Linus Torvalds Wants All Laptops to Have 2560x1600 Resolution' Display

[Motoko.]

Most of the buzz surrounding Google?s upcoming Nexus 10 tablet is on account of its WQXGA (2560?1600) display, the highest-resolution screen of any tablet out there. This isn?t the first time this year that a tablet has managed to grab headlines due to its display?s pixel count, though, with the now discontinued 3rd generation iPad also hogging a plenty of limelight for its 2048?1152 screen earlier this year. But even as manufacturers continue to up the display resolution ante in the highly competitive media tablet market, laptop vendors still seem content with 1366x768 displays for the most part. A certain Linus Torvalds has a major problem with that.

Known for speaking his mind, Linux creator Linus Torvalds recently took to Google Plus to do just that on the topic of laptop display resolutions: "So with even a $399 tablet [Nexus 10] doing 2560x1600 pixel displays, can we please just make that the new standard laptop resolution? Even at 11"? Please. Stop with the 'retina' crap, just call it 'reasonable resolution'. The fact that laptops stagnated ten years ago (and even regressed, in many cases) at around half that in both directions is just sad.?

Read more at MaximumPC

[Sylar0]

Ummm my desktop doesn't need that resolution but then I do have 3 1920x1080s making 1920x5760 but seriously for one screen id ask Linus why that res...... too much over kill.

[Motoko.]

Ummm my desktop doesn't need that resolution but then I do have 3 1920x1080s making 1920x5760 but seriously for one screen id ask Linus why that res...... too much over kill.

Why are you even posting if you're using a desktop with 3 monitors?

You're not in the market for a laptop and don't seem to care..

[Hum]

I concur. :happy:

[fusi0n]

I concur. :happy:

I do too, actually.

[HawkMan]

Ummm my desktop doesn't need that resolution but then I do have 3 1920x1080s making 1920x5760 but seriously for one screen id ask Linus why that res...... too much over kill.

becausewith that res you get high enough pixel density that you don't see pixels and you get nice sharp pictures without the need for AA and crap like that, just nice sharp images.

his ideal is unrealistic for the moment though. in the future it will happen, and not because he said this, but because people want the nice clean sharp images they have on devices like the ipad and higher end Androids.

[fusi0n]

becausewith that res you get high enough pixel density that you don't see pixels and you get nice sharp pictures without the need for AA and crap like that, just nice sharp images.

his ideal is unrealistic for the moment though. in the future it will happen, and not because he said this, but because people want the nice clean sharp images they have on devices like the ipad and higher end Androids.

thank you for making sense.

[vcfan]

the question is, who doesn't want the highest resolution possible? we all do, but a lot of us don't mind lower resolutions either.

I notice that if I look at a lower resolution display, it looks perfectly fine and normal to me. If I then compare it to a higher resolution display, it absolutely gets destroyed and looks like ****. But as long as I don't have both screens side by side, then it really doesn't make a difference to me, the lower res one again looks just fine.

[Motoko.]

The Toshiba Kirabook has a 2560x1440 resolution for $1600.

It's about time..

[Azies]

Okay, but prepare to pay an extra $300 for that display.

[+virtorio MVC]

Yes, agree.

After using a Retina MacBook Pro for a while, it's pretty hard to look at other displays. Even on a 1920x1080 display (>= 15") the pixels are noticeable enough.

[Max Norris]

the question is, who doesn't want the highest resolution possible? we all do, but a lot of us don't mind lower resolutions either.

Yea, it's a nice option but it's not necessary for all units... I've seen a few retina displays, and they are purty and all but I don't see the need myself or find myself missing out. My 1680x1050 x3 displays are plenty good. Besides, at my age probably couldn't see the pixels anyway if I tried...

[tiagosilva29]

I'd rather have a laptop with a crazy 4:3 aspect ratio.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Ummm my desktop doesn't need that resolution but then I do have 3 1920x1080s making 1920x5760 but seriously for one screen id ask Linus why that res...... too much over kill.

You did that wrong...

It would be 5760x1080 since the width is changing, but your height isn't... That being said, I have 3 x 1920x1200 (so 5760x1200) and I still would love this resolution on my laptop which is only 1920x1080 (oh how I miss the days of 16:10 on the laptop)...

So, you are probably in the minority on this one.

[0nyX]

I agree, but unfortunately its Torvalds saying it...

No one listens to him.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

becausewith that res you get high enough pixel density that you don't see pixels and you get nice sharp pictures without the need for AA and crap like that, just nice sharp images.

his ideal is unrealistic for the moment though. in the future it will happen, and not because he said this, but because people want the nice clean sharp images they have on devices like the ipad and higher end Androids.

Yeah, Toshiba just showed off a 20 inch panel with a res of 3840x2160 (so a "4K" resolution) a few months ago for a future tablet, eventually that tech will work it's way to desktops.

And we're finally getting to the point where desktop operating systems can handle the increased density, Windows has always had issues with it, but they made a big push to fix it with 8.

[Wakers]

Giving laptops that screen resolution won't solve anything?

It will **** off a large number of customers as laptop hardware is still struggling to play games properly at 1080p. The hardware isn't there to support higher resolutions.

Most people will go and buy from the bargain end - these have difficultly playing blu-rays smoothly ffs.

[HawkMan]

Giving laptops that screen resolution won't solve anything?

It will **** off a large number of customers as laptop hardware is still struggling to play games properly at 1080p. The hardware isn't there to support higher resolutions.

Most people will go and buy from the bargain end - these have difficultly playing blu-rays smoothly ffs.

Ah but that's the thing, with such a high pixel density, you don't need to play games at native res, you can still play them at 720p or 1080 or whatever your omputer can handle, and unlike playing at a non native res on todays low dpi screens, it won't look like crap. it'll be much more like the old days of CRT when you could use any res and it wouldn't look weird to run a non native res.

[TheLegendOfMart]

I think it needs it especially when laptops thesedays can still come with sub 1080p displays. I think 4K on desktop and 2K on notebooks would be a glorious thing.

[fintechfooty]

for sure. can see this happening in the near future. pc companies will have to start to compete. i see the retina macbooks on display at work all the time and the clarity of text is awesome. it feels good when you read something.

[Osiris]

I don't know why but this guy always just comes off as a whinger. I agree it would be nice if they did but the standard is moving and they are getting there, can't ignore cost factors etc plus if there was that much of a demand from cosumers we'd have it. For now a portion of them have that option and as costs come down more and more will too. In the interim stop bitching.

[ingramator]

Sorry but I don't want my laptop having a 2 hour battery life, would much rather a lower res screen and be able to do some GPU intensive tasks for twice as long.

[Phouchg]

I don't think resolution has that much impact on battery life. Backlight eats a lot more.

[(Account no longer active)]

It's 2013, and 1366 x768 is still the resolution on over 50% of laptops out there.

Use a Retina display for a few days, then go back to a standard LCD. You'll pickup the difference instantly. You'll notice the pixels.

Ultra-high res displays are the "next big thing" in PC technology. Laptop manufacturers are don't seem to be pushing it forward at the moment (except for Apple). Of course, with more pixels comes more graphics card power requirements (reducing battery life).

I 100% agree with pretty much everything Linus says.

It's time PC display technology moved ahead!

[francescob]

So, will the quad-sli required to get the same games running at that resolution fit in the SD card reader? Or should I go for a laptop with a compactflash reader instead?