On 27/05/2013 5:27 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2013, Roger <arelem@bigpond.com> wrote: About 12 years ago IBM stopped selling Thinkpads with 1280*1024 screens, they went back to 1024*768 as the maximum resolution for just over a year. I presume that was because the yield on 1280*1024 screens wasn't high enough to support good profit margins at prices that customers were prepared to pay.
I get sick of seeing cheap laptops with 1366x768 screens, the minimum I want to see is FHD at 1920x1080 .... anything less, then I'm not interested, especially when the screen is 15.6" or larger. In years past, I used to get Dell laptops as the ONLY ones that readily had the best resolutions available. Today I see many 1920x1080 monitors (not attached to laptops) that are no good for other reasons -- poor viewing angles, poor brightness, not enough contrast. However, the mobile phone screens are way up there with the best, why can't we have decent screens on ALL laptops and 22-24" screens.... ? You often, get what you pay for though. Also today, you can get a Google Pixel Chromebook, but it's not widescreen (which is a real pity) and you can't run "proper" Linux or other OS on it easily; they make it painful. And Macbook Retinas don't "normally" operate at the full resolution, it's up to the apps to take advantage of the extra pixels (not that I bother with Mac OS X much). Cheers A.