I like the 1600x1200 Flexview also and find that 1920x1200 (17" MacBook Pro) is OK. I'm old-fashioned and prefer the 4:3 ratio screens. I also think the hardware solution of more pixels is way better than the software/image processing method of trying to use sub-pixel rendering to compensate for poor display resolution for text. When my vision was good, I hated the color fringes that go with sub-pixel rendering, especially on low res screens. And in the case of real images, more pixels is better up to the point where the screen has more pixels than the source image to be displayed.
The thing I don't understand is how Apple can use a 2048x1536 9.7" IPS "retina" display on the new iPad and no notebook manufacturer has anything with a similar resolution (264 pixels/inch) screen. There are rumors about a "retina" display for a soon to be released MacBook Pro (15" screen) but only rumors so far. The new iPad has decent battery life so the high res, good color, and bright screen (421 cd/m^2 measured peak for white) can't be a total power hog. Stuart On May 16, 2012, at 1:46 PM, Rob Bell wrote: > I've been baffled by the continue downward spiral of resolution for years > now. I enjoyed the pinnacle of things with 1600x1200 Flexview screens and > 1920x1200 wide screen LCDs on laptops like the T61p and Dell M6300. Since > people generally don't like the lower resolutions the only thing I can think > is that it is a cost/profit situation. I'm with you too, in that I never > watch movies on a computer. What the heck value is there in HD resolutions > that are less spacious than the prior generations of screens? > > Rob > > Lee Stewart wrote: >> This is a real shame... I've had 1400x1050 for several years, and loved >> it. And I've never had/used a separate monitor. As I look at future >> machines, they're all made for watching movies, not for computing. I >> rarely use my computer for movies, and most of those are 4x3 format. >> Documents, emails, PDFs are all portrait mode, but the screens are all >> landscape. I'll even include things like Quicken and Google and most web >> pages. They don't need wider screens, their data must be scrolled >> vertically. I can see less of my documents (fewer lines at a time), and >> I can't even make the font smaller to compensate because of the lower >> screen resolution... >> >> It's almost as if the only way to continue to use a laptop for real work >> is to buy a separate monitor and turn it on end... >> >> I know the ones here don't control it, but am I the only one that feels >> frustrated that the screens are growing the wrong way? >> >> Lee >> or I guess that's >> L >> e >> e >> if you're on a short wide display... ;-) > _______________________________________________ > Thinkpad mailing list > [email protected] > http://stderr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/thinkpad _______________________________________________ Thinkpad mailing list [email protected] http://stderr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/thinkpad
