3 ms·

Al nice and dandy... But where Is my 15" 1920x1200 Thinkpad? The fuck is this guys? Currently I am using Asus Zenbook UX32VD and it is pretty nice (the nicest

Al nice and dandy... But where Is my 15" 1920x1200 Thinkpad? The fuck is this guys? Currently I am using Asus Zenbook UX32VD and it is pretty nice (the nicest computer on the market that is), BUT it has no trackpoint. I really wish that Lenovo would get their shit together and start offering sensible displays. Besides what is the point of these mega high resoltuion displays on 13" notebooks when either Windows or Linux support is just horrible? I mean my current machine has 13" with 1920 x 1080 and while it is fine for me. 3/4 of people just cannot use that kind of resolution.

gcb0 13y ago
What do you mean by 3/4 can't use that banal resolution? on your other point, i used a sgi 24" crt with all the resolutions mentioned in this thread summed and UNIX/Linux/windows were just fine. And that was the 90s
- JanezStupar 13y ago
  I mean, they cannot see fonts at that banal resolution. My eyesight is better and I like it a lot. Thats why I could run a 2560 native resolution on a 15" display. The screens work fine if you are willing to look at non native resolution screens. Also CRTS do not look like crap when on a non native resolution. DPI scaling in windows and linux just sucks. That much is a fact.
  - dvhh 13y ago
    what is the native res of a CRT ?
rogerbinns 13y ago
I'm also a Thinkpad fan and the displays really disappoint me. With my most recent purchase I had to switch from 15" to 14" because the changes to 16:9 and humungous bezels would have made the 15" too large. Thankfully they haven't started using glossy screens which would be the final straw. I look at a lot of text (yes in Linux) so resolution matters. My desktop has two 1920x1200 displays. I think I got amongst the last monitors sold as 16:10.
lazyjones 13y ago
> But where Is my 15" 1920x1200 Thinkpad? ... and where is my 27" 270+ DPI desktop display?

gcb0 13y ago

What do you mean by 3/4 can't use that banal resolution? on your other point, i used a sgi 24" crt with all the resolutions mentioned in this thread summed and UNIX/Linux/windows were just fine. And that was the 90s

JanezStupar 13y ago
I mean, they cannot see fonts at that banal resolution. My eyesight is better and I like it a lot. Thats why I could run a 2560 native resolution on a 15" display. The screens work fine if you are willing to look at non native resolution screens. Also CRTS do not look like crap when on a non native resolution. DPI scaling in windows and linux just sucks. That much is a fact.
- dvhh 13y ago
  what is the native res of a CRT ?

rogerbinns 13y ago

I'm also a Thinkpad fan and the displays really disappoint me. With my most recent purchase I had to switch from 15" to 14" because the changes to 16:9 and humungous bezels would have made the 15" too large. Thankfully they haven't started using glossy screens which would be the final straw. I look at a lot of text (yes in Linux) so resolution matters. My desktop has two 1920x1200 displays. I think I got amongst the last monitors sold as 16:10.

lazyjones 13y ago

> But where Is my 15" 1920x1200 Thinkpad? ... and where is my 27" 270+ DPI desktop display?