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

    • US citizens are paying to their government, who could use that to fund healthcare and tuition and relieve the costs of these for citizens instead of making tax breaks that overwhelmingly favor the rich. I'm not saying that tariffs are the correct solution, but what else would they be used for? What else could Trump have in mind for wanting them, if he hasn't figured out that labor costs are higher in the US?
    • I’m in need of a new chair and it sounds like the backrest cannot be locked? I also sat on a Herman miller and was devastated that it couldn’t be locked also, what is going on with chairs. I want to be able to lock the backrest into any position but not even the Herman’s do that
    • Sihoo Doro C300 Pro V2 Ergonomic Office Chair review: The Ikea of chairs by Steven Parker I've reviewed a few gaming chairs over the past three years or so and generally found them to score well in our reviews. SIHOO reached out asking if I was interested in taking a look at their flagship chair, the Doro C300 Pro V2. I never got the chance to check out its predecessor, but the V2 is described as an "Adaptive Ergonomic Chair." It became available to buy in April of this year. Let's get things rolling with a closer look at the specifications and features. Specifications Doro C300 Pro V2 Model Ergonomic Materials Mesh Back and Seat; Soft PU Coated Armrests Height adjustability 45.5 - 53 cm / 17.5" - 20.9" Seat (w+d) 52 x 43 - 47 cm / 20.5" x 16.9" - 18.5" (adjustable) Backrest 52 – 60 cm / 20.5" - 23.6" (adjustable) Lumbar support Mesh built-in (adjustable) Armrest adjustability 8D Bionic Armrests Rocking angle 105°, 120°, 135° (fixed) Neck support Mesh built-in (adjustable) Net weight 27.3 kg / 59.64 lbs Weight support 150 kg / 330 lbs Colors Black, White Warranty 5 years (upon registering) Price $499.99, $539.99 Introduction At first glance, it looks like a chair that in another life wants to be a Herman Miller; It certainly looks like my Aeron Remastered, but the Doro C300 Pro V2 has quite a few more features and costs quite a bit less. SIHOO says that it is made up of a "DynaCore" system that tracks your movement and synchronizes the headrest, backrest, lumbar support, and armrests as you shift, twist, or recline. They also say that the "SyncroFlex Backrest" molds to your spine, which kind of describes how the mesh fabric works in most ergonomic chairs, but anyway. Below are the meat and potatoes measurements for the chair. Here is the same tech sheet, but in inches. Durability I would be remiss to not talk about the various durability testing this chair underwent before coming to market, as this is claimed on the product page. First of all, the chair is BIFMA-, SGS-, and TÜV-certified. As for durability, the tests undergone were: 100,000 Castor cycles tested 120,000 Armrest cycles tested 120,000 Recline cycles tested 120,000 Gas lift cycles tested 60,000 Armrest durability cycles tested 120,000 Rotation cycles tested Nothing about weights testing, though. Now that's all disclosed, now onto my own personal findings. Assembly The Doro C300 Pro V2 came in two large boxes (1) (2), and everything was packed very well, protecting the different parts of the chair. In the box, there is a folded sheet that explains the 12 steps to assemble it; they are: Remove the bottom cover on the aluminum base; Insert the five legs into the aluminum base and use ten screws to fasten them; Insert the castors into the legs; Replace the bottom cover on the bottom of the aluminum base; Place the Class 4 Hydraulics gas cylinder into the aluminum base; Screw the bottom part of the arm rests, taking care of the orientation using two screws on each side; Use three torx screws to fasten the footrest to the bottom of the seat; Fasten the backrest to the seat using four torx bolts; Fasten the armrests to the backrest using four Torx bolts (two on each side), taking care to note the orientation; Place the chair onto the Class 4 Hydraulics gas cylinder; Insert the headrest into the top of the backrest; Use two torx screws to fasten the headrest to the backrest. There's also an online guide you can refer to. Carefully unpacking the two boxes took around 15 minutes because almost everything is wrapped in plastic and protective foam; the chair assembly itself took around an hour. I say in the above assembly steps to take note of the orientation, because it's not obvious which way around the bottom portion of the armrests go, and although there is an L and R on the bottom of the armrests, it also wasn't clear from the instructions which was actually left or right, facing the chair, or in the seated down orientation? Anyway, I ended up putting the bottom portions on the wrong sides, and after securing one of the armrests, I discovered that although it was on the correct side, the armrest base could rotate a full 360°, but not when bolted to the chair, so I had to remove it, rotate it, and then bolt it back on. Truly an Ikea experience! Also, to complicate things further, although all the parts are labeled from A to X (yes, that's 24 parts) unhelpfully, these letters do not appear on the parts themselves or the package with the bolts, screws, and washers. There's also a pair of protective gloves in the box, but I think they were made for much smaller hands than I have. Even my friend, who is 5.1, had difficulty putting them on. Once assembled, I needed to sit down. Anyway, as I said, it looks quite similar to my Herman Miller. And here is the back of it. If you look at the product page and on Amazon, it seems like a lot of thought has gone into the chair itself and what it's capable of, but there is no mention at all about the castors, and this is an area where I think the chair trips up quite quickly. I found it difficult to move the chair in any direction. I asked a friend who came to