Whats your thoughts on the increasingly higher screen resolutions?

For me the higher resolution screens seems like a bad idea, I think 1280x800 on my 14 inch screen is at the very limit of what I can comfortably use. Anything smaller than that and it gets silly. Perfect for a 14 inch screen would be 1024px wide. I see HP is now offering 1600x900 in the 14 inch format, and I wonder, are magnifying glasses included?

Whats the idea with this?

Good for movies, yes but for everything else, not that clever if you ask me.

Actually the only good thing I can see coming out of this are super high resolution screens (like 4000x3000 or similar, well you get the point) so you could turn the resolution down to whatever suits you and not lose out on image quality, running anything other than native today just looks so bad.

I guess I wonder what happened to usability, to be able to read anything on the screen without sitting 8 inches away.

 

Sharper image quality and greater screen real estate for multitasking.

If font size is an issue, you can always upscale it in Windows.

 

i find that for 14.1 inch LCD 1440 x 900 is the best, since i can put two pages side by side... the 1280 x 800 is bit limiting in that front.

For 15.4 inch LCD 1680 x 1050 is the best. 17 inch LCD 1920 x 1200.

 

I think that resolution should continue increase, the problem will be allowing scaling to change to reflect the individuals taste.

 

I've found that mainstream laptop resolutions having been decreasing over the past couple years. LCD quality in general is getting worse.

 

I think the quality of LCDs in general is getting better and better (or at least cheaper and cheaper for a given quality), I remember a few years ago when the "TFTs" became more common and they were horrible to say the least, new TN LCDs are actually quite good except for color inverting and such when having the screen tilted back too far, some are extremely bad and annoying in this respect.

I´d much rather have 1920x something than 1400x or 1600x on my T400 but preferably much higher still (so I can turn it down).

Changing fonts and such works to some degree, and I think W7 has functions to make everything bigger/smaller but still, changing fonts and browser so it gets a little bigger is no substitute for the right resolution I think, It just never gets as good, in my opinion.

 

If it gets any larger res, I won't be able to see all too well. 1440x900 on a 14" is still the best for my eyes.

 

I've got a WXGA+ in my T400. There's definitely room to go even higher at this size.

 

the new sony z-series has 1920x1080 on a 13 inch screen. I think 2048 horizontal is best. then I can put 2 1024 windows side by side (as a programmer, [and web surfer])

 

I would prefer it to get a lot more res than now. When scale goes above certain amount, automatic upscaling to 96 DPI becomes better (less blurry). And you still can use very high res when it matters (ie when viewing photos or in highDPI-aware UI).

That's why I would prefer to upscale to 1920x1200 than to 1680x1050 - second case will be a lot blurrier.

 

if you want more ppi get a IBM T221.

 

"The IBM T220 and T221 are LCD monitors with a native resolution of 3840×2400 pixels (WQUXGA) on a screen with a diagonal of 22.2 inch (564 mm). This works out as over 9.2 million pixels, with pixel density of 204 pixels per inch (80 dpcm, 0.1245 mm pixel pitch), much higher than ordinary computer monitors (which typically have about 100 pixels per inch) and approaching the resolution of print media. The display family was nicknamed "Big Bertha" in some trade journals."

WOW!! 9,2Mpx I'm out of words.

I just can´t believe this fine technology has been out since 2001! Where are all the competing screens now?
Why can´t I go out and buy an even higher res screen today? Editing photos anyone??

 

I want 300 DPI on my laptop

 

retina display, maybe get couple of the iPhone 4 and build them up like a lego.

 

Lol, so basically you wanna have the fancy shmancy 1920x1200 on a 14" just to say you have it? Cause you'll turn it down?

My W700's screen is the highest one you could get with Lenovo, much similar to the IPS screens, and i never turn down the resolution, one problem though is that to look best, games should be played at native res, and playing Crysis at 1920x1200 on a Quadro FX 2700M (9700M GTS) is impossible, so i plan to upgrade to a 3700M or really any MXM 2.1 card within heat constraints.

