Small, High Resolution Windows Laptops Coming In 2012 - Thanks To Apple

[qubit]

Love 'em or hate 'em, Apple has a habit of trend setting. When Apple released their original iPad, it had a meager low resolution 1024 x 768 resolution display which was scoffed at by many, yet it didn't stop it from being a runaway success. And the iPad 2 didn't improve on it, either - perhaps surprisingly, since the original formula worked so well. However, in early 2012 Apple plans to introduce its new Retina display equipped next generation iPads, offering a very high 2048 x 1536 resolution. On the 9.7" screen of an iPad, this would make the pixels all but invisible to anyone, except for those with the sharpest of 20-20 vision, giving the screen superb clarity and wow factor. These will be incorporated into its next generation iPads, which is expected to push the PC notebook market to use higher resolution displays too in order to remain competitive.

One indication of this, is that Acer and Asustek Computer are, according to Digitimes, both working with "panel makers AU Optronics (AUO) and Chimei Innolux (CMI) separately to develop a new generation of full HD notebook panels with a resolution of 1,928x1,080, according to industry sources." Digitimes' sources also state that these new ultrabooks are expected to go one sale around Jan-Feb 2012 at the earliest and that both manufacturers are optimistic that these small computers will sell well. For comparison, Asus's 11.6" UX21 ZenBook model is currently stuck at a 1366 x 768 resolution - barely better than an iPad 2. This resolution unfortunately, is also common with larger laptops, too. However, with the new display panels, this should hopefully jump to a much more useful Full HD, 1920 x 1080 resolution.

So, could this trend also rub off on desktop monitors, perhaps making 2048 x 1152 desktop monitors commonplace and inexpensive? It seems quite possible. The market has been stuck at a Full HD resolution for a while now and it's about time we saw a significant resolution jump.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[n-ster]

I love the idea of over 1080p on a screen smaller then my netbook's!

I would have thought they would have gone with 1080p though

 

[theJesus]

I loved having 2048x1536 on my 21" CRT and I love 2048x1152 on my 23" LCD. High res FTW.

I don't know why they aren't doing 16:9 though.

 

[Easy Rhino]

leave it to apple to push the boundaries!!!! if this were microsoft they would have just got around to 720p LMAO!!!

 

[newtekie1]

A higher resolution works on the iPad because Apple can control how everything looks, and make everything bigger to fit the resolution better. Basically making sure that everything on the new screen will be roughly the same size as it was on the old screen, but everything will look sharper.

However, that doesn't work with Windows. You can raise the DPI settings, but it just ends up making things look screwed up, and some things just don't adhere to the DPI setting and remain so small you can't read them. Larger resolutions on small screens just doesn't work for most people on PCs. 1080p on an 11.5" screen would be impossible to use for most people, even on a 13.3" screen it would be pretty hard for most to use.

 

[NC37]

I for one am completely for this change.

Mostly because, it will force Apple and other devs to finally drop Intel craphics for good. Or, it may force Intel to finally get serious. Really, you can't run high res stuff on Intel. Even if it can display that much, there is no power behind it.

 

[newtekie1]

I for one am completely for this change.

Mostly because, it will force Apple and other devs to finally drop Intel craphics for good. Or, it may force Intel to finally get serious. Really, you can't run high res stuff on Intel. Even if it can display that much, there is no power behind it.

The iGPU on the current Sandybridge processors is more than capable of handling 1920x1080 for everything but gaming, and even some gaming, which most people buying computer with iGPUs aren't concerned with(and most people buying iPads aren't either).

The current Sandybridge iGPU compete very well with lower end descrete graphics, putting any more power than that in a iGPU doesn't really make sense. It is enough to do HD video and beyond and casual gaming, but anyone looking for more than that will likely use a higher end descrete GPU anyway, but it is pointless to make the general public pay for a higher end GPU that they won't use.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Sounds like AU Optronics and Chimei Innolux had a breakthrough with LCD touchscreen technology. I assume that the higher resolutions screens are about the same cost to manufacture.

leave it to apple to push the boundaries!!!! if this were microsoft they would have just got around to 720p LMAO!!!

Microsoft doesn't have a product that competes with iPad. They're working on Windows 8 (may or may not have a separate version for tablets) and Windows 8 obviously will handle whatever hardware it is installed.

 

[Inceptor]

Larger resolutions on small screens just doesn't work for most people on PCs. 1080p on an 11.5" screen would be impossible to use for most people, even on a 13.3" screen it would be pretty hard for most to use.

I agree.
1280 x 768 on a 13.3" is pretty tiny compared to a standard 19 - 23" desktop monitor @ 1920 x 1080. The pixel density is better, but everything is tiny; 1280 x 768 is difficult to get used to, I can't see a 1920 x 1080 ultrabook being a pleasant viewing experience for normal everyday tasks aside from video files.

