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

[Frick]

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

There's still the issue with DPI scaling.

I wonder what Heroes 3 will look like on it though.

 

[qubit]

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.

Yup, Windows is still working on the old bitmapped principle, which causes this. This is fine if you want a straight-up increase in desktop real estate, of course, but is useless for scaling and screen elements can look too tiny for some. Perhaps these hi-res displays will encourage Microsoft to implement a blend of the Apple way and the classic bitmap, in Windows 8?

 

[npp]

I read a very nice explanation @anandtech once for why most people need around 300dpi of resolution for text displayed in a range comparable with that when reading a book. I don't think there's much to argue about it, 300dpi (or ppi, if you wish) or something similar is useful for a smartphone or a tablet. So nothing against 2048 on an iPad3.

If one wants 150dpi on a desktop monitor, this yields something like 3072x1728 for a 24" widescreen. (I assume one would use a desktop monitor from twice the distance from a tablet).

It's clear that desktop monitors are lagging severely in resolution.

 

[SetsunaFZero]

i just say Toshiba 55ZL2 LCD with 3840x2160 resolution
u'll do ur pants if u see the price

 

[mediasorcerer]

the more resolution the better as far as ive seen with screens, i had a 27" imac for a while late last year and although the gloss is bad in direct light, the 2650x1440 27" screen was very good to look at, better than 1080 for sure.

 

[theJesus]

The big reason I like high resolutions isn't just pixel-density or dot-pitch, it's screen real-estate. I like having the room to simultaneously view multiple windows, without needing multiple screens.

 

[Lipton]

"- Thanks to Apple"

 

[de.das.dude]

what is the use if you cant even see the damned smaall pixels

 

[Inceptor]

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.

Higher pixel density is quite pleasant on the eyes, and makes things more crisp and 'real'. I wouldn't mind higher pixel densities on desktop monitors. I can see the pixels on my 21" 1080p monitor, it makes font scaling grainy and artificial as opposed to smooth and clean looking. It's a bit annoying.

 

[largon]

Oh well, I sit so that my eyes are about 1.2 meters (4 feet) away from the screen (30") so I guess our views and needs can differ somewhat.
¦p

 

[Inceptor]

Oh well, I sit so that my eyes are about 1.2 meters (4 feet) away from the screen (30") so I guess our views and needs can differ somewhat.
¦p

That's how far away my monitor is from me... and I can see pixellation and lack of definition. It doesn't matter what size your monitor is... a 30" 2560 x 1600 isn't any better pixel density than a 21" 1920 x 1080.

 

[Fx]

I am happy to hear about this progress. it is lame that it took Apple to do this because others just want to ride the bandwagon instead of pushing boundaries

good for Apple

 

[largon]

OOookay... You're viewing a 21" screen from 4 feet away...