I have a four year old Dell computer. Screen is 14.1 inches and the resolution is 1440x900 which I think is excellent. I am not looking for a new laptop, same screen size and all I can find is 1366x768. What gives? Do only low resolution screens exist nowdays?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
When did resolutions become standard with size?
- Thread starter Staples
- Start date
I honestly don't know where that simply horrendous 1366x768 resolution came from, I really don't, but I can't stand it myself. It's become the "standard" resolution on sub-15" screens nowadays and I wish it wasn't. I've got a Latitude E4300 with a 13.3" 1280x800 screen that I love to death and was hoping to upgrade to a 1440x900 panel for (Lenovo has such panels in some of their machines) but, Dell doesn't seem to have any 13.3" 1440x900 panels and the Lenovo one is insanely expensive - like $400+ on eBay just for the LCD panel itself. 
But that 1366x768 one... ugh, it's terrible stuff indeed. I do run my Taskbar in Windows 7 firmly planted on the left side of the screen but, even so... that funky resolution is absolute garbage. Somebody somewhere created it and figured it was a working resolution and that was about it - now it's on almost everything and I won't even use a laptop with that resolution anymore.
The good old days of 16x10 screens are dying, unfortunately. 16:9 is weak sauce in my opinion... 16:10 > 16:9 forever.
But that 1366x768 one... ugh, it's terrible stuff indeed. I do run my Taskbar in Windows 7 firmly planted on the left side of the screen but, even so... that funky resolution is absolute garbage. Somebody somewhere created it and figured it was a working resolution and that was about it - now it's on almost everything and I won't even use a laptop with that resolution anymore.
The good old days of 16x10 screens are dying, unfortunately. 16:9 is weak sauce in my opinion... 16:10 > 16:9 forever.
A lot of it is the aspect ratio the LCD panel makers have to cut.
At 16:9, the pixel ratios had to change -- and price is just part of it. The ratios are also partly dictated by what screens will show. It makes more sense to jump to 1600x900, since anything in between either doesn't have any advantage or wouldn't work out (you can't have fractions of a pixel).
I actually like the wider ratio, but it only works either if you have a small screen (where the res is more acceptable) or a high enough resolution.
At 16:9, the pixel ratios had to change -- and price is just part of it. The ratios are also partly dictated by what screens will show. It makes more sense to jump to 1600x900, since anything in between either doesn't have any advantage or wouldn't work out (you can't have fractions of a pixel).
I actually like the wider ratio, but it only works either if you have a small screen (where the res is more acceptable) or a high enough resolution.
jeremyshaw
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 12,511
I know Sony's balls-to-the-walls expensive Z series (13.1", iirc) has a 1600x900 display, so if you are ever looking for teeny desktop icons, then that is the choice...
jeremyshaw
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 12,511
(for most applications) sliding the DPI setting a bit higher...
well, cost is there, too. At least all of the MS products I have used do not exibit wierd DPI setting problems.
But you are right
It also has an option for 1920x1080 on that same 13.1" screen if you want the option for REALLY small icons/text
But yes, having shopped around for a couple laptops recently, the resolution gap is irritating. The choices for small (13-14"), light, good battery life laptops that still have a better than 1366x768 resolution are limited indeed...
Having had a 1366x768 screen forced on me via a warranty replacement, I can say that you eventually just learn to deal with it. I habitually zoom out most if not all webpages to what I consider a more readable size. It also makes it very easy to view multiple pages side by side. (note: productivity sucks at 1366 res unless you're zoomed out to the point of fuzzy)
I used to have an HP EliteBook 8510w 15.4" laptop with a WUXGA (1920x1200) screen and it was fantastic. When I left my previous employer I had to give that one back. Too bad.
I searched for a new laptop with a good resolution, but there are none save for the Sony Z and very few other "specialty (expensive)" units like the HP Elitebook, Dell Precision, and Lenovo W series mobile workstations. Now, I have a new Sony Z with the 1600x900 screen and it's pretty darn good. I still feel a little constrained in some tasks because I have to work with things maximized vs. windows.
