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

    • Why Delta Chat is the best decentralized messenger you have probably never tried by Paul Hill There is no shortage of messaging apps out there; we have WhatsApp, Messenger, and Telegram, just to name a few. While Meta has taken steps to incorporate encryption into Messenger and WhatsApp, they still leave a lot to be desired. If you are in the market for a messaging app that promotes security, privacy, and optional anonymity, you'll want to read what I have to say about Delta Chat. For those not familiar with Delta Chat, rather than relying on centralized servers as you do with Facebook Messenger, it relies on email. Essentially, it is a chat interface that feels like a messaging app, but secretly in the background, it is firing off emails. In the past, you used to have to sign in with your email account. When you sent messages to people, it would just be sending encrypted messages to their inbox, which their Delta Chat client would decrypt. When I first learned about Delta Chat, it required users to sign in with an email account, but I was pleasantly surprised upon trying it in 2026 that this is no longer a requirement, or the preferred method was to use the app. Recently, I’ve tried UAD-ng on my old Nokia 3.4 to disable most of the Google apps because the bootloader is locked, and this is the next best option. While finding replacement apps in F-Droid, I came across Delta Chat again, and it has undergone quite a big change since I last used it, with its new chatmail relays, which no longer require you to sign in to your own email account, providing anonymity, and they offer greater security. Android and Desktop Delta Chat apps. Not only does it run on my de-googled phone, but it also works on desktop computers and iOS, making it truly ubiquitous. For me, Delta Chat is a wonderful alternative messenger because it gives you more control. It supports switching between different profiles, which you can set up super quickly; you don’t register a username, you don’t register a password. The only thing you do have is a random string email address on a chatmail relay (which you don’t have to memorize). To maintain access to your profile, you just need to add a second device to your account via QR code or make a backup of your account, which you can restore later. Fail to do these, your account is gone - as it should be if you don’t want to leave accounts that could get hacked later on. My decision to block Google stuff on my Nokia was done for practical reasons; the device sucked when it launched, and it sucks even more now. The nice thing about F-Droid and the apps within is that they’re usually lightweight, free of bloat, and work well on that device. What was inconvenient for me was that it was hard to send messages from that device, say if I wanted to copy a code over to my main phone or send family members a link from that device. That’s when I decided to look at the available chat apps and saw Delta Chat. Another nice thing about Delta Chat is its notifications. Some messaging apps rely on Google’s ecosystem for notification transport on Android; however, with Delta Chat, it can use Google’s solutions if you have Play Services or MicroG installed. Otherwise, it is able to keep a background connection to the chatmail relay server so that you can get notified when you receive a message. As free software, the code of Delta Chat is open for all who want to take it and build upon it. In the future, if the developers of Delta Chat make a catastrophically bad decision and take the app in an undesirable direction, users can take the code and fork the project. This contrasts with closed-source apps from corporations that can take their products in any direction they like. By relying on free software instead of closed-source programs, you actually control your computing. I’ve spoken at length about how running this type of software is like owning your own home rather than renting it. The same applies here; if you use Delta Chat, you don’t need to worry about it going away in the future. Whether it is Telegram, WhatsApp, or Messenger, you are required to register a username and password to use these services. A major flaw in this design is that anyone can try various passwords and potentially break into your account with your complete chat history intact. Sure, there is encryption in Messenger, where you need a second PIN and two-factor authentication in Telegram, but breaches happen all the time. Unlike before, when you used to sign in to your email account to send and receive messages, the primary way to do it now is to create an account on a chatmail relay. The resulting email address is a random string followed by the name of the relay you pick. This means you can start and begin adding contacts Without a username and password, you either need to ensure you have a backup or at least one device running your Delta Chat profile. The primary way to log in on another device is to go to the settings and add a second device. Then, you’ll just scan a QR code with your new device, and it’ll log in to your account and sync all your chat history and contacts. To end users, Delta Chat just looks like any instant messenger; however, it is really sending your messages as encrypted emails to your contact. This is pretty cool from a censorship perspective, as it makes the service more difficult to block. Previously, the main way to use the app was by logging in with email, but nowadays, it’s recommended that you use chatmail relays. Chatmail relays temporarily hold messages in case your device is offline. They are cheap, simple servers that don’t store data as group states. Other information, like your name and avatar, only exists on your device and the devices of those you share your contact information with. The relays are also decentralized and operated by various groups and individuals. It is even possible to set up your own chatmail relay, but most people will want to use one hosted elsewhere. To keep your messages secure, Delta Chat uses a secure subset of the OpenPGP standard that gives you automatic end-to-end encryption. It also uses Secure-Join to exchange encryption setup information through QR-code scanning or invite links. Autocrypt is also used to automatically establish end-to-end encryption between contacts and all members of group chat, but sometime this year Autocrypt v2 will be rolled out, bringing post-quantum resistant encryption and forward secrecy. The Delta Chat FAQ is an interesting read that explains many more details about the app. Credit: Pexels Delta Chat is unique among messaging apps because it is built on email, a technology that’s decades old and isn’t going anywhere soon. What’s more is that email is not centralized either, so it’s far more difficult for any authoritarian regime to disrupt the Delta Chat app. I haven’t spoken too much about features yet, so I will do that now. Delta Chat allows you to do one-on-one chats, group chats, and create channels. It also supports file sharing and making audio and video calls when chatting one-to-one, but it’s not available for group chats right now. At the time of writing, the calling functionality is disabled and can be enabled in Settings > Advanced > Debug Calls. I have used the video calling feature, and the quality is excellent. It works over WebRTC, another open standard. The app also lets you send voice notes, enables disappearing messages, and has its own app ecosystem. I did try playing chess one time there, but it was a bit spotty; though, we did manage to complete the game with a victory for me. To add people to Delta Chat, you can either give them your Delta Chat link or your QR code to scan. These are the only ways to add users, so you won't have any spam bots bothering you. If the people you want to chat with don't have the app yet, just send them your link, and it will take them to a webpage where they can install the app and then add you. It's really quick for them to install it and get started, which is nice. Credit: Microsoft. The Majorana 2 quantum chip unveiled in 2026. I do not think quantum computers are too far out now, and I do hope that Delta Chat is able to push out Autocrypt v2 sooner, rather than later, so bad actors do not attempt to collect encrypted communications and then decrypt them in the future using quantum computers. By getting people’s messages post-quantum-safe now, users won’t have to worry when quantum computers start cracking legacy encryption. Overall, I would recommend this app to people who are already past WhatsApp and Messenger and have perhaps begun using apps like Telegram or Session. It shares a lot of characteristics with these apps and goes a lot further than Telegram in terms of security. By being based on email, it is also resistant to censorship, and the lack of a username and password makes you anonymous (if you want to be) and safe from brute force password cracking attempts. Let me know in the comments if you’ve tried Delta Chat recently. Do you think it's a good bulwark against governments that are tightening their grip on the internet?
    • Putin was behind Farage/Brexit and behind Trump/MAGA. Different idiot lying beasts, same fascist master. Same screwed up results for both nations.
    • For me the Final Fantasy games, Langrisser I & II, Hardspace: Shipbreaker, Horizon Forbidden West Complete Edition, Metaphor: ReFantazio and LUNAR Remastered Collection
  • Recent Achievements

    • 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
    • First Post
      OffsetAbs earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      OffsetAbs earned a badge
      Reacting Well
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      464
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      217
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      154
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      73
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!