Shared publicly  - 
So with even a $399 tablet doing 2560x1600 pixel displays, can we please just make that the new standard laptop resolution? Even at 11"? Please. Stop with the "retina" crap, just call it "reasonable resolution". The fact that laptops stagnated ten years ago (and even regressed, in many cases) at around half that in both directions is just sad.

I still don't want big luggable laptops, but that 1366x768 is so last century. Christ, soon even the cellphones will start laughing at the ridiculously bad laptop displays.

And the next technology journalist that asks you whether you want fonts that small, I'll just hunt down and give an atomic wedgie. I want pixels for high-quality fonts, and yes, I want my fonts small, but "high resolution" really doesn't equate "small fonts" like some less-than-gifted tech pundits seem to constantly think.

In fact, if you have bad vision, sharp good high-quality fonts will help. #noexcuses
Mark Arch's profile photoShiba Ikumi's profile photoDouglas Keene's profile photoPavel Rizzo (The Screwdriver)'s profile photo
James Duncan
Probably best just to hack one of the tablets with a keyboard base up and run a more fully featured Linux distro on it.
(plus, you know, ARM battery life).
It would be nice to see GSM and carrier data connectivity in some of these high-res tablets as well.
There are Full HD 11" Laptops at least.. Check Asus
Agreed. People who deal with lots of text (programmers, writers, etc.) need the vertical resolution.
You want Apple to conform to industry standards? LOL
That's funny.
For that matter, why are desktop monitors still hovering around at the 1080P standard? I really enjoy my 30" 2560x1600 display - I just wish they were more common.
I could live without that PPI, just give me 16:10 aspect ratio...
Joe Dzado
I agree, man. My bad eyes can't stand poor resolution. Some days my eyes quit working and I can't get anything done.
Oh, i want a 30'' notebook ;-). It can double as picnic table....
+Kyriakos Schwarz: "full HD"? Give me a break. If I want to watch movies, I can use a tablet or a TV. On my laptop, I want text, and "full HD" is not just irrelevant - it's just not good enough.
this, and the "ultra high def" of television which is woefully pathetic compared to my cellphone.  we have commonly available technology which vastly overshadows what is marketed to us simply because marginally better products garner so much revenue that there is no economic reason to make a large jump for consumers
Oh it'll happen alright. Apple is doing it now with their laptops. They did it before with tablets and I actually think they helped nudge the industry back then when they announced their high res tablet displays.
And what about large monitors? I want a reasonably priced 2560x1600 27" monitor, not "full HD" crap.
Yes! I like my 2011 ultrabook but 1366x768 screen resolution sucks!
It's funny that i had a monitor 10 years ago that came really close to that resolution (around 2500x1900), good thing we can dual screen :)
Love em or hate em, the Apple part bulk buys bring the process and tooling prices down enough that the rest of the industry can start using the same quality of stuff.
I'm totally agrre with that, thoses 'HD' resolution should be standarize between the differents actors of electronics.
I want and demand 4K/Ultra def on my phone.  The more pixels the better!  

I kid, I kid...
You are so correct, +Linus Torvalds. I had a 15.4" laptop in 2003 that ran natively at 1920x1200. I don't think there is a laptop made today that uses that resolution below 17". That's crap! More pixels in the same space!
 We need to get past these middling 2D resolutions and start talking about decent 3D instead of whatever we have now.

I want my Sci-Fi UI, now!
I had the same thoughts yesterday. My Note2 has HD ready resolution at 5". My Series9 has only a silly 1366x768 at 13.3". :|
Typing this on a 1600x900 laptop which isn't all that bad.
Seconded and also please stop with the appalling 'on board graphics' that shift objects around slower than a lactose-intolerant sloth after a cheesecake.
I was web developer and those resolutions give me laugh, please, 2560x1600, what the fuck?, Do I need now a microscope to see a webpage in a screen of 11''? The Apple guys are simply stupids, those resolutions are at least for screens of 27''.
Couldn't agree more, I cringe whenever I see a sub-1080p resolution (and even that isn't that great).
My problem with laptops goes that way. The screens become broader and broader and shrink in height. This is nice if you use your laptop only for watching movies. But simply not what you need if you do not want to constantly scroll. Desktop Monitors are also in 16:9/16:10 but big enough to see engough code, so you don´t have to scroll all the time.
Hey Linus, I hear America's looking for a new President...interested?
And you're being generous, cause many people are still thinking about 1024x768. Shame.
+Xande van Anon I see a big advantage in the convertible tablet / laptop form factor that Win8 is popularizing. You can turn them (some of them) sideways and use them in portrait mode for more code.
+1'd because I 110% agree.  The fact that you have to pay premium for 1920x1080 displays in laptops is laughable when tablets are blowing the laptops out of the water.
+Eduardo Medina: ever heard of "scaling"?

The web page stays the same size. No microscope needed. But the fonts turn out beautiful. And us people who want lots of text, can get it, and it's still readable.

It's ignorant people like you that hold back the rest of the world. Please just disconnect yourself, move to Pennsylvania, and become Amish.

The world does not need another ignorant web developer that makes some fixed-pixel designs. But maybe you'd be a wonder at woodcarving or churning the butter?
+Jonathan Briggs I do not need a tablet. Not with iOS, nor with android or Win 8. I do not posess a smartphone, I still work on a desktop with a serious keyboard. Yes, every Idiot thinks he has to buy himself a tablet and must be availably 24/7 on his smartphone. But thats an illusion created to sell useless stuff to thoughtless consumers.
Why do you care what it's called. Anyone with a brain can tell it's a marketing ploy. 
In this day and age of so many differently sized devices, scaling is a necessity.
Not everyone in PA is Amish, Linus. 

