6 ms·

Why is it we have amazing 16:10 2560-by-1600 in a 10" tablet but commonplace laptops (13-15") rarely surpass 1680x1050 or even worse 1366x768? Sometimes, on hig

by meritt 14y ago

Why is it we have amazing 16:10 2560-by-1600 in a 10" tablet but commonplace laptops (13-15") rarely surpass 1680x1050 or even worse 1366x768? Sometimes, on high-end models, you can pay an extra $200 to "upgrade" to 1920x1080 (I'll leave my rant about 16:10 vs. 16:9 for another time). Technology is so ridiculous at times.

w1ntermute 14y ago
> Why is it we have amazing 16:10 2560-by-1600 in a 10" tablet but commonplace laptops (13-15") rarely surpass 1680x1050 or even worse 1366x768? Because Windows and Windows apps don't support resolution-independent UI scaling. > Sometimes, on high-end models, you can pay an extra $200 to "upgrade" to 1920x1080 Because they know they can rip you off, and because it's a lot more expensive to produce high resolution displays (or rather, displays of any resolution) when they're being produced in small quantities.
- akmiller 14y ago
  > Because Windows and Windows apps don't support resolution-independent UI scaling. If I'm not mistaken the new, formerly known as "Metro", UI is vector based and any applications built with the WPF which includes all Windows 8 GUI based applications (at least the non-html one's) are of course vector based so it's simply up to the designer/developer to scale it however they want.
  - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
    Not completely true. The metro app developer will still have to include pixel art at varying resolutions since these do not scale automatically very well.
    - countessa 14y ago
      unless you develop metro apps using javascript/html - then you can use vector art.
    - JonoW 14y ago
      XAML is very vector orientated, most apps will (should) not include pixel based art-work unless really necessary.
- vlasta2 14y ago
  > Because Windows and Windows apps don't support resolution-independent UI scaling. This is not true. Windows has had very good support for custom resolutions since Vista. Windows 7 actually looks great when set to higher resolution. Windows applications is another story, but the number of DPI aware applications is growing http://www.rw-designer.com/DPI-aware http://www.rw-designer.com/DPI-aware
  - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
    I didn't see a list of DPI aware applications at the link you gave me, is that a typo?
    - vlasta2 14y ago
      that was not the list of applications, but a guide on how to write one with and example at the end
      - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
        I want to know what applications are already DPI-aware and could run on say...a Retina MacBook Pro running bootcamp and Windows 8. As far as I can tell, there are no such apps yet, even Microsoft's own Office. But I would be happy to be corrected!
  - eropple 14y ago
    "Windows," if defined as "the windowing library", does. Even Explorer doesn't work correctly at 200% DPI scaling (you get a tiny nav bar and a really long search bar). It's junk. What's worse is that VS2012 is nearly unusable because IntelliSense explodes all over the screen. I have many sads when I have to deal with that on my rMBP.
    - vlasta2 14y ago
      you can drag the splitter between the navbar and searchbar to adjust the sizes as you see fit... VS2012 is still a problem though
- bryanlarsen 14y ago
  Larger screens are much more expensive to produce than small screens unless the defect rate is very low. For this reason new LCD technologies are always perfected on smaller screens before migrating to larger screens.
- chenster 14y ago
  > Because Windows and Windows apps don't support resolution-independent UI scaling. I upgraded my HP 17" laptop panel to 1920 x 1200 (bought less than $200 on ebay 2 years ago). That was on Windows 7. I don't notice any visual issues. Just upgraded to Windows 8 and all Windows apps look just fine too. So applications aren't real issues here.
  - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
    1920 x 1200 is nowhere near 2x resolution. Its more like 1.2 or 1.3.
    - wishfulcoding 14y ago
      Indeed. 1920 x 1200 on a 17" screen is about 133 dpi, not even close to the 300 dpi on the Nexus 10.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  Because Windows and Windows apps don't support resolution-independent UI scaling. Yes they do. It's just not automatic - you tweak it in control panel to suit your preferences.
tadfisher 14y ago
Because of the leading desktop operating systems, only Apple has started to divorce screen resolution from UI element sizes, and even that support is half-assed.
bo1024 14y ago
People are giving you software answers, but I think the answer is actually about hardware. Monitor manufacturers realized they could brand their screens as "1080p HD" to match them up to the TV marketing pitch. Why bother trying to make a screen with 1600 vertical pixels when you can just use that magic word, 1080p?
veidr 14y ago
My 15" laptop has native resolution of 2880x1800 (though I typically use it scaled to 1920x1200). It did cost a lot, though, so despite being a best-selling model it may not be 'commonplace'.
Sunlis 14y ago
Apple's Retina displays (in the new Macbook Pros) have very high resolutions. The latest Macbook Pros have either 2560x1600 or 2880x1800 native resolution, depending on when you bought it. http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5266 http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5266

