What's wrong with 1366x768?
I have seen people here saying that they wouldn't give a 1366x768 monitor to their worst enemies, but I have used this resolution for almost a decade and never had any problem. It's cheap as fuck, and completely fine for office use, or even to watch a movie.
I think the hate for this comes from the poor viewing angles and brightness of the cheap screens with this resolution, but if the screen is nice, this resolution is not a problem, at least in my experience.
>what's wrong with this thing that 99% of people prefer not to have? I think its ok!
You're a fucking pleb, no one cares about your povertystation laptop.
>but I have used this resolution for almost a decade and never had any problem
there's your problem OP, you've never known better
the fact that my phone has better resolution
Enjoy DPI with more spacing than fucking galaxies you shitstick
small number bad
big number good
This
And the fact that some phones are QHD
>my phone has a completely unnecessary 198734323x1983284272 screen, completely surpassing the amount of pixels the human eye can even see
>that means that your monitor is bad
this.
my 1920x1080 laptop died and I'm struggling at a used 1366x768 one I borrowed
You probably don't see how bad it is till you've used something better. I didn't mind my old 1366x768 at 15" laptop, but now after using 1920x1080 15" one, it seems unusable. Same with a 1080p desktop monitor. I didn't mind it and didn't see why people would need anything more till I got a 1440p. Now I couldn't go back. 1366x768 is fine for 12.5" and less, but even that is pushing it.
It's not 1920x1200, which is objectively the best laptop resolution
Every display with less than 200ppi is garbage.
depends on the use case; most people have gotten used to 1920x1080 by now.
obviously 1366x768 is good enough for plenty of Jow Forumsentlemen
good enough for taking notes, you pretty much have to hook up to an external 4:3 at least if you really want to get shit done
1366x768 on a 10" netbook screen is ok, but I've seen it on laptops as big as 17" and all-in-ones as big as 22" and it's a fucking travesty.
Try having at least 1080p monitor and you will know why I dislike using 768p.
786p poorfag here, wish I had money for 2 monitors once in my life.
because they are usually TN panel aka shit panels, and once you experience decent 1920x1080 IPS panel, you will never go back.
16:9 is shit
We used to like 1366x768 on this board, so it surprises me that it's getting a lot of hate now. It's good for single-tasking but not for having multiple windows tiled side-by-side. Most UIs, including those on Linux, operate under the presumption that vertical space is limitless. Which raises the question: why have widescreen in the first place, especially for a workstation laptop that isn't going to be used for media? Laptops really need to switch to 4:3 or 5:4 for the added vertical resolution.
Most implementations of Linux don't even use a GUI.
>Which raises the question: why have widescreen in the first place
Because normies want to watch movies on them
a lot of phones are already higher than 1080
im on 1080 laptop and 1440 pc and wouldnt go down anymore
>16:10
Objectively shit
New York Times
actually it's 2880x1800
My laptop is 1600x900 and I wish I'd gotten 1366x768 instead. The screen is small so I have to squint to see shit and I have to rause font sizes. Also, all my old wallpapers look like crap upscaled to the new res.
I have an 11.6" laptop with a 1366x768 screen which gives it a nice PPI of something like 135. Most 1366x768 screens are in 15.6" laptops which gives the eye-bleeding PPI of ~100. Once you get to like 14" you need to have at least 1600x900, preferably 1080p.
You may think that it's okay, in much the same way that I thought my first laptop (a crap Toshiba Satellite with a 1366x768 display) was okay. But as soon as you use something better, you realize there are major disadvantages for this crap resolution. For me it's just the sheer amount of stuff you can fit on screen with a 1080p display. You cannot properly compare two documents side-by-side with a 768p display, and I find I need to do a lot more scrolling through Excel spreadsheets or long documents. A higher resolution display on the same size screen is also a lot more crisp and clear.
>1366x768 is fine for 12.5" and less, but even that is pushing it
My T520 has a 15.4" display and I agree that you definitely need 1600x900 or up for something that size (I have 1080p personally). But I also have an 11" Macbook Air, and aside from the aforementioned real estate issue, 1366x768 is perfectly acceptable on that. But then again, it's also not my main computer.
>1366x768 is fine for 12.5" and less, but even that is pushing it
This apply to everything.
I used to say that mech keyboards were a meme and after trying one I can't go back.
Did you manually upscale and crop them?
I can live with 1366x768 on the laptop I'm using for work, but I wish it wasn't 50:1 contrast, 50% srgb, 20% viewing angle TN garbage.
I legitimately think Apple grew to be so big because they always went with nice, glossy, vivid IPS displays for their products
Why is it so popular?
Old buisness laptops often had 1680x1050, I'm talking mid 2000s here.
crappy tvs for the longest time used the same resolution
my shitpad is 1920x1080 IPS with good viewing angles... but still only like 60% srgb :/
even my budget desktop monitors from ages ago have 100% srgb coverage
WTF you sarcastic shill
144hz monitors are pure meme though
My fellow macfag
Wrong, QHD on phone is kino for text
which thickbad is that?
>What's wrong with 1366x768?
The amount of pixels? I mean it's pretty self-explanatory. Either everything is huge or everything is blocky. The more pixels, the less blocky things are.
you guys should fuck each other in the butt
I guess you don't need to see much at once on your screen. Real estate matters a lot, some people like being able to see things side by side on their screen, even 1080p sucks for that.
Wait until you fall for the high refresh rate meme, you'll never be able to buy a cheap monitor again
>some phones are QHD
QHD on a phone is overkill
>I think the hate for this comes from the poor viewing angles
you're right about this but
>1366x768 is fine for 12.5" and less, but even that is pushing it.
pretty much this
i had an 11.6" dell inspiron with a 1366x768 IPS screen and the resolution as you said wasn't a problem really. i now have a 1080p 12.5" screen and quite frankly the difference in definition is noticeable.
15.6" 768p laptops are cancer
What if I told you that UI design is more important than resolution when it comes to usability?
Question to you guys, thread is somehow related.
>be me
>have 1366x768 laptop connected to seperat monitor
>not sure what technologie 1366x768 is
>seperat monitor has 1920x1080 LED display
>not sure about their cd/m2
>compared picture of a girl
>somehow looks better and more realistic on the 1366x768 display
How can that be? Is it because the settings of the monitor or does the 1366x768 display use a way better technologie? The monitor came out about 1-2 years after the laptop. The monitor has definitive no ips, about the laptop I'm not sure but I doubt it.
>comparing a resolution that is way older than a decade with his phone that is probably from 2018
this but for circumcision
its literally ancient
It's fine if all you're doing is facebook.
Came here to post this.
I did, but you can still see the lack of crispness
a cheap office 1080p monitor is like 40 bucks on ebay. A bed vesa mount stand is like 50.
90 dollars to enjoy FHD in bed off your laptop or a small htpc.
you're both gay and retarded
1600x1200 is the best resolution