Why does everyone hate the 1366x768 screen?

While browsing this forum it seems everyone has a hatred for the 1366x768 Envy 14 screen with Bright View.... why?

That resolution is standard for most 15" laptops on the market.

My last few laptops (including a 16") had 1366x768 resolutions and they all looked great.

The 1366x768 resolution is right in between what the Macbook (13") and the Macbook Pro (15") come with standard and they also both look great.

I own an Envy 14 with the radiance display and it does look great... but I don't think it's worth $300...

I have to return my machine so I am deciding to either get another Envy 14 or get the Envy 14 beats edition. I think I am going to go for the beats edition because the laptop looks great, has excellent stuff bundled, free 2 year warranty, plus I love the beats audio brand.... but this anti talk of the 1366x768 screen just makes me feel unsettling.

Am I missing something or is eveyone here an extreme videophile?

 

The thing is that the Envy 14 is supposed to be premium laptop. For 1000 dollars you could get something much more powerful albeit not as good looking.

The screen is the selling point of the laptop. Its just not worth buying if you don't have the Radiance screen in my opinion. You can take your money elsewhere.

I got the Envy early so I didnt have to worry about pricing or anything.

 

Just because every other laptop uses that crappy resolution, it doesn't make it right.

 

Screen resolution has never been an issue or a problem for me. I'm not sure that the Radiance screen is worth $300 more, for me anyway. Other people think it is though, and that's cool. It's an option.

Would you have paid $300 extra for the screen?

The Radiance looks really nice, but it's one of the best screens around, right? ... along with Apple screens. So suddenly everything else is "crappy"?

 

Basically: no laptop manufacturer seems to be able to make a 768p display that doesn't have most of the following problems: poor brightness, poor viewing angles, poor blacks, poor contrast ratios.

The resolution alone doesn't matter all that much to me (a bit, but not a ton), what bothers me about 768p displays (and the reason I do not think I can buy a laptop with one) is the other general quality weaknesses.

 

Yeah, it's such a subjective thing. I'm the total opposite. I'd say my screen is really good. Good brightness (turned down most of the time), good viewing angles (never had a problem), nice blacks, never noticed contrast as a problem. I'm on a 4 year old Dell Inspiron and I use Photoshop and Illustrator pretty much every day. I'm not sure better screen is quite worth $300, or more if you're thinking about a Macbook Pro or something. Of course those screens are better, but you're paying for it now, huh?

 

The problem with 1366x768 is that it is NOT a suitable computer screen resolution. It's too small for anyone who wants to multitask. Sure, its erroneous "HD resolution" is great for TVs but its NOT OK if you want productivity. Also, notice that Windows 7's MINIMUM requirement is 1024x768... 1366x768 is cutting close. I mean, come on, what happened to the computer resolution trend? My 7 year old 15.4" laptop has 1680x1050 resolution.

 

Exactly. 1366x768 is fine if you plan to only do one thing at a time, but you can't really fit two windows next to each other at that resolution. Seriously, monitors 15 years ago had 768 vertical pixels, let's try to move past that please. I've had programs not display properly on a 768 laptop I was using temporarily, because the screen was too short. Can't emulate an Android WVGA device because they've got 800 pixels vertically (in portrait mode), how lame is that?

 

1366x768 is too small to do any sort of multitasking on, and on something that powerful, you'd be doing that easily.

 

The numbers are too strange. Nothing perfect like 1600x900.

But I agree that it's totally not worth the $300.

 

See I don't even look at it that way... I just look at it as the base model costing 1300, and then decide that the envy 14 isn't worth my money.

 

And I think that if you don't value the screen's resolution, then you probably weren't in the target market in the first place.

One of my biggest points was a high-res screen. I have a 1920x1200 28'' screen at home with a secondary 1280x768 17'' screen. I love having space on my desktop and my last laptop was a 1024x600 10.1'' EEE PC. I didn't want to make the same mistake of shooting for a small res.

To me, the Radiance screen is what makes this laptop more attractive than virtually any other on the market (I was considering the Vaio Z with 1080p as my other choice, but it was too expensive), otherwise I probably would've gone for an Asus laptop of similar specs.

 

Not to mention, but the "720p HD resolution" (1366x768) has an imperfect 16:9 ratio.

 

Well I wouldn't have paid the 300 dollars for it. But I knew that the 1000 dollar price point was too good to be true.
1100 was fine as a base price IMO. And then with my i5 520 thats 1250. Thats perfectly fine for me. Still cheaper than MBP 15 and still better. Much better.

