3 ms·
I had a Thinkpad with a 15.4-inch 1920x1200 screen, back when such wonders existed, and I had no big problems with its 150 DPI running Windows XP, even less wit
by Al-Khwarizmi 14y ago
I had a Thinkpad with a 15.4-inch 1920x1200 screen, back when such wonders existed, and I had no big problems with its 150 DPI running Windows XP, even less with Windows 7. Yes, there were some really old applications that wouldn't react to system-wide DPI settings, but that was a small minority.
I think there is simply no excuse for the regression in laptop resolutions - I can't even find a laptop that will give me 1200 lines anymore, they give me "full HD" at best, which is less. And we can see proof in all the comments saying that they would buy this guy's hack to plug a hi-res screen into a laptop.
- DanBC 14y agoThe Chromebook pixel has a 12.85", 2560 × 1700 resolution, which is 3:2. Sadly Lenovo appear to want to destroy the Think brand, and they're really the only other laptop that would have used a similar display. Exotic features like swivelling a display to be portrait rather than landscape add a lot of cost to the product, and are rare.
- ajross 14y agoI had a Compaq in 2004 with the same display. And indeed, windows works pretty well up to about 150-170 DPI. But I have a 10" Acer tablet with a 1920x1080 screen sitting next to me, and the legacy windows desktop is basically unusable. Yes, it can be made to work if you are tolerant of VERY SMALL BUTTONS, largely unreadable text in graphics assets, and know where to find all the font settings. But it pretty much sucks, and no one sane would try to use it that way.