I do know exactly how you feel though. I think most of the OEMs do this because the general uninformed population think "bigger things are easier to see" and they don't understand the resolution vs. desktop area concept. There also hasn't been any pushback from consumers except from enthusiasts in the know.
It also doesn't help that any resolution over 1280x720 can be classified as "HD" and, as you all know ANY HD is super awesome!!! Heck, Sony even calls the Z's screen a "900p HD screen".
Riley
I searched for a new laptop with a good resolution, but there are none save for the Sony Z and very few other "specialty (expensive)" units like the HP Elitebook, Dell Precision, and Lenovo W series mobile workstations. Now, I have a new Sony Z with the 1600x900 screen and it's pretty darn good. I still feel a little constrained in some tasks because I have to work with things maximized vs. windows.
I do know exactly how you feel though. I think most of the OEMs do this because the general uninformed population think "bigger things are easier to see" and they don't understand the resolution vs. desktop area concept. There also hasn't been any pushback from consumers except from enthusiasts in the know.
It also doesn't help that any resolution over 1280x720 can be classified as "HD" and, as you all know ANY HD is super awesome!!! Heck, Sony even calls the Z's screen a "900p HD screen".
Riley
FWIW, the HP Envy 14 (14.5" screen) has an optional 1600x900 display. HP clearly was itching to pull a dick move and shortly after launch the once-standard 1600x900 display became a 200$ option while the base price of the system dropped 100$. So they basically decided to raise the price on the 900p system by 100$ just because they could.
display technology is far from being at a standstill let alone going backwards. Resolution is not the only part of a display.
There are lots of laptops with the 'option' for higher resolution displays. Look at HP/Sony/toshiba/dell customizable options and their higher end laptops. You are going to have to pay extra most of the time.
Get an envy 14 and be done with it.
There are lots of laptops with the 'option' for higher resolution displays. Look at HP/Sony/toshiba/dell customizable options and their higher end laptops. You are going to have to pay extra most of the time.
Get an envy 14 and be done with it.
The point is that options for high resolution displays on LOW end laptops have all but disappeared. For students/business users where all they really need is good battery life and a high resolution for document/spreadsheet viewing, having to spring for a high end laptop is incredibly wasteful when they don't need all that added performance.
My Dell was purchased in 2008 and even for the time was relatively slow with a terrible onboard video card. But it works/worked great for what I needed it for: document work and web browsing with a 1920x1200 resolution on a 15.4" screen. Now when I go to Dell's website to look for a similar priced option, I see 15.4" screens with 1366x768
It's as if manufacturers have forgotten that a higher resolution isn't just for watching Bluray but actually improves PRODUCTIVITY in basic Office applications.
The point of a lot of dell consumer laptops is to make them as cheap as possible while still having the major stats and a good price. I wouldn't go near most of the dell laptops for an everyday laptop or one that I wanted to last for a long time without worry(not that they haven't lasted people a very long time).
Lots of consumer mid-range laptops have been moving away from putting the best stats into the cheapest surroundings they can and into a higher class. They usually have a much higher quality display than in the past, minus the resolution.
There are drawbacks and benefits of higher resolutions. Lots of people will end up enlarging most of the text on their screen and have their documents read at a comparable size to a lower resolution. Higher resolution is not needed and a lot of times peoples preference for higher resolution is because of the amount of 'wasted' space lower resolutions cause. Browser and menu bars become way to big and waste way to much real estate. The extra room Chrome gives you compared to Firefox ends up being huge.
Having 1920x1200 resolution on a 15" screen, most people will end up zooming while surfing the web(causing problems with most flash plugins) and zooming in on most of their text documents. At a 'standard' resolution most people won't bother with zooming.