by meritt 14y ago

w1ntermute 14y ago

> Why is it we have amazing 16:10 2560-by-1600 in a 10" tablet but commonplace laptops (13-15") rarely surpass 1680x1050 or even worse 1366x768? Because Windows and Windows apps don't support resolution-independent UI scaling. > Sometimes, on high-end models, you can pay an extra $200 to "upgrade" to 1920x1080 Because they know they can rip you off, and because it's a lot more expensive to produce high resolution displays (or rather, displays of any resolution) when they're being produced in small quantities.

akmiller 14y ago
> Because Windows and Windows apps don't support resolution-independent UI scaling. If I'm not mistaken the new, formerly known as "Metro", UI is vector based and any applications built with the WPF which includes all Windows 8 GUI based applications (at least the non-html one's) are of course vector based so it's simply up to the designer/developer to scale it however they want.
- seanmcdirmid 14y ago
  Not completely true. The metro app developer will still have to include pixel art at varying resolutions since these do not scale automatically very well.
  - countessa 14y ago
    unless you develop metro apps using javascript/html - then you can use vector art.
  - JonoW 14y ago
    XAML is very vector orientated, most apps will (should) not include pixel based art-work unless really necessary.
vlasta2 14y ago
> Because Windows and Windows apps don't support resolution-independent UI scaling. This is not true. Windows has had very good support for custom resolutions since Vista. Windows 7 actually looks great when set to higher resolution. Windows applications is another story, but the number of DPI aware applications is growing http://www.rw-designer.com/DPI-aware http://www.rw-designer.com/DPI-aware
- seanmcdirmid 14y ago
  I didn't see a list of DPI aware applications at the link you gave me, is that a typo?
  - vlasta2 14y ago
    that was not the list of applications, but a guide on how to write one with and example at the end
    - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
      I want to know what applications are already DPI-aware and could run on say...a Retina MacBook Pro running bootcamp and Windows 8. As far as I can tell, there are no such apps yet, even Microsoft's own Office. But I would be happy to be corrected!
- eropple 14y ago
  "Windows," if defined as "the windowing library", does. Even Explorer doesn't work correctly at 200% DPI scaling (you get a tiny nav bar and a really long search bar). It's junk. What's worse is that VS2012 is nearly unusable because IntelliSense explodes all over the screen. I have many sads when I have to deal with that on my rMBP.
  - vlasta2 14y ago
    you can drag the splitter between the navbar and searchbar to adjust the sizes as you see fit... VS2012 is still a problem though
bryanlarsen 14y ago
Larger screens are much more expensive to produce than small screens unless the defect rate is very low. For this reason new LCD technologies are always perfected on smaller screens before migrating to larger screens.
chenster 14y ago
> Because Windows and Windows apps don't support resolution-independent UI scaling. I upgraded my HP 17" laptop panel to 1920 x 1200 (bought less than $200 on ebay 2 years ago). That was on Windows 7. I don't notice any visual issues. Just upgraded to Windows 8 and all Windows apps look just fine too. So applications aren't real issues here.
- seanmcdirmid 14y ago
  1920 x 1200 is nowhere near 2x resolution. Its more like 1.2 or 1.3.
  - wishfulcoding 14y ago
    Indeed. 1920 x 1200 on a 17" screen is about 133 dpi, not even close to the 300 dpi on the Nexus 10.
anigbrowl 14y ago
Because Windows and Windows apps don't support resolution-independent UI scaling. Yes they do. It's just not automatic - you tweak it in control panel to suit your preferences.

tadfisher 14y ago

Because of the leading desktop operating systems, only Apple has started to divorce screen resolution from UI element sizes, and even that support is half-assed.

bo1024 14y ago

People are giving you software answers, but I think the answer is actually about hardware. Monitor manufacturers realized they could brand their screens as "1080p HD" to match them up to the TV marketing pitch. Why bother trying to make a screen with 1600 vertical pixels when you can just use that magic word, 1080p?

veidr 14y ago

My 15" laptop has native resolution of 2880x1800 (though I typically use it scaled to 1920x1200). It did cost a lot, though, so despite being a best-selling model it may not be 'commonplace'.

Sunlis 14y ago

Apple's Retina displays (in the new Macbook Pros) have very high resolutions. The latest Macbook Pros have either 2560x1600 or 2880x1800 native resolution, depending on when you bought it. http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5266 http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5266