- A former denizen of Penn's Woods
My laptop is 1920x1080. I'm happy with that on a 16" screen.
And anything < 1920x1080 (x1200 preferred) has long since seen it's day. Actually, I should probably be speaking in PPI since 1920x1080 looks just fantastic on a < 7" screen.
Aparently there's a market for cheap large high resolution monitors in South Korea. Why are they marketing us westerners ONLY with this system of "low-resolutioned" big displays and ridiculously "high-resolutioned" small sceens? I'd never understand.
I have the same gripe, although I found that once I switched to AwesomeWM the fact that I was stuck in a 1680*1050 box stopped bothering me as much.
If I could get my Asus EEE 1000 PC to display ubuntu in anything higher than the default 1024 x 600 (16:9) ... I would be happy. (Granted, the machine is almost 4 years old...)
Do not knock the Amish. I have seen a Turing Machine they constructed entirely out of carved wood and rope.
It was the advent of the phrase 'HD' that caused the stagnation IMO
I don't get it. Bought a 15" laptop with 1920x1080 resolution two years ago. Even in matted finished!

Sure, it wasn't 400US$, it was WAY more. But if the resolution is so important, than the customer should be willing to buy more. And yes, there are enough models with more than 1366. If you find it important, BUY them. Then the companys will build more of these models.

The current situation is: You can buy a "retina" MacBook for 2300US$ (15"). Yes, my laptop was expensive. But not THAT expensive. And even way better specs (at that time) than the MacBook Pro.
When I sleep I go to a world where everything is standardised, 
+Linus Torvalds  As far as I know, many desktop components just don't support the kind of scaling you want. I mean, GNOME 3 does not even offer a DPI setting anymore, so I'm not sure how good high resolution displays would work.
On the subject of what happens to a webpage at reasonable-rez, I'd say that problem is best solved with responsive design. And since we webmonkeys are starting to use that more and more anyway, we might as well do it right and scale up too.
For all the folks stating this isn't a worthwhile thing to complain about - The issue here in my mind is the lack of progress, monitors don't seem to follow the Moore Law track most of the other computer components are following. If there is a real road block here, that could be worth some innovation. What bothers me is the shift of innovation away from the desktop/laptop arena, as the masses enjoy the new tech in the mobile space. 

For those complaining things would become too small aren't really considering the software support that is possible for these displays. DPI settings in an OS can make grapical assets higher resolution, and in turn make the UI more crisp - cleaner, and ultimately less jagged. 

Consider for a moment the iPad with retina display - it's very easy to read, and the high resolution simply improves the user experience.
+Xande van Anon You misunderstood me I think. I meant: buy an Intel CPU Win8 laptop with detachable wireless keyboard and a stand or case that sits it in portrait mode. Then install Linux on it. Then code in wonderful portrait mode. The touchscreen may not work yet but I am sure, Ubuntu and others are working on it.
+Julian Andres Klode right now, maybe not, but it is rather easy to implement. Once scaling is implemented, resolution becomes a non-issue.
Amen to that, its shameful that if you walk into a store 99% of the laptops there will be sporting a 1366x768 display. Ok there are a few exceptions, but as I found out recently you have to hunt around a lot to find something better (unless you want an iMac... which I don't!)
indeed. My fairly new laptop only has a 1366x768 display... though I gave it a small pass because it's a pretty nice LED display. Still, though, many phones have way better resolution, there's just no reason for it.
Yeah, TrueType passed the two decade mark in consumer hands last year. If anyone doesn't understand that point-size doesn't equal pixel size, I pity them.

Little different for icons, but when screen resolutions got bigger across the board they just made bigger icons. It's already happened a few times!
Oppo with 4K screen and 5x5mpx camera has a roadmap and technical papers already
There's no reason to exceed 1080p unless you're faceplanting your monitor.
+Rael Naem Dude, unless you've got a way to upgrade people's eyes...

Please don't be a troll.
Many of the "innovations" Apple has brought to their devices are successful because the industry stagnated.

The industry opened themselves up pretty wide. They largely brought it upon themselves. 
Yes! I have bought a laptop a couple of months ago, and findung something reasonably priced and with a screen better than 1360x768 has been a pain. I Settled on 1600x900 because antthng better woul be too heavy, or too expensive or both.

I Think Windows applications not being able to deal with arbitrary font sizes kept us stuck to crappy resolutions.

One of the great things about Linux in the early '90s was that you could tweak your XFree86 settings to drive your monitor past its intended resolution. Not a kernel thing, but part of the overall experience.
Actually you may be wrong, screen accessibility is not very well regulated. I have very poor eyesight and high resolutions scare me because I know developers are tempted to squeeze as much as they can into that extra space. Sure there are thoughtful developers out there but it doesn't stop me worrying about the ever increasing pixel density.
+Jake Weisz 

Plenty of folks - myself included benefit hugely from larger resolutions. I can without needing multiple monitors multitask more effectively with a larger resolution display.

You are interestingly touching upon an interesting idea here - that human vision is different person to person - but higher resolution does not automatically equal smaller UI elements. Usually it means more UI elements. Higher DPI displays help create more crisp images, which can be easier on the eye because it is a more natural looking image.
I bought a macbook pro with retina display, and its night and day between other laptops. but it was VERY pricey. PC's are lagging with the high res displays which is disappointing for a PC guy like myself. 
I always pay a premium to make sure I get a display with a usable resolution.  Granted, I don't pay the premium some pay for n > 2 monitors.
Next you'll ask for a laptop that doesn't crash. Silly human. ;-)
This is so true. Why is it so hard to find 15.6" screens with even 1920x1080? Why isn't there a single reasonably priced laptop even close to the 2560x1600 mark? WHY!!!!
+James McNalley you can use xrandr today to scale higher resolutions and display them in your monitor.
Hey Linus, what do you reckon to Windows 8? 
+Alex Witherspoon I look at things like this:

Admittedly, this does a poor job showing desktop resolution, but if you work it out, at 15", laptop size, there's pretty much 0 point in exceeding 1080p. On a larger desktop, I suppose you can get away with the 2560 thing if your eyesight's perfect. But given the cost, we're rapidly reaching the point of diminishing returns for the vast majority of human beings on this planet.
I've been saying the same for years with laptops. For a while I had a 1920x1080 15" laptop and it was glorious and crisp and all I got from people was "Doesn't that make it hard to read?" to which my response was "No, it gives me a lot more space that I can work with at once and if it was hard to read I'd turn the font size up."

