will periodically get blocked from different providers, so it’s good to select a range of sources as a backup. While enabling all of the services will give you great results, this can make searching slower. I am personally happy with slower searches for the best results, but you can always check which providers are slowing down your search from the search results page and disable them to speed things up. If you want decent results quickly, enable the main search providers such as Google, Brave, DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Bing, and Yahoo. This way, you get wide coverage without the latency. On the Engines tab in Preferences, do note that there are different tabs, such as General, Images, and Videos, with their own providers that can be toggled and are not covered by "Enable all" while on the General tab, so be sure to dig into each. Just a note, if you want to enable everything, press "Enable all" in one tab, then hit save at the bottom of the page, then do the next tab, and so on. If you press "Enable all", then do that in each tab, and then save, nothing will stick. When I had just some of the search engines enabled, I searched “define nefarious” and results came back with the definition of “define” - obviously that was a sucky result. However, when I had everything enabled, it found dictionary pages for the word “nefarious” and even had an inline definition on the sidebar, which is quite nice too - that was delivered by WolframAlpha for anyone wondering! Probably the worst thing about this meta search engine is that the engines you select are saved with a cookie, so you must enable them on every new device you use SearXNG on, including if you decide to go into incognito mode with your web browser. Honestly, I would say this is the most annoying aspect, and perhaps if your browser lets you choose a separate private browsing search engine, then it would be best to use DuckDuckGo for this portion of your browsing. Another weakness of SearXNG is the random blocking of it by search providers. When you are on the results page, expand the “Response time” box, and it will show things like “Suspended: too many requests” or “access denied”. This is why it is good to enable several providers so that there is always a fallback to get results from. I won’t pretend SearXNG will be for everyone, however, if you enable all of the providers and put up with the slower response time, the results can be really amazing. Even if you don’t want to use it as your daily driver, keeping a bookmark handy that links to it is a good idea if you ever feel like doing a deep dive into a niche topic where other search engines are just failing to bring up any good result, due to the amount of sources it looks on. If you’re interested in radical user control over the software you use, installing SearXNG locally can also be a good idea, but be prepared to be temporarily blocked from sites if you trigger bot sensors without a VPN. Personally, I’ve opted to use a public instance, rather than install it myself. If you want to use it via a public instance, head over to searx.space to find a provider. Let us know in the comments if you have used SearXNG or its predecessor, Searx. What do you think about the quality of the results?
    • Dear Neowin, If it is not too much trouble, can you start using the new-ish designations for Insider Preview? "Experimental" is different than "former Dev" as it can apply to different models, eg 26H1 or 26H2 etc, right? No need to seed confusion IMHO. And, please "finally" update your graphics. OK?
    • Did you see their FAQ, its quite good. Have a look in the Advanced section. https://delta.chat/en/help
    • Just install Linux Mint that is a real blessing and many times cheaper because you can continue using your old Windows computer/laptop with the latest Linux updates.
    • Interesting share -- however it does not make sense: Email messages get stored somewhere, so how is Delta Chat "based on email" and decentralized without actually storing anything? By Web3 standard practices, the various Relays would require dedicated storage to make messages available to the recipients (like a large series of message queue channels, akin to racks of traditional post office boxes)... and Contacts must be two-way confirmed in order for encryption keys to be exchanged (ostensibly every key-pair is uniquely bound between sender and recipient) and the Relays would preserve the public keys in order to facilitate message carriage... or every device stores all sorts of keys and contact info. All of this to say, decentralized messaging is like running Bluesky nodes except instead of discovering/browsing public feeds by various posters (at the given node) these Delta Chats would be relaying encrypted messages (via Relays) that only trusted recipients would have the appropriate decryption key (their own private key) to read it. But this doesn't solve the "it's like email" sales pitch. The only way it's like email is that there's encrypted binary stuff being transported from your app into the federated ether of Delta Chat Relays for others to decrypt (hopefully only the intended recipient)... but outside of this federated relays framework, it is absolutely nothing like email.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Woland13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      tuben earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      226
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      160
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!