I did enjoy my old laptops resolution and thought I could never go to a lower resolution, but after playing around with 13-14" laptops with lower resolution screens I found it to be fine and more comfortable in a lot of situations. It's not like you can only see one letter of text on these screens. You can work very comfortably on documents. I put way to much weight into resolution in the past. I doubt most people would want to 'zoom-out' enough that would create un-readable text on these new notebooks.
Search around for other brands and if more resolution is important than you may be worth the extra 100 or so they companies charge for it or 300 to step up to the higher quality model. Dell used to be one of the major companies that had the option on almost all of their laptops.
Also, check the business lines(hp,toshiba), they usually have the option for higher resolution screens. They may not be as cheap as consumer lines.
Saying all that......... im a little mad its 200 dollars for the higher resolution screen on the Envy 14.
Lots of consumer mid-range laptops have been moving away from putting the best stats into the cheapest surroundings they can and into a higher class. They usually have a much higher quality display than in the past, minus the resolution.
There are drawbacks and benefits of higher resolutions. Lots of people will end up enlarging most of the text on their screen and have their documents read at a comparable size to a lower resolution. Higher resolution is not needed and a lot of times peoples preference for higher resolution is because of the amount of 'wasted' space lower resolutions cause. Browser and menu bars become way to big and waste way to much real estate. The extra room Chrome gives you compared to Firefox ends up being huge.
Having 1920x1200 resolution on a 15" screen, most people will end up zooming while surfing the web(causing problems with most flash plugins) and zooming in on most of their text documents. At a 'standard' resolution most people won't bother with zooming.
I did enjoy my old laptops resolution and thought I could never go to a lower resolution, but after playing around with 13-14" laptops with lower resolution screens I found it to be fine and more comfortable in a lot of situations. It's not like you can only see one letter of text on these screens. You can work very comfortably on documents. I put way to much weight into resolution in the past. I doubt most people would want to 'zoom-out' enough that would create un-readable text on these new notebooks.
Search around for other brands and if more resolution is important than you may be worth the extra 100 or so they companies charge for it or 300 to step up to the higher quality model. Dell used to be one of the major companies that had the option on almost all of their laptops.
Also, check the business lines(hp,toshiba), they usually have the option for higher resolution screens. They may not be as cheap as consumer lines.
Saying all that......... im a little mad its 200 dollars for the higher resolution screen on the Envy 14.
Last edited:
The Dell Lattitude E5410 can be had with a 14" 1440x900 display for under $540.
While higher res screens on budget laptops may have gotten rarer recently; the vast majority sold have always been at the default low resolution. If I had to guess the reason for the change is that 1366x768 is close enough to 1440x810 that putting a step there isn't a big enough of a jump to be worth it at the manufacturing/sales level. 1280x800 to 1440x900 was a much larger increase in resolution.
The other half of the equation is that the more options you add the more complex and expensive manufacturing becomes and there's no longer any margin left to play with in the budget laptop market. The profit handful of sales they'd make to people willing to upgrade the screen aren't worth the cost, even if only a dollar or two, per unit for the vast majority who stick with the default low res model.
While higher res screens on budget laptops may have gotten rarer recently; the vast majority sold have always been at the default low resolution. If I had to guess the reason for the change is that 1366x768 is close enough to 1440x810 that putting a step there isn't a big enough of a jump to be worth it at the manufacturing/sales level. 1280x800 to 1440x900 was a much larger increase in resolution.
The other half of the equation is that the more options you add the more complex and expensive manufacturing becomes and there's no longer any margin left to play with in the budget laptop market. The profit handful of sales they'd make to people willing to upgrade the screen aren't worth the cost, even if only a dollar or two, per unit for the vast majority who stick with the default low res model.
