Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

1366×768px overtakes 1024×768px as the most popular screen resolution worldwide

gs.statcounter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 122 posts

Re: 1366×768px overtakes 1024×768px as the most popular screen resolution worldwide

#91

Post by DavidAbrams »

martincmartin wrote: post #19
seanp2k2 wrote: post #16

Sad that our pixel density hasn't gone up since the 90s, really. Tv ruins people with 42" screens at only 1080p. I'm glad to see that Apple is showing people that pixel density matters more than resolution alone, and I await their high-density MacBook displays. Hopefully they'll be out this fall, but a quick survey of the 4K-rezo landscape suggests that they'll likely have to wait another year for prices to drop :/

TV ruins people with 42" screens at only 1080p. Actually, that pixel density is typically too high because they sit so far back. From http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/08/high-definiti... "A survey made some years ago by Bernard Lechner, a television engineer at the former RCA Laboratories, near Princeton, New Jersey, showed that the median eye-to-screen distance in American homes was nine feet. At that dis…

Not to mention that everything people watch on these TVs is compressed to into a mottled pastiche of crap. You're not even getting 720P's worth of resolution on your "1080P" set while watching your 5-mbps "HD".

Re: 1366×768px overtakes 1024×768px as the most popular screen resolution worldwide

#92

Post by paul9290 »

blahedo wrote: post #89

I am going to be so angry if[0] this makes web devs start designing for grids that have to be 1300px wide to work. I don't fullscreen anything (too wide for the height, and too wide for the font size!), and while the majority of webpages look just fine in a ~600px wide browser window, possibly after right-scrolling to put the content column in the window, rarely does a day go by that I don't have to tear off a tab an…

Responsive design is what all us designers and front end coders should be focused on learning and using.

Check out the Starbucks website and manipulate the window size. It automatically changes stylesheets based on window size.

Re: 1366×768px overtakes 1024×768px as the most popular screen resolution worldwide

#93

Post by DavidAbrams »

huggyface wrote: post #72
pkamb wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But consumers did not choose 16:9 over 16:10, because consumers cannot tell the difference. We can thank TV panels for that switch: LENOVO: "Again, we can thank the LCD manufacturers for this change. By cutting everything in the same aspect ratio, they have less waste per large sheet of glass. Since these manufacturers make more selling TV displays than laptop displays, the PC vendors have almost zero say in this cha…

This has nothing to do with 16:9 or 16:10. This is 16:9 over 4:3. In the case of the iPad, it's completely true. Apple decided that 4:3 screens were the best form factor for a hand-held tablet. I have both an Android tablet (A500 with ICS) and an iPad 3rd generation. I -- without doubt -- prefer the form factor of the A500, not just because it presents a much better experience when viewing videos. It's simply a bette…

"it presents a much better experience when viewing videos"

How? You hear this same claim all the time, never with any explanation. It's not as if you're LOSING pixels or screen size watching video on a 4:3 tablet. They're simply going unused.

Actually, 4:3 presents a BETTER viewing experience, because transport controls, captions, and data about the video can be presented above or below the image area, instead of over it.

Re: 1366×768px overtakes 1024×768px as the most popular screen resolution worldwide

#94

Post by huggyface »

DavidAbrams wrote: post #93
huggyface wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has nothing to do with 16:9 or 16:10. This is 16:9 over 4:3. In the case of the iPad, it's completely true. Apple decided that 4:3 screens were the best form factor for a hand-held tablet. I have both an Android tablet (A500 with ICS) and an iPad 3rd generation. I -- without doubt -- prefer the form factor of the A500, not just because it presents a much better experience when viewing videos. It's simply a bette…

"it presents a much better experience when viewing videos" How? You hear this same claim all the time, never with any explanation. It's not as if you're LOSING pixels or screen size watching video on a 4:3 tablet. They're simply going unused. Actually, 4:3 presents a BETTER viewing experience, because transport controls, captions, and data about the video can be presented above or below the image area, instead of ove…

It's not as if you're LOSING pixels or screen size watching video on a 4:3 tablet.

What? Of course you are. Have you never used Netflix on an iPad? Gigantic black bars above and below. I suppose you could grossly distort the image and vertically expand it, but no thanks.

Actually, 4:3 presents a BETTER viewing experience

Absolutely preposterous. So preposterous it merits no direct response.

Re: 1366×768px overtakes 1024×768px as the most popular screen resolution worldwide

#95

Post by justincormack »

jamesbritt wrote: post #87
Zak wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a fellow 4:3 fan. I understand why width is more useful to some users than height, but I feel like it's a monoculture. Beyond that, I feel like computer buyers everywhere have been duped. In 2003, there were 15" laptops with QXGA (2048x1536) screens. by 2008, the best you could get in a 15" laptop was WUXGA (1920x1200). Now, with a few soon to disappear exceptions, it's FHD (1920x1050). Note how these are not get…

Note how these are not getting wider; they're only getting shorter. A friend of mine said the term around his house for these HD displays is "short screens."

TV engineers used to call wide screen "fewer lines".