Since that lappy all I've ever seen is the 1366x768 rubbish you mention which is just a laughable resolution to do any real work at.
I think it all comes down to profit margins. Companies would want to squeeze the consumer as much and as long as they can.

If a thin and small tablet can have a hi res display and be able to push that many pixels at a reasonable frame rate, why can's a standard laptop do the same? Obviously it can, but the profit margin will be lower!

Laptop manufacturers should do what Apple did - offer hi res display laptops for a premium. There is a market for that... Just get on board!
good point. got 1920x1080 on my notebook - and it was the main reason why I bought it ...
I'm waiting for that for 5 years... it's sad laptops maker waited apple's retina display to start building decent resolution laptop.
Hey +Linus Torvalds, I've got a Fuji-p in the basement: 8.9" TM5800 and with 133ppi 1024x600 8.9" touchscreen and discrete ATI mobile chipset. This weekend I used my vaio-p: z500 with 199ppi 1600x768 8.9" screen. Sure the blacklight bleeds like a dying man, but sans battery under a pound it's one of the best modern consoles one can get ahold of (even if wpasupplicant requires semi-periodic kill -9's to keep the atheros wifi running).

11.6" 1080p is 189ppi, 1600p is 260ppi, for reference for all concerned.
+Project Glass begs the question about that pixie hunt. It also reminded me that land set aside for amusement parks is that thin in glass ceilings, so that is the resolution. Any said map of that resolution is imaginary, so no need for map data in klinux.

I would bid on the k[malloc]/dev/mem that is specific for quick, reasonable resolution.
Suddenly, I feel bad for dropping $4K on a laptop last week.  It's 13" resolution is only 1920 x 1080.
+Elton Woo Pretty sure that's the native resolution of the 1000H's LCD. Getting any higher resolution out of that thing would require some sort of alteration of the laws of physics. Or, just replacing the panel...
because as the physical size of the screen gets larger, the yield rates for viable parts goes lower and lower.  they get higher yield from smaller part sizes, therefore - they can make more money selling them small at this point. 
As rants go…this one is definitely justifiable. Plus one!
I'd just like to see 300 dpi be ubiquitous because then you don't need antialiasing/hinting or any other junk in between you and what's onscreen, fonts or otherwise.

Is there anything technologically stopping that from happening, I mean is the power cost too much, or is it too expensive to manufacture large panels with that dot pitch etc?
+Jake Weisz I do have to really disagree with any comparison of TV VS Computer Monitors - the UI experience is very different. Furthermore - that comparison is meant to explain how viewing distance causes the DPI be effectively less perceivable. A computer monitor is typically much closer to the user than a TV. I am roughly 11 inches from my monitor when I use it, and I can see the individual pixels at 2560x1600. Laptops are usually not much further away. 

Humans have incredible resolution toward the center of vision. Typically towards the 300 PPI measure.

Most monitors today we see at the 20inch 1080P size are only ~160 PPI So in fact there is a huge potential for growth in these sizes.
Linus (+Linus Torvalds), Hmmm ... albeit Jesus Christ, most likely doesn't give a rip, you do in"deed", bring a certain àpropos panache to the term diatribe. Regards, Randy
+Mark McClary at some point, they must realize there is a viable demand for the product in the laptop market. They don't necessarily need to maintain 320 PPI, but they do need to get past the 72-96 PPI.
Wait... if the fonts are too small then couldn't that be remedied by adjusting the DPI which is something both Gnome and KDE feature and is a rather easy adjustment. I also recall the setting to do such in windows isn't that obscured either. It is not like this is a hard fix. 
+Jake Weisz this is not a stupid 'oxygen-free hi-fi HDMI cable' type claim. 1080 isn't some magical limit of perception. Higher res screens do look better and are less stressful on the eyes. It's like printing: sure, printing at 600dpi or even 300dpi is good enough for most jobs, and is a bit more economical with your consumables. But 2400dpi prints are noticeably better. 
+Jeremy Taylor Yeah, if you stick your face in them. Distance to screen should be around two feet.
3840x2160 <<----- New standard. AND I WANT IT NOW.

Guys, I've been buying new LCD few days ago. Cheapest bigger-than-1080p LCD would cost more than 500€. Too damn expensive.
I've had the same frustrations for ages. Why is hardly any laptop producers focusing on:
1) screen (you stare at it many hours every day, it is really important that it is good.). IPS is a must. High resolution is also a must.
2) Keyboard: My hands hurt after some hours on a bad keyboard. Keyboards should be top-most priority for laptop producers. So far I've only been vaguely satisfied with Lenovos, the rest is not nearly as good as it should be. (Yes, I've tried Macs as well, Lenovos are better.)
3) Touch pad: Should also be great. I guess drivers can destroy a bit here as well, since I find that some touchpads are horrible under windows, but actually quite good when running Linux. So far, Macs have the best touchpads. Samsung and Asus are lightyears behind. Lenovo not too bad.

The rest? Well, it helps that you can lift the laptop with one hand, withoud any mousebuttons being pressed due to the pressure (like on my Samsung Chronos 7). Not too heavy. 14" is my sweet spot. But, those ULV CPU's are not for me, more power is better.
Like others have said, I'd be happy with that resolution on desktop monitors. I know they exist, but generally they're out of my price range, and I really don't want something larger than about 24". 
Completely agree, I still have this old Dell Latitude lying around that has 1600x1200, so when some time ago I was looking again for a laptop I naturally assumed I would be able to get much better screens. So I was really surprised to see things seemed to have regressed instead of improved!
I fully agree that the high display resolution is mainly good for displaying text, however a resolution higher than 200 pixel per inch does not bring much more. A reasonable resolution is perfect because compared to printing, displayed fonts are getting aliased and we get usually up to 256 theoretical gray level per color. For printing you have usually only black on or off, if you like to print a gray this gets usually rasterized by a 8x8 black pixels.

