The resolution that will NEVER be obsolete!

I was watching that thread and I thought the same thing when I saw this one.
Glad I was right, never stop shitposting Jow Forums.

640x480 ought to be enough for anybody

>12" display
I don't see the issue.

1366x768 is better than 1080p tho

why does this exist?
Even my TV has it, it only causes problems

anything less than 1200 vertical pixels is trash
1080 is trash

1600x1200 is nice

Kek

1080 is garbage tho

I was just thinking about when will resolutions lower than 1080p die.

Isn't it enough? We have had higher resolutions on phones for some time now.

>Year 2000: Laptops with UXGA (1600x1200) displays

pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,13408,00.asp

But fucking plebs slurped up all the ~~~HD~~~ faggotry because they love buzzwords which fucking stalled display development for a decade until fucking Apple came with the retina shit and SUDDENLY all others started to improve too. It's a fucking SHAME that they always wait until crapple does something.

Attached: 1925-dell-inspiron-8000.jpg (333x303, 13K)

My laptop is 3240×2160, the 3:2 ratio is comfy

>there's only hd

the cheapest models of most laptops are still 768p
at this rate it'll take an act of god for it to not be the cheapest option

This isn't true at all.

What makes you say that?

this
my t43p w 1600x1200 ips is comfy af

wut dud heh mene by dis

19", 1366x768. I made a promise to myself that I'll never leave this monitor behind.

Attached: TheEternals.jpg (3664x1114, 521K)

There isn't, but there ought to be.
16:10 is a shitty meme, other res is even worse

not enough vertical pixels. no good for spread sheets, cad, pdf service manuals, etc.

>t43p
probably autistic but I still get tingly feelings when I read that.
always wanted one of these. I think they were even available with 2048x1536 which is fucking insane for 2003.

what a shame that the HD faggotry happened.

Attached: 1511189310653.jpg (842x792, 81K)

It was a little like loosing your mind. Resolution went down, and everyone was like "were living in the future". Goddamn.

16:10 is better than 16:9 in every way

>image resolution isn't 1366x768
You had one job OP

>There is no excuse ever to use this shit.
10 inch laptop is an excuse ever to use this shit
>muh interface scaling
yeah, good luck with that on windows.

Attached: aaaaaaaaa.jpg (460x282, 15K)

>16:10

16:10 is objectively the best fucking ratio. it's even close to the golden ratio. pure aesthetics.

I like 1366x768 it's fun to say.

>a lack of wherewithal

exactly this is happening right now but with in political and sociological areas

not positive, but i think the thinkpad that came w 2048x1536 was some random R series, like R61p or something

1080p is only in 600+ laptops

Yes, but that's an issue with the aspect reason, 16:9, with 1366x768 you get less space in general.

>4 grand msrp

Attached: 1481746843394.png (400x389, 48K)

>you posted this specifically to piss me off

You're not that important.

Attached: 1516177687571.jpg (750x925, 307K)

Pic related is what you get screen real estate wise when you're a piece of shit that fell for 1366x768.
Suffer in hell forever
Its also a picture of the worst offender of unacceptably low resolution displays, the macbook air.

Attached: 1468513918535.jpg (770x577, 208K)

I like having annoying black bars on all videos from this decade (and many from last decade) too!

That was quite affordable compared to the 7k or even 10k for a top class Thinkpad back then

1600x1200 is about the same toral pixels as 1080
1200 is minimal acceptable vertical pixels

1600x1200 is good
1920x1200 is good
2560x1440 is good

That's why 16:10 is for actual content creators and 16:9 is for dead-inside content gobblers

My four (You)'s say otherwise.

Attached: 1537.image_6CED08DF.png (617x197, 74K)

>Its also a picture of the worst offender of unacceptably low resolution displays, the macbook air.
1400x900 is pretty good for a 13" since its unscaled

I'm using a double monitor setup with 1366x768 and 1024x768, pic related. Pretty comfy.

Attached: Screenshot_2018-05-01_22-57-24.png (2390x768, 567K)

>not using [email protected]' without scaling
It's like you guys love having no space on your screen.

That resolution was obsolete the day it was invented for the pure purpose of ripping people off.

It's not 1400x1050

youre the bad kind of autistic
with 16:10, you can see the time slider and other controls without it covering what youre trying to watch

No shit, but we're arguing about resolution usage, not screen estate in the aspect ratio.
600+? Damn, that's way more laptops than I have heard in my entire life. You do understand that the 1366x768 laptops at this point are chinkshit that will die in a year?