visit me earlier this week to test my findings, and she said that the wheels were "no good," so it definitely isn't just me. I am 6'2 myself and a big guy, I work from home and gained a few pounds from mostly staying in and the hell away from other people. However, the Doro C300 Pro V2 is rated for up to 150kg (330lbs), which in my case is used well within its max rating. Ergonomics The number of adjustments you can make, right up to setting it in nap mode — which I haven't fully tested yet — is what you'd expect from a premium chair. Yes, you can go up and down (max 7.5 cm adjustment), rock back and forth (with tilt adjustment), and lock the chair between three stages of 105°, 120°, 135°, which is not quite as flat as the AndaSeat I tested at 160°. Some thought has also gone into the "8D" armrests, too, which are cushioned but quite firm; you'll only know it if you press hard into the PU-covered tops, which give about half a centimeter, but it's enough to ensure your skin won't get awkwardly stuck to it in warmer (or sweatier) conditions. It almost feels like plastic and is very easy to keep clean. However, the armrest positions move far too easily, and I am not sure what that "elbow" function is. Maybe it is good for a short person with short arms, anyway, I never used it and kept it flat at all times. There are eight levels of adjustment for the armrests, they are: backwards, forwards, swing left/right, height up and down, tilt, and 360° rotation, which can be handy for desk clearance. As I said, the armrest pads shift far too easily, which could give off an ergonomic vibe, but who wants the armrest sliding when you are shifting weight? The height adjustability does lock into place when lifting and adjusting. Comfort This is ultimately what it boils down to at the end of the day, right? Quite a lot of reviews praise the comfort of this chair, and I don't disagree that the mesh seating is quite comfortable. I am used to the material from my daily Herman Miller. However, the backrest cannot be locked into place, and this is actually a feature; as you shift or recline yourself on the chair, the backrest moves with your body. It took some getting used to. The lumbar gives ample support, but I would have preferred an adjustable one built into the seat base, as this causes the backrest to move up and down at will. Again, as with my previous chair review, this chair is also rated for tall people, but nowhere in the product documentation does it say how tall. Being 6'2 myself, I'm happy to say that the backrest is tall and wide enough, and thought has been given to being able to adjust the neck rest, but as others have mentioned in their reviews, people as tall as 6.2ft is about the limit for the neckrest. Conclusion What I didn't like The footrest is rated for 15kg (33 lbs), which to me seems a bit light, and after looking online, it seems like a chair footrest for adults must be at least twice that rating. In all honesty, they are just hollow metal tubes, so it is not recommended to let a kid sit on them. I also feel like it doesn't really go out far enough for my height, so that kind of puts the dampener on me being able to use it regularly. I'll just have to continue to use my subwoofer as a footrest! I do not like the armrests being able to shift around as easily as they can, and they are a little too forward-positioned in the chair to comfortably sit close to my desk, because even in the lowest height position, they don't allow me to go under the desk like is possible with my Herman Miller. I also feel like this chair could have been delivered partially constructed, especially the armrests on the seat, and why the aluminum base wasn't already pre-constructed (without the castors) is baffling, considering it would have fit in one of the two boxes that way. The instructions also need to be clearer. On the pamphlet, there's an A to X listing (which is also used in the steps), but none of the physical parts use this lettering system! What I did like I'll be honest, I haven't used it for very long, just one week, and seating comfort is subjective after all! Any spills wiped straight off it, the stitching, and the lines look great, not a fray to be seen or stitch out of place. It looks kind of cool, too. My favorite feature of these seats is the nap mode. While you're not lying completely flat, it leans far back enough to make you easily doze off after a heavy gaming or working session. Overall, this chair offers plenty of comfort features. The MSRP does vary quite a bit depending on the region, at £549.99 in the UK, and €580 in Europe, and $599 before tax in the U.S. However, shipping is free, which is a bonus for such a heavy item. Is it worth it, though? At three years' warranty, I think it's a decent deal. Another firm out of Germany sent me a free replacement hydraulic gas spring for a chair that failed after almost four years, so it was well outside its two-year warranty. My advice is to always try, as you might have the same luck I did. If I could fault it at all, it would be the constant shifting of the armrests and backrest. Where to buy Although the footrest variant normally costs $539.99, it has been discounted to $469.99 on the official website in Black or White. In fact, the non-footrest variant is only $40 cheaper. On Amazon, it currently costs more at $499.99 links below. Sihoo Doro C300 Pro V2 for $469.99 (official website) Sihoo Doro C300 Pro V2 for $499.99 at Amazon US SIHOO provided a free sample without any review or pre-approval. Good to know This Amazon link is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • Making US citizens pay is a prominent tool? Joke of the week…
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      207
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      73
    5. 5
      macoman
      62
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!