Anyways I which a 20% less pixels on the iPad3 or Nexus 7 which allows smaller battery and reduces weight.

PS: Newspaper printing usually goes 1200 dpi per pixel, divided by 8 because grays are rasterized. Newspapers continues tone is at about 150 dpi, for offset printing it is about 300 dpi.
+Jake Weisz yes, even at 2 feet away. Perhaps your personal perception is constrained by some vision deficiency that reduces the effect.
It's the same problem with monitors, too. They got bigger and bigger, but were at 1920x1080 resolution for the longest time. That's just not enough vertical space for a computer programmer.
In what I assume is a rather ironic response given your frequent blasphemies; Amen!
Agreed. I dislike the cheesy "retina" nickname. However do love the high res display on my laptop now. After using 2500+ screens at home using any laptop at 1366 when I traveled was annoying
+Runar Bell. MBPr is actually light enough to be handled with just one hand and very resistant to torsion. One downside to it though. Once you used it you can never look at the lower res displays ever again. 
What bothers me is that tablets and smart phones are just dumbed down button pushing machines designed to sell you crap you don't need. There is talk about the death of the normal working person's desktop but I don't believe it. Let's get to work and have great desktops like Bodhi Linux (Enlightenment on Ubuntu) or Kubuntu (KDE on Ubuntu) running on tablets and smart phones as well as laptops and desktops.
Yeah, and I want 4K resolution super HDTV.
Agreed. Three words for uninformed tech pundits. Responsive GUI Design.
Yes, please! I'm so tired of these low-res displays on everything. Could we also move beyond these terrible TN and VA panels, or at least force manufacturers to admit to using these ghastly inferior panels?
+Brandon Snider IMO, main problem is Windows. While Linux/Mac doesn't have problem with high DPI values, Windows is dragging ancient compatability issues making even 120 DPI problem for some software. Seeing Win8 preview myself, I don't dare to hope this will improve anytime soon. And with this in mind, it is obvious you'll see only non-windows laptops with such displays.
Now that apple made MacBooks with a reasonable resolution screen, I'd expect other vendors to eventually follow suit (Lenovo, I am looking at you impatiently). Still not sure what to run on that? Would KDE or Gnome (2 or 3) even manage this resolution properly?
Where is +100 when you need it?
And why are 24" IPS displays at 2560x1600 still so damn expensive? 
If we can have it in a 10" tablet at $300, then why can't we get it in desktop monitors? 
Man, you know from experience – build it yourself!
All good and credible points, but still a whining:)
Let's agree: laptops get high resolution screens, tablets and phones get matte non-glare displays that you can actually use outside without seeing constant reflections :)
Phones and tablets should not be mirrors so manufacturers can show off their great colour depths and contrast in light-controlled indoor showrooms.
Millions of eyes have been ravaged by the bad laptop monitors. 
The best way to make this happen is to get rid of all the patents and regulations and other laws that prevent new competition from coming into the marketplace.

Innovation is killed in order to enrich lawyers and politicians.
Even desktop resolutions stagnate. When I had to use obsolete hardware for work, I had to buy (my own) refurbished displays just to get two 2048x1152 LCDs over VGA, and that was just the last three years. I can't find any more at that 2048x1152 resolution. Res jumps from HD to 2560x1440+ with nigh nothing between, let alone any high-pixel-density displays.
My 3-yr-old Dell laptop has a rez of 1920x1080 on a 16-inch screen. Absolutely gorgeous!
I know you're bothered by the "Retina" moniker Apple gave high-DPI displays, but I am happy they pushed the market towards using them. I'm hoping to see the same come out of PC manufacturers in the future with 300+ DPI displays all over the place.
And just stop at the resolution, return to non-glossy displays as well!

But hey I think everybody likes notebooks completely being useless outside ...
Linus' analysis has a flaw. Not everyone's eyesight is set to a 'standard configuration'.
It's not just a laptop issue. Apart from the bargain Korean off-label monitors, good luck finding a 2560 × 1600 monitor, of any size, that costs less than a whole entry-level iPad 3. Something's not quite right here.
+Linus Torvalds Funny, isn't it? About those fonts, and icon sizes etc. being too small? I think Linux is way ahead of OS X and Windows on both fronts thanks to its DPI setting (so an 8-point font really is 8 POINTS high instead of 8 pixels) and SVG icons. Too bad some important products like Firefox still don't respect the DPI setting, and therefor would be unusable on high resolution displays.
we have to teach the consumers, not the manufacturers 
@David Mateos 2560x1600 is 111 dpi. That is what has been done for more than 10 years.  I want a 7680x4800-27" display.   May even cost a little cent extra.
Linus, Linus,Linus
Laptops will never go out of style because:
1. Portability: sure, tablets are portable, but have you ever tried browsing on them?
2. Ease of putting linux on them: have you ever tried to put fedora 18 alpha on a tablet?
But they do need better displays...
compared to 20 years ago, we have 4 times the pixels, but we can only fit half the content on a monitor
One more thing to ask, a screen with 16:10 ratio (no Mac, I mean a PC), even better, 4:3. Some of us Do work on those screens!
A thousand times yes.

There were 1600x1200 13" laptops available - admittadly at minboggling prices - back when I was contracting in the mid 2000s, whatever happened to them?

The race to the bottom, that's what.