>not using [email protected]" on your phone without scaling
lol enjoy ur no space

Rotate your screen by 90 degree

>1200 is minimal acceptable vertical pixels
I like you.

good for subtitles

Well that is just unreasonable and if it's a joke it's also unfunny. [email protected]" is very usable on a laptop. [email protected] would never be usable without scaling up .
They're usually closer to you than a desktop display where 23" and below is good for 1080p, 27" for 1440p, 32"+ for 4k.

>muh letterboxing
>what is pillarboxing
16:10 trumps 16:9 and 4:3

As long you fags keep buying used thinkpads it truly never will.

>tfw 768p IPS on my X230
Comfy as fuck. Why would I bother scaling 1080p+ onto a 12.5" screen? I bought and returned an X270 last year because I fell for the res meme and then realized it was totally useless.

1920x1200 is the perfect resolution for me.
I used 1600x1200 before that so I'm used to the pixel density and it just feels like I horizontally gained room (which is in fact the case of course).
The nice thing is that with my poorfag built I can easily drive that thing with a 1280x1024 monitor next to it and everything is fine.

On top of that I got a color accurate (used) monitor that I could afford easily and for some graphics stuff I do it's actually neat to still see pixels if you go really close to the monitor (just fucking stupid habits but it's kinda nice to still be able to do that).

1920x1200 is just the sweet spot. Will jump on the 4k meme when I have newer hardware and there are good displays with correct colors for an affordable price.

Attached: 1505082868335.jpg (717x720, 56K)

Too expensive.

You'd probably find a dick in your ass comfortable as well faggot. That is an absolutely useless laptop with a shit resolution used by a shitter. Get a 13.3" 1080p, the ideal panel.

>it took many years and another buzzword (4K) to finally get rid of the HD horrors and bring us forwards

Embarrassing

Attached: 1503984250714.jpg (641x481, 46K)

1920x1200

Attached: Screenshot (1).png (1920x1200, 3.93M)

I go out of my way to buy 720p so 1080 is never mainstream. Lel

>not at least 1400x1050

Your screen takes up more of your battery than every other part of your laptop combined. The smaller the screen, the less power it takes. As a laptop's job first and foremost, is to be portable, having to tether yourself to a wall outlet reduces its ability to do this.
>but it's so small
What are you doing that requires a high resolution on a laptop? Laptops are for composing e-mails, office documents, and occasional light web browsing. You shouldn't be using for laptop for any of the following:
>gaming
>watching media
>coding
>photoshop media/editing
If you are, you have already made a far larger mistake than picking a small resolution.

Why not 3440x1440?

Attached: 13 - DwxqKcP.jpg (2560x1080, 1.2M)

OOPS

Attached: 59 - sIgsoaY.jpg (3440x1440, 452K)

1600x900 at minimum, dumb ass.

This would be true if manufacturers put big batteries into small laptops. But they usually don't.

neat car

This may shock you but watching YouTube videos on a laptop is a pretty common use case

>I code all day on my X260
Pretty comfy desu. Why would I not?

Because the ergonomics of a laptop are trash?

>he doesn't know about standing desks.

I have a standing desk. It’s the position of the screen moron. It’s literally impossible to put a connected keyboard and screen in the optimal ergonomic position

Fucking this.
t. 16:10 macbook owner

It was obsolete before its introduction.
A laptop really should have AT LEAST 1000 px vertically. The real standard should be 2560x1600.

must suck to have such shitty eyes

i got a qnix 2710 dvi model like 3 years ago for like $300

27 inch 2560x1440 ips (really pva) practically guaranteed to run at 96 hz, probably will run at 120hz, and like sub10ms input lag

things fuckin cash

web and office benefit greatly from non shit resolution, r u retard?

Not until ultrawide becomes more mainstream.

Attached: 1792 x 768.jpg (1024x919, 161K)

...

Laptops that are otherwise extremely good may still have this resolution. e.g. the ThinkPad X220. It's a shame, really. I'd love some more height. 16:9 is a cancer.

This. I wish 4:3 would come back. For now, I use two 1920x1200 monitors. One in portrait.

>with 16:10, you can see the time slider and other controls without it covering what youre trying to watch
I really like this reason. I'm going to quote this to someone next time I discuss this IRL.

Foul

Attached: 1516843616898.jpg (1139x1091, 172K)

BUT IT SAYS HD ON IT

It's actually a higher resolution than HD

yes I know

thank you 12 year old who just learned this

Quite the opposite, I point it out to 12 year olds who don't know it's a specific resolution

>you posted this specifically to piss me off because you know how much I fucking hate this resolution from that screenfetch thread.
>Take your shitty purchase made with no research and stick it up your ass faggot this resolution is horrible and unusable
>You can get a $500 dell with a 1080p display. There is no excuse ever to use this shit.
>i hope you die
XDDDDD ebin upboats