 

[Easy Rhino]

Sounds like AU Optronics and Chimei Innolux had a breakthrough with LCD touchscreen technology. I assume that the higher resolutions screens are about the same cost to manufacture.



Microsoft doesn't have a product that competes with iPad. They're working on Windows 8 (may or may not have a separate version for tablets) and Windows 8 obviously will handle whatever hardware it is installed.

i know, which is why my statement is hilariously true. microsoft has always been behind the visual game because they spend so much of their resources trying to fix their mistakes.

 

[PVTCaboose1337]

As much as I dislike some of what Apple does, I'm ok with higher resolutions, as if everyone uses them the cost can't be too bad for all of us!

 

[Trackr]

A higher resolution works on the iPad because Apple can control how everything looks, and make everything bigger to fit the resolution better. Basically making sure that everything on the new screen will be roughly the same size as it was on the old screen, but everything will look sharper.

However, that doesn't work with Windows. You can raise the DPI settings, but it just ends up making things look screwed up, and some things just don't adhere to the DPI setting and remain so small you can't read them. Larger resolutions on small screens just doesn't work for most people on PCs. 1080p on an 11.5" screen would be impossible to use for most people, even on a 13.3" screen it would be pretty hard for most to use.

I'm 99% sure you can edit most things to work well in a high-DPI environment.

And if you want to it to be like that at stock, maybe Windows 8 will bring that?

 

[Frick]

I'm 99% sure you can edit most things to work well in a high-DPI environment.

Some programs work fine but run smaller third party programs and the interface could just as well be cocked to heck and back. And smaller third party programs is what Windows is all about imo.

This needs to be resolved before I'm interested in it.

 

[1c3d0g]

I don't think so much credit needs to be given to Apple for this. What's with everyone's obsession with ridiculous resolutions anyways? This only results in tiny text that need a microscope to be read properly.

I don't care about stupid resolutions. What about the color gamut? I'm sick and tired of (especially laptops) having incredibly washed out displays with extremely poor viewing angles. Not to mention, a useless glossy display that can't be viewed easily outdoors. THIS is something notebook manufacturers should focus on, instead of wasting time with resolutions.

 

[mediasorcerer]

Hasnt the vaio z 13 inch got a 1080 screen?

When you think about it, the screen is the main way one interfaces with there computer, so naturally one would expect that to be one area where quality is evident, but sadly it isnt mostly.
Hopefully this will change things anyhow, win 8 may have support for larger resolutions without compromising on font size /dpi and all of that.
About time this is!!!

 

[Deleted member 67555]

I fail to see the point of a >1080p 9.7" display.....

 

[mediasorcerer]

Maybe, i guess until you actually get to see it, id reserve my opinion, nothing wrong with hi clarity/resolution screens, even small ones, the iphone screen looks good hi res.

But as the other poster mentioned, there are other considerations than just resolution that make a good screen.

 

[largon]

Desktops have little use for higher pixel densities. Instead, focus should be put on lowering prices of larger screens, making proper RGB LED backlighting affordable and making more efficient panels with better colors.
Also, please ban glossy screens.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

perhaps making 2048 x 1152 desktop monitors commonplace and inexpensive? .

2048x1152 monitors are already inexpensive and barely a step up from 1080p, now when 2560x1440 becomes inexpensive that's when I will be interested in the desktop monitors. Though this is good news for the mobile/tablet market as others will follow suit.

 

[costinul_ala]

iDisplay

and the panels will probably still be samsung and lg ... so who's pushing who?
i don't see the connection with the PC market and M$, sorry ...

 

[bostonbuddy]

2048x1152 monitors are already inexpensive and barely a step up from 1080p, now when 2560x1440 becomes inexpensive that's when I will be interested in the desktop monitors. Though this is good news for the mobile/tablet market as others will follow suit.

Wheres these cheap 2560x1440 monitors? once I've seen have been 2 to 3x the cost of a 1080p monitor, I would love to have one.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

Wheres these cheap 2560x1440 monitors? once I've seen have been 2 to 3x the cost of a 1080p monitor, I would love to have one.

Did you read my post?

I said:
"2048x1152 are inexpensive already"
"when 2560x1440 becomes inexpensive that's when I will be interested in the desktop monitors"

I feel like I am just repeating myself sometimes

 

[qubit]

2048x1152 monitors are already inexpensive and barely a step up from 1080p, now when 2560x1440 becomes inexpensive that's when I will be interested in the desktop monitors. Though this is good news for the mobile/tablet market as others will follow suit.

Good point, I was actually thinking of 2560x1440 when I wrote that up, so I'm not sure what happened there. I think it's a bit late to change it now though, as the comments are based on the original resolution.

Mind you, 2048 x1152 is not all that cheap or common yet, is it?

 

[n-ster]

2048x1152 is cheap, not common though. I bought mine at a 10$ price increase compared to 1080p, but that was a long time ago... They gave up on them now though, so they are very rare

 

[Mussels]

i fully support this move. the retina display on my iphone 4 is just fantastic.