15" laptops with 720p displays make me want to set fire to things. Preferably the beancounters who specify it's the best way to make profit, rather than, say, making machines people want, rather than need, to buy.
Dont forget about gaming...Ever played League of Legends on a tablet? No, 'cause you can't. And if you could the UI would SUCK!
I'm running Kubuntu on a Zenbook Prime (1920x1080) screen with 100% dpi scaling. The screen-realestate is wonderful. Linux works like a charm on it :)
Forget laptops.  How about getting higher resolution desktop monitors.  1920x1200 on 24" :-/
The pixel count is too damn low!
I had one of those laptops, a IBM t42p...the best monitor/laptop comobo I ever had.
I wouldn't mind if desktop monitors with that resolution were more readily available, even. I paid 4x that much for my 30" monitor with the exact same resolution.
One of the main reason I think that laptops have a lower resolution is that they (sorta) have to keep up with the latest games and render them slightly less than desktops. Tablets are a newish platform, and so games can be optimized for them. There's no expectation, yet.
I couldn't agree more there, Linus. Desktop displays too are crap. Sure, you can buy a 30 inch screen... with an unbelievably crappy 100 PPI, and you get to pay $1500 for the privilege. We had the same damn screens at the same damn resolution almost a decade ago! I'm not pro-Apple in every respect but thank heavens they at least kicked the hornets nest and started ushering in some elevated PPI numbers on computers too. The eye fatigue off this pixelated mess is horrible.

But operating systems need to embrace resolution independence properly, preferably soon. Ahem. ;)
+Jonathan Briggs Hmm.. I think I do not need a touchscreen. I´m fine with good old fashioned keys. As I said, I don´t even own a smartphone. I do not need to pose with electronic gadgets or increase my penis length by consuming everything the marketing divisions tell me to.
but I would enjoy a laptop with an aspect ration of 4:3 and a monitor that could be turned by 90°, like Apple Monitors for DTP could do years ago.
+Dino Buljubasic - I am not wrong. Graphics card and display technology are often confusing to be sure. Type set resolution does matter. The finer the pixel count, the better. Display's are available in matte finish. My brand new (less than 2 weeks old) Dell Inspiron 17.3 is matte finished. Talk to an optometrist before you question others motives or comments. Research display options before you blab off about HD or non-matte displays. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
+Karl Brodowsky, +David Mateos: don't focus on DPI so much. It's a stupid metric when looking at different display sizes.

The thing is, you largely (not exactly) want the same resolution across many different devices, not the same DPI. 300 DPI on a 15" laptop is mostly wasted - you're not going to hold it up as closely as you hold a phone.  

That's also true of a 10" tablet (or a 11" laptop). You tend to have those things closer to you than you would a 15" laptop. Comparing DPI across the two doesn't make all that much sense. 

Bigger displays are supposed to have lower DPI. We've had window environments that have made the mistake of actually trying to compute "physical DPI" (by taking the screen size into account) and using that to scale graphical elements. That's insane. The text on a 60" TV isn't supposed to have the same physical size as the text of a 4.7" phone, because you watch them differently.

So pure resolution matters more than DPI.

Usage also matters. On a TV, you generally need lower resolution: not because it's bigger, but because you don't watch text and edit photos on it. Moving pictures in particular need much lower resolution to look good, and 1080p is largely perfectly fine for most such content (although I certainly don't want to complain about people who want more).

Static photos need much more - you see the jaggies way more easily. And text needs more still, because you have high constrast content and want really smooth and sharp details in ways that often don't matter for pictures.

Also, some people here have made the absolutely ridiculous statement that "1080p is enough, your eyes aren't that good". Trust me, if you believe that, you are either (a) stupid (b) blind as a bat (c) only watch moving blurry content or (d) haven't ever seen good displays. 
+Linus Torvalds I too have to say I wondered where resolution on displays had gone, not just on laptops, but desktop displays too.
+Martin Winkler Absolutely. I am constantly scrolling, when writing articles in my blog, typing some html code or doing some quick picture editing on my laptop. The laptop I used before was an old P3-650MHz with Win 2k and I was working much more productive!
This is one of the major things holding me back from getting a new laptop.  I want it to be Linux compatible, have speedy hardware, but most importantly have a hi res screen.  It seems you can't get a hi res screen without buying a tank of a computer and I want portable.
Maybe the reason is Windows... - I remember I had troubles making things bigger for a person with low vision. So finally I turned resolution down. On Linux fortunally resolution is independent from font etc size.
no worries tablets will too.... stagnate that is.
I've wanted this for years. 1920x1200 is far too few pixels for a 24" screen, and the situation with laptops has been completely laughable.
couldn't agree more, Linus
It'll require Intel's Haswell, at least, before 11" laptops will be able to sport resolutions that high. That's just a shit-ton of pixels to fill.

11" is the largest a screen with 1366x768 should ever be. The real crime is how many freaking 15" laptops sport the same resolution. Sadly, most manufacturers have figured out the pathetic fact that 90% of users don't care about screen quality/resolution.
Why don't you make your OWN laptop instead of complaining about the ones that others have sunk money into for  R&D and manufacturing?

