Linus Torvalds: 2560x1600 Needs To Be Next Standard

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]scannall[/nom]With resolution that high you no longer need AA, and that's one of the bigger hogs.[/citation]

Sure its possible that hihger res will negate the need for AA and remove screen Jaggies, but only if monitor screen size doesnt increase or doesnt increase that much.
 
Ive been saying this for SO long, im glad someone with some clout has finally come out and said something...computer monitors are NOT TVs but consumers could not resist the buzzword "HD". High Definition monitors are not 1920x1080. Ive been wishing 2560x1600(true HD for computer monitors) would become standard for ~5 years now.
 
I think the laptop industry will remain stagnate until they commit to better resolutions. I'm not an Apple fan. I enjoy tinkering and tweaking, and deciding what's best for myself. Regardless, they changed the game with the resolution on the Iphone and Ipad. Now the high-ppi is standard on most phones, and all modern tablets. 1366x768 has always looked cheap to me. Other than the screen ratio, it's the same old 1024x768. You can't fool my eyes. Vertically 768 is very long in the tooth. I also agree with Torvalds in that 16:10 seems to be the most productive ergonomics on screens fit to a laptop.
 
If the paid the CEOs less and the upper management less. They would have more money to do R&D to bring down the cost.

There is your problem.
 
... i got me a 2560x1440 monitor... the picture is nice... but there is one drawback... not all gpu's can handle such resolutions...
 
[citation][nom]DjEaZy[/nom]... i got me a 2560x1440 monitor... the picture is nice... but there is one drawback... not all gpu's can handle such resolutions...[/citation]

That is true, but just most modern GPU models can, even if only with Displayport and not with HDMI/DVI (although the most recent version of HDMI can and I think that the same is true for DVI-D).
 
[citation][nom]g00fysmiley[/nom]2560x1440 for an 11 inch screen seems... cool but kind of pointles si dont' think i could tell the difference between that and even 1080p or even 720 by much if anything... now in larger screens like 17" plus bring it on![/citation]


its less about details, and more about real estate, when i make music, its awesome when i can see multiple plugins on the screen, not just one.
 
"And the next technology journalist that asks you whether you want fonts that small, I'll just hunt down and give an atomic wedgie."

While we're on that point, why not eschew standard resolutions (besides a minimum DPI, lets say around 200 for the low end hardware) and actually use real screen sizes!! You know, make a 12 pt font actually take up 1/6 of an inch on whatever screen you use. Really silly how we are still dependant on a single fixed DPI for layout and screen sizes. The operating system support is even there, we just need developers to stop using pixels as a measurement unit!
 
"And the next technology journalist that asks you whether you want fonts that small, I'll just hunt down and give an atomic wedgie."

While we're on that point, why not eschew standard resolutions (besides a minimum DPI, lets say around 200 for the low end hardware) and actually use real screen sizes!! You know, make a 12 pt font actually take up 1/6 of an inch on whatever screen you use. Really silly how we are still dependant on a single fixed DPI for layout and screen sizes. The operating system support is even there, we just need developers to stop using pixels as a measurement unit!
Click to expand...

I think that's an interesting idea, once the screen res gets over a certain threshold, it's more about fiinding a font size you like. The only downside is that for some uses you'd need a font scale factor to make things the size that's useful. So if a site comes up on my PC in 12 pt font I might set the font scaling to 1.0 and have the text actually displayed at 1:1 (1/6"), but on my iphone (where I like to display full web pages) I'd want that same page with 12 pt font to come up at say 1:3 so the whole page will still be viewable (though I have to get REALLY close to the phone to read it).
 
I Would Love To See A 2560x1600 Standard Eliminating The Need For Dual Monitors In Most Cases; Since Most Of My Computing Time Is Spent On Digital Art The Larger The Screen The Better.
 
Why are laptops getting higher resolutions, whereas desktop monitors which are larger in screen size are slower to upgrade in res than laptops that have smaller screens?
 
Would be nice, but only if resolution independence gets off the ground. Not only for higher resolutions, but for lower ones as well, so you can adjust GUI sizes by the push of a button. Last I checked, you can't really easily do that in Linux.
 
Before the 4:3/16:10 -> 16:9 transition we were beginning to see mainstream laptops with resolutions of 1400x1050 and 1680x1050. That changed when the manufacturers instead just wrote HD display to fool the consumer that he would get a high definition, when in reality it got downgraded to 1366x768. I'm glad that apple introduced the "retina" display, because this brings focus back to progress in display technology. I still see a lot of people who don't want high-resolution due to fear of fonts getting smaller (some even adjust 1600x900 screens to 1366x768), but for me higher is always better. People at Microsoft who programmed the GUI to look ugly when you re-size fonts should be the ones to get the atomic wedges..
 
Laptop manufacturers are trying to save money we get it, but atleast give us the option to upgrade to higher res in laptops?
ANd 2013 is bs, I bought mine a week ago and it doesn't even have FHD, this is out of the question
 
"Just give me 2560x1600 in the 22ish inch range for desktop".
Well. the recently review Auria gives 2560X1440 at 27 inches with a $400 price point. That would be a good compromise for any desktop unless you already have a $1000 plus IPS montor that is 27 inches or larger!.

2560X1600 for 13 inch screen is perfect.
For 10 or 11 inches, I would expect 1600X 1000.
The MBP at 15inches doing 2880 X 1800 is just perfect!.
 


true, and the best part not even for extra money
 
Its all in the dot pitch for me and not the resolution. I went from 1900x1200 (.27) to 1900x1080 (.29) and can tell theres a significant difference between the two.
 
Hmm... 27in 1440p displays (2560x1600) displays are competing at $250 here in Korea... I guess they aren't being exported much?
 
Why? Personally, for any monitor or TV under 27" I've seen that 1920*1200 is good enough. No need for super-duper high resolution when most people's eyes won't be able to tell the difference.
 
Yeah, enjoy your up-to-date market, north hemisphere lucky bastards... Latin americans are lucky to be able to afford 1366x768 18.5" screens! And they're freaking 250US$!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom