Linus Torvalds: 2560x1600 Needs To Be Next Standard

[+Fahim S. MVC]

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.

Actually his view is spot on - I'd take a bigger 16:9 monitor over a smaller 16:10 monitor because I don't lose vertical space, but do gain horizontal space.

I have made the move (24" 16:10 1920x1200 to 27" 16:9 2560x1440) and don't find doing real work more jarring.

[Phouchg]

Holy Penguin is just like Woz - lost touch with reality a long time ago. I guess living on donations of big tech companies to grep stuff all day does that to people.

(companies that happen to get that money by constantly going against every principle he himself appears to stand for)

And, like many of his followers, he forgets that for most other people stuff like huge pixel matrices cost hell lot of money to buy. And it's not like it's coming cheap for companies, too - phones and schmablets have become half-thousand/euro/pound (and more) devices. Except that a great many of them are being sponsored by telcos - that can afford it because they then proceed to suck raw money out of their customers. Laptops for the most part don't have that kind of deals, so they're not getting hi-def screens either and that's all there is to it.

[Joshie]

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.

In other words, you can't actually explain it. My post thoroughly went through why aspect ratio doesn't matter in the context of editing 16:9 video. But you've decided you're right, and you're clearly a very stubborn person.

However, no amount of your insulting personality or superiority complex changes the fact that I can buy two 2560x1440 monitors for a minimally higher cost than one 2560x1600 display, and you can't name one single use case where that one display does a better job than those two displays.

In fact, I seriously doubt you can do anything but insult people. Faced with the challenge of actually constructing an argument, you realize you have nothing to say, and instead of dealing with the fact that you simply haven't put much thought into the topic, you're taking the low road, insulting people, and feeling like it makes you the better person.

Spoiler: you can't win an argument without actually making one first. Reload from last save and try again.

[OOOOOOOO]

If he's saying "stop with the retina crap" he doesn't understand what the concept of retina is. It's not JUST higher resolution. It's higher DPI. There's a very distinct difference. Higher res is all well and good, but a simple higher resolution mode means tiny text and icons. No one wants that. We need to have these useable. So retina display means fully useable but with more pixels per inch. Smoother text and icons.

However, I love that the Macbook Pro Retina runs at 2880x1800 constantly. No matter what 'mode' you're in. I use the 'looks like 1920x1200' mode. It's the kind of size of icons and text you'd get at 1920x1200 but of course, is on Retina, therefore being drawn at 2880x1800, which means it's super crisp. As smooth and beautiful looking as the regular mode.

So yeah ... higher resolution as standard? No. Higher DPI as standard? Well, Apple's likely to make that the case next year ;)

[Growled Member]

Linus is most wise.

We should be using Star Trek-like screens by now. ;)

Yeah, what happened to that?

[Laslow]

In other words, you can't actually explain it. My post thoroughly went through why aspect ratio doesn't matter in the context of editing 16:9 video. But you've decided you're right, and you're clearly a very stubborn person.

However, no amount of your insulting personality or superiority complex changes the fact that I can buy two 2560x1440 monitors for a minimally higher cost than one 2560x1600 display, and you can't name one single use case where that one display does a better job than those two displays.

In fact, I seriously doubt you can do anything but insult people. Faced with the challenge of actually constructing an argument, you realize you have nothing to say, and instead of dealing with the fact that you simply haven't put much thought into the topic, you're taking the low road, insulting people, and feeling like it makes you the better person.

Spoiler: you can't win an argument without actually making one first. Reload from last save and try again.

You're arguing about pixels, when it's an argument about dimensions. You just don't get it.

[moloko]

16:9 is a **** ratio for computers.

they are almost the same.