Follow your own hashtag advice : #noexcuses  
Brian L
Forcing 1080p limitation on to laptops and desktops is a big part of why they''re dying, imo. Who over the age of 30 didn't have higher resolution 10 years ago on their then-pc than they do now on their modern pc? 1080p is killing content production :p
Hell. My current resolution is 2048x1536. 1080p? That's what you have on your phone.
...and stop making them glossy.  Return to MATTE screens.
Tim JP
I wish I had 1366x768 on my laptop. Mine stegnated at 1280x800 @ 15,4 inches.
I agree! there's no excuse....good call out Linus.
Brian L
I don't understand why people think putting the same resolution on 11" and 27" makes sense. We want more information, not bigger fonts - that's counter-productive because it would be even less information. Most people can see better than 1080p even on an 11" screen :p the 1080p limit was and has always been a DRM restriction. Why does typing text need to suffer for that?
I hope the notebook engineers have a open ear for you because they don't listen to me.
Also the most casual computer user thinks i am crazy because i always look at the resolution of the notebook display first...
I care, +Josh Gibbs .  When my company recently replaced my aging laptop with a newer model, specs like ram, cpu power/speed, etc. improved, but the resolution went down to that 1366x768.  I don't like it, but I have to work with this laptop every day.
Stop buying shitty laptops. Problem solved.
This has been bothering me too. I was forced to downgrade from a 1440x900 14" (2005) to a 15.6" 1366x768 (2009), that just doesn't make sense. At least there are some HD+ and full HD laptops now days, but in 2009 they where way too expensive.
i cant figure out whats wrong with the computer my brother built.
I want small fonts on my Notebook.
I have very good eyes and have chrome "autozoom" to 75%.
I can easily have 2 Windows next to eachother on a 15 inch notebook.
Its like dual monitors, but the fonts get ugly because of the resolution.
I just love the people who buy XGA projectors and plug in their laptops with 1080P or higher resolution and wonder why it looks fuzzy or doesnt display at all. There are some major incompatibilities in the computer industry.
No, because bigger numbers are better than smaller ones, duh
Oh, by the way. You can get a few laptops with more than 1366x768, but then you usually get NVidia graphhics...
so true. Thank you for criticizing the retina BS and the ridiculous laptop sizes.
+Linus Torvalds  is this a diaplay issue, a display adapter issue or an OS issue? Also, we have laptops, notebooks, ultrabook, tablets and smartphones it is a burden on manufacturers and designers not having a sound clue on where to aim. The burden seems it's being pushed over to the consumer to decide.. like a dog chasing its tail.  At one point i pictured my powerful tower at home and phone, tablet, friends, fridge, everything working around it vpn-gangnamstyle
Save us from the technocrats, who think everybody needs the most expensive hardware whether they can afford it or not!!!
There is a reason for low end hardware. Sometimes it is all you need.
I'd think that MS needs to implement some scaling of fonts and widgets with the software vendors stopping pixel-based UI design, then I'd agree with the atomic wedgie. At the moment in Win7, with MS allowing an increased font size of 150%, so many UI dialogs are broken because the label widget size is fixed on a pixel measure and does not increase with the font size. It's the "don't do pixel-based web design" argument all over again. Until that is solved, people with bad vision will use 1024x768 on a 1920x1080 flat panel, hurting their eyes... and for these people, it really is better to stay on low-res panels with a big pixel area. At the moment. Until pixel-based UI design is dead. Then I don't say anything anymore against the atomic wedgie.
I guess putting a gfx card in such a notebook so it can run shooters with proper framerate is too costly / heavy, hot, power consuming for a reasonably priced consumer notebook?
Don't know about the gaming capabilities of these tablets, though...
+Luis Alonso Naranjo It's shitty programmers issue. And well, Xft2 (and soon Wayland) issue, though arguably Xft2 can be told the DPI of the screen from X11 (Server-side fonts have DPI-specific versions and it's not a problem to make a version fitting new display).

Unfortunately, I think the only GUI toolkits that try to ensure people do design "right" with regards to different DPI settings is... Windows Presentation Foundation and Android. X11 provides such stuff, but doesn't enforce any policy. Macs simply make you redo the UI with new pixel values, iirc, both in Classic and in OSX since 10.0 (before that, I think it was display independent and automatically scaled). There's a reason why all those "retina" screens are all about making the pixels careful multiplies ;)
High pixel density doesn't require the result to have tiny text. If you have resolution independence, you can have your text an GUI elements to be any size you're comfortable with, and it would be crisp too.
+Dave Kliczbor you actually bring up Windows in this thread as an excuse not to have high res displays? You either have some really big balls or you have no idea where you're commenting ;)
My related #1 hope in Linux: pixel-by-pixel scrolling.
Trackpads have grown precise enough.
Modern webpages look awful on those resolutions. Not to mention the fact that the average person is still scrolling left and right to see the entire lame.
+Jeff DeMaagd: you said it yourself: if you have resolution independence. You may set Win7 to 150% font size, but some label widgets don't grow with it. On Linux, it's better, but still there are some rough edges because some developers still do pixel-based design.
haha!! I get a trip out of the whole "retina" display...curious...did apple patent the word yet??
Laptops have lower resolutions because many people still expect to mash graphics through them. Bump it up too high and all the nice effects go down. Tablets don't use graphical power so much as display power. There's a difference. Tablets are glorified display folders. Laptops are portable powerhouses.

But yes, 1366x768 is understandably horrible. That's why you spend 200 more on a better model ;)
Behold. Apple's "Grand" plan.
Retina sounds a lot easier to remember then xxxwvga or whatever comes after that. Honestly I think Apple is the only company now that has guts and money as well as brand recognition to push 1600 p standard on all their line of products. 
I want all the pixels and I want them now. 13" laptop with an x axis res of 2560 is what I consider minimum. 
I didn't understand one word of what he said
I have a coworker who has a 24" monitor and keeps it on 1024x768. I die a little inside every time I have to use her station.
of coarse yuo are right. for aeons thats correct
of coarse you are right. for aeons thats correct
+Linus Torvalds The new laptops are so lame that if you have the Retina resolution you can t have the nic interface .Maybe on the next model you can have both... RIP Flash for Android
Even on desktops 2560x1600 or 2560x1440 is rare, and way too expensive to reasonably own.
Why the part about fonts? Anything standard uses vector based graphics.
Darn straight, Linus. I'm a coder, and I write code down the page, not across. Passive movie-viewers have ruined laptops for people who want to get work done.
I hope Apple doesn't have a patent on high rez screens on mobile devices... ;-)
Retina seems like a pretty good description for marketing standpoint.  As Linus was pointing out that different displays are watched from different ways or different distances so the discernible pixels from say a smart phone need to be smaller then a laptop or even less so then a desktop and even less from say a TV.  