I'm not sure why they picked it instead of 1280x720 either; but since be default your 1080p TV strips the outermost 20(?) pixels from the image and scales the rest to fit it doesn't matter that much. There was a technical reason for doing this back in the analog/CRT era: Broadcasters used the edge of the frame area which would be shown on the part of the glass behind the bezel to encode things like close captioning. Even though it's a moot point now because digital broadcasts provide a direct way to encode subchannel data broadcasters have been extremely slow to stop putting junk in that part of the frames. Your TV does the same scaling when playing DVDs/Bluerays because Joe Moron subconsciously thinks the slightly bigger heads make the display look better.
1366x768 is the 16:9 equivalent of a 1024x768 display and comes within a fraction of a pixel of being perfect. It's either .65 pixels to wide, or .38 pixels too short. The fact that it's 1366 not 1365 should tell you which way the ratio is officially figured. :-/
When I lost my job, the 2nd worst thing was loosing my T61p with 1920x1200.
And I had to buy a laptop for consulting so I ended up buying a MSI GX640 mainly because it has 1680x1050 resolution on a 15" screen. This thing is awesome for work and gaming. But it is not the T61p when it comes to that screen.
well those of us from 7 or 8 years ago remember when the standard 15" screen was only 1024x768 so...
OTOH back in the day max screen resolution was partially driven by what the base model CPU/GPU could effectively run office and play video on. This hasn't been the case with mainstream computer formats for some time.
OTOH back in the day max screen resolution was partially driven by what the base model CPU/GPU could effectively run office and play video on. This hasn't been the case with mainstream computer formats for some time.
1280x800 was the most popular laptop resolution for a very long time, as far back as 2004 I was seeing most laptops - when the "widescreen" thing got rolling - and up till about a year, maybe 1.5 years ago it was still the predominant resolution but that's all changed now with that freaky deaky 1366x768 crap.
For me and others like me that prefer and use our Taskbars on the left side of the screen (and a small group that put it on the right, at least from what I've seen), the 'extra' pixels with the 1366x768 resolution to the sides means I can place it there, lock it down, and still get ~1280 pixels wide to work with which is adequate. It's that 768 pixel high resolution that irks the hell outta me, however - it's only 32 pixels off from the 800 high size I'm used to using on this Dell Latitude E4300 of mine, but it really matters when you go from the 800 and get "chopped off at the knees" metaphorically speaking.
I had a nice HP laptop about 1.5 years ago that I swapped out the 1280x800 panel in and replaced it with a 1680x1050 panel and wham, that to me was the absolute sweet spot, and again I say for me. 15.4" 1680x1050 and it was absolutely gorgeous with a matte finish too. I miss that laptop, seriously... they're very tough to find nowadays. I've seen 1920x1200 on a 15.4" and I could tolerate it, but that WSXGA+ was perfect for my needs and how I prefer to work with Windows. Did I say I miss that laptop?
Still no luck on a 1440x900 13.3" LED backlit panel either, they're out there but I ain't about to shell out $400+ for one...
For me and others like me that prefer and use our Taskbars on the left side of the screen (and a small group that put it on the right, at least from what I've seen), the 'extra' pixels with the 1366x768 resolution to the sides means I can place it there, lock it down, and still get ~1280 pixels wide to work with which is adequate. It's that 768 pixel high resolution that irks the hell outta me, however - it's only 32 pixels off from the 800 high size I'm used to using on this Dell Latitude E4300 of mine, but it really matters when you go from the 800 and get "chopped off at the knees" metaphorically speaking.
I had a nice HP laptop about 1.5 years ago that I swapped out the 1280x800 panel in and replaced it with a 1680x1050 panel and wham, that to me was the absolute sweet spot, and again I say for me. 15.4" 1680x1050 and it was absolutely gorgeous with a matte finish too. I miss that laptop, seriously... they're very tough to find nowadays. I've seen 1920x1200 on a 15.4" and I could tolerate it, but that WSXGA+ was perfect for my needs and how I prefer to work with Windows. Did I say I miss that laptop?
Still no luck on a 1440x900 13.3" LED backlit panel either, they're out there but I ain't about to shell out $400+ for one...