There's nothing wrong with 1440x900 and 1600x1050 resolutions so why aren't PC makers using them

I understand that 1366x768 is balls and we are finally getting out of that range

but other than MBA, everyone else has jumped megaship to 1080p+

I think it would be much more balanced with price, battery life and performance (especially gaming) if 1600x1050 (of course I wish for a 16:10 screen) became the norm for 13-15" form factors and 1440x900 for 10-12"

 

I would never buy a laptop with those resolutions. I use a 2006 Dell 17" E1705 with a 1920 x 1200 resolution. They don't make laptops screens like this anymore too.

 

Its a marketing thing because companies want to out compete each other at the high end instead of going for sane configurations. On the other hand they also seem to have a mentality that their midrange and low cost options are worth the savings of using 1366x768. That's what happens when marketing and bean counters run a tech company

 

1366x768 sucks on a 15", but the plus side is if you're gaming with a weaker graphics card, you can still game at native resolution with good frame rates.

Sent from my SGH-I717D using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

Because 16:9 monitors require less pixels than the 16:10 or 4:3 monitors to achieve 13", 14", 15", or 17".

Essentially, it's just marketing. It's like AT&T and Verizon advertising 4G speeds that are only somewhat faster than 3G connections, when the official 4G specification called for at least 1 gigabit speed for stationary devices (hahahaha... Not going to happen).

 

I went from 1680x1050 to 1920x1080 with both on 15" so I am one of the lucky few that didn't notice a performance hit.

I have to say though the old 1680x1050 lcd screen on my asus was VERY good! I do miss it.

 

Because they're the least expensive. The number of people who want and would pay for better screens is a very small percentage of the market as a whole.