Re: 1366×768px overtakes 1024×768px as the most popular screen resolution worldwide

#96

Post by justincormack »

protomyth wrote: post #45
bo1024 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't care so much about pixel density; it's the ratio that bothers me. 16:9 is ridiculous for anything except watching HD television. (It also now works well for gaming, but only because developers decided to cater to widescreen.) 16:10 is the widest that makes sense for any day-to-day computing tasks, yet it's getting harder and harder to find; forget reasonable 4:3 types.

you probably won't like some of the suggestions for 4K, one was 4096 x 2048 (2:1).

Possibly with anamorphic lenses though, like wide film.

Re: 1366×768px overtakes 1024×768px as the most popular screen resolution worldwide

#97

Post by gareim »

huggyface wrote: post #79
pkamb wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Computer/laptop monitors didn't switch directly from 4:3 -> 16:9. They moved from 4:3 -> 16:10 -> 16:9. And the switch to 16:9 happened because of panel cutting and cost, not because of consumer demand. From the link in my previous post, Lenovo could not keep using 4:3 screens because they had "all but disappeared from the market." The vast majority of netbooks released in the 2007-2010 range were widescreen, so I do…

None of the mass-produced Android tablets have the same form factor as the proven hit, 60+ million units sold iPad. Why? Aside from some dirty cheap Archos 4:3 tablets (which were actually 4:3, and still dirt cheap, before Apple unveiled the mighty iPad), they don't because it isn't a benefit. Again you're drawing from the notion that Apple's choice is right and everyone else's is wrong, which is a pretty questionabl…

"Again you're drawing from the notion that Apple's choice is right and everyone else's is wrong, which is a pretty questionable starting point."

Like how your opinion that 16:9 is better somehow isn't a questionable starting point? Sure, you might like 16:9 more, but most people seem to prefer 4:3 to 16:9. I myself have a 4:3 Android tablet (a mongrel: the HP TouchPad) and I have to say, between using this and a Transformer, I much prefer 4:3 on a tablet. It's easy to hold portrait or landscape, whereas with a 16:9 display, holding it portrait is awkward. Not only that, but 4:3 portrait mimics a book page much better than 16:9 does and so I feel more comfortable with PDFs on 4:3 than 16:9.

I think monitors should go back 16:10 (compromise between screen real estate and widescreen appeal) and tablets stay at 4:3 (only because of the use cases for a tablet).

Re: 1366×768px overtakes 1024×768px as the most popular screen resolution worldwide

#98

Post by ars »

huggyface wrote: post #94
DavidAbrams wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"it presents a much better experience when viewing videos" How? You hear this same claim all the time, never with any explanation. It's not as if you're LOSING pixels or screen size watching video on a 4:3 tablet. They're simply going unused. Actually, 4:3 presents a BETTER viewing experience, because transport controls, captions, and data about the video can be presented above or below the image area, instead of ove…

It's not as if you're LOSING pixels or screen size watching video on a 4:3 tablet. What? Of course you are. Have you never used Netflix on an iPad? Gigantic black bars above and below. I suppose you could grossly distort the image and vertically expand it, but no thanks. Actually, 4:3 presents a BETTER viewing experience Absolutely preposterous. So preposterous it merits no direct response.

If the black bars bother you then cover them with tape. You are not loosing anything because they are there - you are gaining height.

Just because the pixel exists doesn't mean you are required to use it.

Opinions like yours are apparently common, so what manufacturers do is remove those areas. You get less pixels, and like it better. Totally preposterous.

Taller screens are better - even when watching widescreen. The extra space is useful for playback controls, closed captions, etc.

Re: 1366×768px overtakes 1024×768px as the most popular screen resolution worldwide

#99

Post by briandear »

justinph wrote: post #77
thangalin wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For general websites, I preview the site using: http://browsersize.googlelabs.com/ Many web sites are not designed for people who retain older technology for financial (or other) reasons. Every web developer should befriend someone over the age of 60 and watch their surfing habits.

While this site is sort of useful for looking at screen size, it gives the false impression that users don't scroll. They do. Don't ever show this to anyone that isn't fully aware of this, else you'll fall into the trap of trying to put everything "above the fold", a terrible prison to escape.

Above the fold design is critical from a marketing standpoint. But you're right, everything doesn't have to be above the fold.. if anything the above the fold should be designed to encourage readers to scroll below the fold.

Re: 1366×768px overtakes 1024×768px as the most popular screen resolution worldwide

#100

Post by julianpid »

I felt like sharing this info here because it matters to me more than pixel density or aspect ratio.

It turns out that GPUs like the popular Intel integrated gfx chips requires each lines of your framebuffer to be 64 bytes aligned. And yet, when using a 1366 wide resolution in 32bit per pixel mode, the visible length in bytes of a framebuffer is 5464, which is not a multiple of 64.

The operating system circumvent the problem by allocating 5504 bytes for each line of the framebuffer instead of 5464. It represent a loss of 30KB of unused memory.

Anyway, you're probably think I'm mad to care about those things instead of pixel density or aspect ratio, and 30KB is definitely meaningless compared to the memory footprint of a complete framebuffer (which is around 4-5MB). But you know these people who can't stand having the volume bar set to an odd number on their television set ? I'm exactly like them, why in hell would you not use an horizontal resolution which is not a multiple of 64 ?

Post reply on HN