3 ms·

Nah, we have come a long way in screen resolution. The pixel count goes up by four when you double the resolution, and graphics hardware doesn't improve that fa

Nah, we have come a long way in screen resolution. The pixel count goes up by four when you double the resolution, and graphics hardware doesn't improve that fast. It wasn't too long ago that 320x240 was a pretty normal resolution. At 1080p, we have quintupled the number of pixels more than twice- from 76,800 to 2,073,600

fidotron 12y ago
No, you're just old. 320x240 was normal, on cellphones, a damn long time ago. Desktops (and game consoles) really haven't kept the pace with everything else.
- ekianjo 12y ago
  You guys who complain that it's taking too long to evolve don't seem to realize you need to build new facilities every time you want to increase the density of pixels. New factories take years to develop and years to get proper ROI as well. There's not much incentive to build super high resolution LCDs, it will cost much more to make, end up with massive reject rates, and nobody will want to buy them at much higher prices anyway. On top of that, I'd add that even if the resolution has not improved THAT much over the past 5 years, we have made massive progress into having better looking pictures out of LCDs and OLEDs - with much better contrast and refresh rates. Ghosting is pretty much a thing of the past, and narrow angles of vision as well (still not perfect but much better than 5-10 years ago).
- mwfunk 12y ago
  No, you're just really young. Something tells me your "damn long time ago" was like just 10 years ago or something.
bluedino 12y ago
> It wasn't too long ago that 320x240 was a pretty normal resolution. Maybe for games and such, but not for desktop use. The Mac came out in 1984 with a resolution of 512×342, which was 30 years ago. When Windows 3.0/3.1 came out, 640x480-ish was the new standard, and that was the very early 1990's.
- colanderman 12y ago
  512×342 monochrome is much less computationally expensive than 320x240 8-bit color. There's a factor of 3.5× memory difference there.

fidotron 12y ago

No, you're just old. 320x240 was normal, on cellphones, a damn long time ago. Desktops (and game consoles) really haven't kept the pace with everything else.

ekianjo 12y ago
You guys who complain that it's taking too long to evolve don't seem to realize you need to build new facilities every time you want to increase the density of pixels. New factories take years to develop and years to get proper ROI as well. There's not much incentive to build super high resolution LCDs, it will cost much more to make, end up with massive reject rates, and nobody will want to buy them at much higher prices anyway. On top of that, I'd add that even if the resolution has not improved THAT much over the past 5 years, we have made massive progress into having better looking pictures out of LCDs and OLEDs - with much better contrast and refresh rates. Ghosting is pretty much a thing of the past, and narrow angles of vision as well (still not perfect but much better than 5-10 years ago).
mwfunk 12y ago
No, you're just really young. Something tells me your "damn long time ago" was like just 10 years ago or something.

bluedino 12y ago

> It wasn't too long ago that 320x240 was a pretty normal resolution. Maybe for games and such, but not for desktop use. The Mac came out in 1984 with a resolution of 512×342, which was 30 years ago. When Windows 3.0/3.1 came out, 640x480-ish was the new standard, and that was the very early 1990's.

colanderman 12y ago
512×342 monochrome is much less computationally expensive than 320x240 8-bit color. There's a factor of 3.5× memory difference there.