My 2880-by-1800 native resolution at 220 pixels per inch for 15 laptop (which I can't mention the manufacture here in G+ without being flamed) but Linus is right, it's defiantly where it's at.  Scaling in the native OS has been some what of a hit or miss, i've had to dump a couple apps I use to use because it didn't look good but I don't miss them that bad and in fact found better ones (sublime text 2 rocks).  I only care how my text looks in a terminal window and it looks sooooo good.  :-)

I can't help but think the reason why we don't see these yet in too many non-Apple devices yet is because for the most part, only Apple users are willing to pay the premium for more premium hardware.  You know you can still by a macbook and still not like Apple you now.  Thought I would warn you once you get used to that res it's hard to turn back.

I run a couple different flavors of Linux and even a Windows VM using VMWare and the text looks great to run those OS on these type of display.
My phone has laughed at laptop/desktop displays since 2009 :)
As long as google doesn't sell glasses that will project stuff so we can all see a 'retina' resolution on a small screen I hope they will kill laptops (and tablets too). 
I totally agree. I would just love to see an 12'' Thinkpad xXXX with a resolution of 1920x1200 or so...
HD actually means Half Definition.
+Linus Torvalds Ok, I agree that the high pixel density is more important for smaller devices.  But anyway I would still say that 2560x1600 is not the best I can imagine for a 27"-display, if it is used for text.
amen brother. this retina buzz bs has got me completely fed up, standards people!! Apple that means you!
" The fact that laptops stagnated ten years ago (and even regressed, in many cases) at around half that in both directions is just sad." Yes, 1366 * 768 is pretty ancient. Having said that Laptop screens have become far more readable at odd angles. The images are clearer and sharper. Basically the technical specification gave way to use-ability trials and in store demonstrations. 

Yes, I still want the higher resolutions. Plz done sacrifice my screen quality for it. 
Same thing as "Full HD" for desktop screens. It is marketed as "just perfect" and there is no market push to get over 1920 wide.
Linus you are a great person!
For me 1980 x 1200 is the most optimum resolution for the 17 inch laptop. I really like the 17 inch MacBook as the screen size was excellent for coding. Its too bad that discontinued it.

The Retina MacBook Pro is great machine for coding but the UI Lag is something that is unacceptable considering for a $2000 laptop.

Maybe I will get the 2nd Generation but for now I will still going to look around for an alternative. 
Where are the new Android tablets... and where is my Google desktop OS... and WHY doesn't my car fly yet?! I am so tired of being let down. 8(
My first laptop, a 2004 vintage Dell 15" 4x3, had 1920x1200. I could live with that. The new displays only go to "HD".
Glad that I'm not the only one to notice.  It's actually getting ridiculous.  Do device makers actually listen to you?  If so, perhaps I'll upgrade my laptop before its end of life to get better screen resolution.
Reasonable? It is density independent pixels. I understand why all my resolutions are different on each of my devices. All that matters to me is consistent object size independent of the position of where my default sight is at. Whether or not I am 7" away from my smartphone, 36" away from my laptop or 6 feet away from my 46" screen I care about consistent visual space.
I'm pretty sure the x768 resolution is pretty sweet but i'm looking forward to the future where technology for the world will expand and will create a world run on nothing but tech. With this idea in place there will be no need for "clean coal" and mining because everything will be electrical and with this our beloved ozone will be safe and pollution a thing of the past.
Dual screen. Maybe tri in the future.... HD please....Would like a laptop but I have no money....I will stick with my old Dual screen desktop I guess....No tablets...!!!!!
Eh, give me an integer multiple of 1024 or 1080 for the vertical resolution, so I can run it at a lower resolution, and not have it look like crap. As a severely visually impaired user, I can say the easiest way, by far, to adapt the system, is to lower the resolution, an instant magnification of everything, without the lag and/or pain of an on-screen magnifier. Given that I've seen a 2580x2048 monitor, why not have both as standard resolutions, chose the one with the aspect ratio that suits your needs best.
I may not be an Apple fanboy (nor am I a Microsoft fanboy), but this really is a great idea.  I think the problem is how laptops render the images on the screen.  Simple as that.  I doubt Microsoft has designed their OS to take advantage of such without super-sizing, or shrinking into oblivion, the fonts and icons on the screen. sad.
I have my 4 year old Lenovo laptop, which I bought for $500, and it has 1680x1050 pixels resolution. Now I would like to buy a better laptop for the same price, but it is not possible :(
Kea K
You need to give the middle finger and address this issue to the oems, it worked great on nvidia
Please standardize for Iinux's sake, which still struggles with video drivers after 15 years.
If you do the wedgie thing, put it on pay-per-view.  You'd have an audience.
Started with Red Hat, went to Mandrake because it was Red Hat but easy to install and use. Got tired of them wanting money, went to Fedora, got up to Fedora 3 which was a mess, then Ubuntu.
Since Ubuntu, I've gone to Mint a couple of times, but always back to Ubuntu. Now I'm learning to like Unity, which I thought I never would.
Ubuntu's always been the best for me, and Debian's apt-get seems like the best tool.
All I heard was blah blah blah sucks tablet.
Thank God someone else is fed up with the low res crap on the market. Funny that you brought up "retina" displays... Even those displays seems a bit off the evolution curve for what I thought would be the standard in portabel devices by now. That beeing said, I would also love to have a desktop monitor with the pixel density of my current cellphone... +Dejan Jancevski does anyone even care what that company try to push on to the masses these days? If they would open up for community devs they might stand a chance in the future. In the direction they are going now I don't think they will have the largest user base in 5 years. 
Hahah, expecting reasonable behavior out of the manufacturers/etc? That would be nice, but it's not happening :(

May as well ask the GNOME people to implement a reasonable UI.

(Although the Macbooks are getting there!)

What i'm sad about is that desktop monitors are stuck at 1080p, except for suuuuuuuper expensive niche stuff. I had 1920x1200 like six years ago! Forget upgrades, why can i not buy anything that isn't a step DOWN?