 

well yeah, i dont think its worth $300 either. If it was like $100 extra , i think it would've been worth it. Probably HP did this because tons of people buying the envy went for the Radiance display.

 

Apple only charges $100 extra for their hi-res screen.
If HP lowers their price to $200 I'll bite.
But I really hope they get their act together and change it to $100 like apple is doing.

 

See... you all keep thinking of it as "extra"; the mental model you use for it is "I can get the envy 14 for about $1000, and then for $300 I can get a better display"; the mental model I use for it is "the envy 14's value comes very significantly from the display and I would have absolutely no desire to purchase it without the radiance display, therefore the envy 14 costs $1300 base price".

You are all falling prey to price anchoring; if this model were $1100 and the display was only $200 more you might have less of a problem with it.

 

Pretty good read

 

Haha indeed. In fact, while I think $300 for the upgrade is a bit much, I would hardly call the MPB 15's $100 screen upgrade a good deal either. With Apple's upgrade, you are only getting a small bump in resolution (1440x900 to 1680x1050) and all other qualities, such as color gamut and screen brightness remain the same. Also, the anti-glare option is a $150 upgrade, so essentially it's an extra $50 for an anti-glare coating, ridiculous.

 

You're right, but I still see $300 as an extra. I try to see it as $1300 base price, but clicking the $300 add on is still clicking a $300 add on, lol.
If the price was $1300 base as you state, I would still be upset cause others got it cheaper earlier.

Technology price should decrease over time, not increase. Damn supply and Demand!

 

It's not price anchoring tho'. You can buy an Envy 14 for $1000. There's no mind trick there.

If it was $1100 and the screen upgrade was $200 more, I would have less of a problem. Totally. But I wouldn't be able to get an Envy 14 for $1000. I still think the Envy 14 with a Radiance screen for $1300 isn't a bad deal, compared to MBP etc. but if the screen isn't the deal breaker for you then $300 seems a bit much.

 

Not exactly, but yeah, I do agree that the Radiance display is what makes the envy 14 stand out. There are better and cheaper alternatives to an envy14 with 1366x768 display.

 

How did I fall for price anchoring? I bought the thing when the Radiance Screen was the only option XD

 

I envy you (pun intended) haha.

 

Swedish prices:

Brightview; 1500 USD (i5 450m, 4 gb, 320gb)
Radiance: 2350 ISD (i5 450m, 6gb, 500gb,slice battery included)

 

Generally speaking, resolution requirements on the desktop tend to increase over time. A few years ago, laptop screens were mostly 16:10. There were 1280x800 screens, but a lot were 1440x900 or 1680x1050, and it wasn't hard to find a screen that accommodated not just basic use but serious work and multitasking as well. Along with resolution requirements, common screen resolutions used to trend steadily upwards.

For some reason, the industry decided to phase out 16:10 screens and make all screens 16:9, even though that ratio is poorly suited for computing. Maybe it was because of an increasingly myopic, "Everything is an HD movie!" attitude, or maybe it was because multiple aspect ratios segmented the market and made everything less efficient for screen manufacturers (but if you're cutting a sheet into screens all of the same size, having different aspect ratios for entirely different screen size classes shouldn't matter all that much). Maybe it was a bit of both.

Either way, moving to 16:9 didn't have to turn out terribly, but instead of bumping up horizontal resolution, the industry significantly bumped down vertical resolution...and even horizontal resolution too, for some reason. The move to 16:9 became a downgrade, pretty much all across the board. Resolution requirements for desktop usage and work aren't going down any, but the market is now plagued by a glut of 1366x768 screens (and low quality ones, at that). They're the lowest common denominator, yet they've somehow become the standard for both consumer laptops...even some business laptops!

These screens may be okay for basic computer use and people with reading glasses, but they are worthless for web development, programming, or any kind of serious computer work. You may consider the Radiance screen a mere perk, but the added resolution is an absolute necessity for many. For a lot of people, the vast majority of laptops today are complete non-starters, including almost all consumer laptops. They aren't even up for consideration, because their screens are too crappy. The horizontal resolution is too low for multi-tasking or side-by-side, and the vertical resolution is just horrendous. Nowadays, the only laptops with usable resolutions are gaming laptops (sometimes only 17" ones), expensive business laptops (and still not all of them), and a few oddities.