 

I was like this when I had my first T61 with a WXGA (1280x800) screen and I thought it was perfect. But after acquiring another T61 but this time with a WXGA+ (1440x900) screen I couldn't be more wrong, the WXGA+ resolution on a 14.1" screen is very usable, comfortable plus it helps a lot with my content creation works thanks to more real estate.

I can’t imagine reverting back to WXGA screens anymore, everything seem so out of proportion and limited after using my WXGA+ screen for a while.

 

I have a X200s with a 12.2" WXGA+ (1440x900) screen.
It's easy to adjust the DPI to suit your needs and you can zoom your browser when required (or just keep it at 125% zoom).
More resolution is always better, if the quality of the monitor is good to begin with. It allow you more freedom and font size can be controlled.

 

The main thing that the higher native res is, the scaling from non-native res becomes more high quality up to being completely unnoticeable.
For example, on paper prints you hardly see any scaling at all, because paper printing uses very high DPI (300 and above).
Also thats why scaling on CRT monitors was hardly an issue ever, because CRT phosphor dot size is much smaller than LCDs.
Therefore (assuming that's enough graphics power for scaling/memory) higher res is good, as long as it can be done sufficiently high.

For example, if, say, you have a display with 2880x1800 resolution, you can scale it to 1440x900 resolution with no loss in quality at all. Because each non-native pixel will map exactly to 2x2 native pixels. Thats how fourth gen iPhone does it's compatibility scaling for old apps for example.

 

I agree fully Ingvarr.

 

I'm really liking the trend of more high-resolution displays in notebooks, particularly the upper-end systems. I would love to have a 13" or 14" Thinkpad with 1920x1080 resolution. Even though my eyes aren't that great, I have no problem using my T500's 1680x1050 15.4" screen, or my friend's Envy 15's 1920x1080 15.6" screen. I find 1920x1080 to be a pretty convenient resolution, as you can very comfortably fit two Word document pages side by side at around 110% magnification (although I have no complaints about 1680x1050 either: 2 pages at 97% magnification can fit).

 

I love high resolution screens. In fact I won't ever get a laptop that doesn't have a high resolution option. I can do so so much more with my laptop than if it was lower resolution. Also, screens are going down in resolution, past Thinkpads had a 2048*1536 15inch option, then they went to 1920*1200, now we're stuck with 1920*1080, a clear downward trend.

I even will go so far as to reject a laptop that doesn't have a high resolution screen (as an option at the least). For instance, some of the new Asus laptops I like a lot, but none have a high resolution option, ergo I will never consider buying an Asus. I think they offer high res on the gaming laptops but they're not what I would like to buy. On the other hand, I enjoy Thinkpads and HP Envys because they offer good screen resolution options.

 

I've used a 15inch 1920x1080 screen and I didn't feel it was any different than a 17 inch 1920x1080 screen.

I'd love to see Sony's new laptop that has a 13.3 inch screen with 1920 x 1080 resolution.

 

I agree. On 14.1'', 1280x800 is quite limiting (especially in the vertical height) from what I'd been used to, back when I transitioned to that from 1280x1024 desktop.

On the other hand, the text size is pretty small already and I find myself frequently adjusting font size to be bigger. It's not a huge deal - it's just more comfortable to read huge letters than tiny ones. No sense ruining my eyes more than they already will be by being on the computer frequently.

My new laptop's WXGA+, so I'll have to see how the 1440x900 goes. When it comes down to it, I think the text size won't be that much smaller and since I'd probably enlarge it in both cases, the benefits of more screen real estate for outweigh the burdens of having to tap 'Ctrl++' a few more times.

I have an external LCD so I wonder if this will render that much less useful.

 

I have been using HD screens for around 12 years now, and love them for clear text and awesome images. They can be tricky and annoying with certain web sites and some software, but I guess that is the price to pay for being ahead of the norm. I first had a 15" UXGA, then a 15.4" WUXGA, now another one. I have also used many others of lower resolution, but one gets severely addicted to these beautiful screens - that give clarity that rivals physical print. They aren't for everyone, and I accept that for many the problems would overwhelm the considerable virtues. One day they may well become the norm...