So, the release of the Radiance screen is not what suddenly made everything else crappy. The wholesale replacement of decent mainstream screens with crappy mainstream screens is what suddenly made everything else crappy. If you killed off everyone in the NFL and college football, a few rising stars in high school might be the best players around...but would that really be saying all that much? Not everything is solely relative. While the quality of the Radiance screen is superb and premium, its actual resolution is not some premium advancement in display technology; it's merely bringing resolution back into the ballpark where it used to be and should be. Heck, even 1600x900 is still at the lower end of where resolution should be compared to the 1680x1050 screens of yore, yet it's supposed to be some rare upgrade for the few? Even the 1280x1024 screens of the early-mid 2000's were far more spacious vertically and had nearly as many pixels! By this point, 1600x900 should be the baseline for 15" class laptops, and we should be seeing 1760x990 or so in better models when 1920x1080 is just a tad too high. (Funny enough, 1366x768 doesn't even make sense as a resolution for any size laptop, even 13" ultra-mobiles: I guess they picked it because the vertical resolution is a well-known multiple of a power of 2 (3 * 2^8), but 1376x774 would make more sense from an aspect ratio point of view.)

My own requirements are peculiar, but they generally overlap with anyone who wants a versatile all-around laptop (decent screen, decent graphics, decent battery life, decent build quality). Thanks to the eternal foresight of wise business executives, versatile laptops are extremely rare, but the Envy 14 - with the Radiance screen, that is - is a breath of fresh air. Even better, it has style and typing comfort. It brings a lot to the table and fills this segment better than any other computer...but the 1366x768 screen isn't even worth consideration, and HP keeps hiking up the price of the Radiance screen. The end result is wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Basically, 1366x768 screens suck altogether for a lot of people, and you just hear about it more here because this is where many of us congregate. Anyone who could settle for less probably already did. There are other semi-versatile consumer laptops with switchable graphics, if you can deal with 1366x768 (although most have pretty weak discrete GPU's anyway). There are even a few segments with decent screens, but none are as versatile: Some business laptops have good screens and battery life, but their graphics performance is terrible (and low-res screens are making inroads there too...). Mobile workstations and some gaming laptops (17" and some 15") have nice screens and strong graphics performance, but their battery life is terrible (and mobile workstation prices are, um...high). A few machines provide semi-versatility and good screens, like the Sager NP5125, but they have their own drawbacks (like weaker graphics, weaker battery life, or both).

 

BRAVO!!!!!!

 

This is what has happened to me. I don't even necessarily care about the resolution alone, I might be able to put up with a 768p screen IF it had good brightness, good viewing angles, good contrast ratios, good blacks, etc. As soon as I restrict my laptop search with the parameters "display doesn't suck" and "please not heavier than 6 pounds" I find myself looking at only a few models...

When I look at the envy (15, not 14, 15 is slightly cheaper and I'll actually use the stronger graphics performance) I find myself torn with guilt at spending over $1000 on anything, and wonder if I'm being greedy: "maybe," I think, "if I'm not so greedy on my graphics performance I can save hundreds of dollars, then I can just upgrade my desktop a little bit (maybe a gtx 460), maybe put an SSD into the laptop, and be better off the majority of the time."

Except that my most recent searches indicate that if I want a display that isn't terrible (preferably 1080p, good brightness, good viewing angles, good contrast ratios, preferably accurate color reproduction, preferably black blacks) I quickly find the laptops costing a minimum of $800 or $900, and with student discount the envy 15 becomes a general upgrade of all components and a significant upgrade on graphics power.

 

The Envy's low res screen is still a high quality laptop screen. The one's being stuffed into Acer's and Asus' are complete hot garbage.

 

The screen is the one part that laptop manufacturers are completely skimping on...ESPECIALLY on their cheaper models. Why are they doing this? It's simple. The VAST majority of users see bright colors and a bright screen and it's good for them. Contrast, color accuracy and black levels be damned.

 

Funny enough, I'm one of those folks with reading glasses that don't mind a little bit lower resolution on a notebook.

 

It's frustrating... But I'm glad that I am not the only one with this problem. I have friends who don't have a problem with a sad display, many roll their eyes at me when they realize that the primary reason I'm even looking at laptops anywhere near as expensive as the envy is the requirement that it has an ok display.

But at least I know I'm not just being a crazy greedy fool trying to get the ultimate laptop; instead my requirements (display that doesn't suck, less than 6 lbs) + this market resulted in very expensive laptops, and I'm optimizing according to my options.

 

Because we have to pay 1000 British pounds for it!