That's why I haven't bought a new laptop. I refuse to buy a laptop with HD TV resolution. It's such a pain to do engineering work that way. Also, why is it OK for Windoze to slow down with age? It's just plain rediclous. Linux keeps going strong on my old laptop with a 1900x1280 display. 
You my friend .......should be president of "technology"
I had a 1080p laptop over 10 years ago. Not sure why it's not the standard by now.
also if your on a buget go to a thift store buy some electronics and sell them at gazell .com  then you can buy that expensive laptop keep it in good condish and sell it agian that what i did
Xin Li
The next generation HTC and LG smartphones will be 1080p.  At that point, they WILL be higher resolution then most laptops.
Right now, most laptop specs have 1366x768 as HD and 1920x1080 as FHD. Generally, the highest resolutions have been considered to be a privilege for graphics professionals , while others were expected to get by with the step down. However, having worked on FHD displays for the last year, I find it excruciatingly difficult to even view, much less work on anything lower. While I am happy with my current screen, I guess that's only because I haven't seen anything higher. 

The hardware makers have shown its possible to provide a super high res display at reasonable costs. It's time for the OS makers to embrace this as well, making this the new standard.
Don't forget almost all monitor manufacturers moving to 16:9 from 16:10 aspect ratios (except Apple). Work tried to give me one, and I thanked them for the picture frame.
Also, cellular data on regular laptops wouldn't hurt either.
Yah, I'm still rocking 21" CRTs because you simply can't get the same resolution for under $700/screen. I'm hoping this WQHD quad 720p thing takes off enough that I can eventually replace my boat anchors.
Surely agree.....a Dell XPS having a 1366x768 .... It's kinda frustrating....
My vision is starting to deteriorate -- a little bit.  I have found that a wide variety of cheap reading glasses can be had, for US $1.00 each (one dollar), at certain stores, such as one near me called the "99.99 Cents Only" store.  At that price, I can have several different strengths handy, just in case.  
+Eduardo Medina You're not getting it at all. More pixels for sharper fonts. Think of a newspaper or magazine. The font is small, but very sharp
As a front-end web guy I understand but even so we still have to figure out how to make sites work for as many dimensions and users as possible so would it really matter?

To this day I.E. is buggy on the standards yet people still code for it. Personally, I don't but if I use a framework that includes CSS work-arounds I leave 'em.

Great point about high resolution/small pixels not necessarily being related to small text sizes though, seems more like a crappy implementation of advancing tech by the manufacturers...I know, I know, use 'ems.'...and I.E. workarounds, apparently :-/
Tell me about it most "ultrabooks" run at an awful 1366x768, that's why I chose a Samsung series 9 ultrabook with a resolution of 1600x900 on a 13inch display. A long way from perfect but at least it is PLS technology and not one those outdated crappy TN panels the industry still use... grrrrrrrr
Here here. Couldn't tell you how many arguments I get into regarding resolution or rather the lack of it!
My vision is bad & getting worse (macular degeneration), and hi-res displays really make a difference for me. 
Actually Rishabh, they can easily handle well over that. Resolution isn't a heavy impact on graphics cards, and I've had on-board GPUs from antique computers running at ridiculous resolutions on CRT monitors - simply because they worked with newer drivers that offer resolution unlocking.
the PPI thing is an interesting measurement, but i think calling the 1366*768 screen a 1 mega pixel display and the new tablet screen 4 mega pixels also sounds good.
100% agree! It's so true! This is why I bought my Dell with a 1080p display...
I checked a webshop that had huge selection of laptops, there was a filter for 'high resolution laptops'. All but one or two are this 1080p crap. None of the 17" were having better resolution. 
The relation between actual screen resolution and the brand label "Retina display" - that could possibly use some (CANDID, cough cough and I mean candid) some focus... Needless to say that branding can serve a purpose, in the consumer market, though...

Frankly, I stick with iOS Mobile because it has the iThoughts app - quite simple.
I have a 15.1" thinkpad T60p with 1600x1200, I'd like to do the upgrade to 2048x1536, nothing today comes close. Retina Mac Book has more pixels, but a much lower resolution. 
The place I work at is getting 27" screens that are "HD" coming in at a whopping 1080 pixels tall... It feels like you're sitting a foot away from your television set, and if you look closely you can see the pixels without leaning in... I just don't see the reason to upgrade to anything over a 22" if the resolution will just remain the same... I feel your guys' pain.
Yes, the first thing I look for in a laptop is screen resolution, then at least i5, preferrably i7 and also USB 3.0 ..... anything less than 1920x1080 (again preferred x1200) is very quickly discarded as an option.  It would be great to have 2560x1600 as a starting point on screens from around 11" and larger.  And perhaps 1920x1200 on smaller screens.
I agree completely. I am an Apple (and Linux) user and even I would prefer that Apple use industry standard notations for their specs instead of creating their own terms for what they are producing 
Apple's uniqueness is one of the elements that landed them at the top of the market, but also drastically enables their users to be ignorant.
Thanks for organizing my thoughts and grunts for me. Thank you Linus.
Unfortunately laptop market will stagnate even more, its called technology progress and convergence. I'm also fan of laptops but there isn't much to do except manufacturer can oriente to customers needs like higher res, better battery life etc. Tablet will became more and more necessity as prices will go down forced by bigger competition. 
I agree ! I've said the same thing since I was looking for a successor for my Thinkpad T61p (which had a 1920x1200 resolution display).
And don't get me started on "HD" gaming. Gears of War 2 for X360 is upsacaled from 1068x600 or something like that. You call that High Definition? I played through Quake I at higher resolutions, running on freakin' MS-DOS 6.22 in 1996 for Christ's sake!!! OK, I'm overeacting a little here :D But it's a joke and a scam no matter how you look at it.
I have been looking into portable PCs to replace laptops for this reason.  I'm just going from one office to another anyone doing graphics.  I don't even use my laptop screen as it is...  :D
+Linus Torvalds  First off: (atomic wedgie)++
Second: I'll second the request on the availability of better displays. However, I have a different concern. Do you know how much of a pain in the ass it is to get something that has decently accurate color rendering and good contrast (1000:1 is ok, 4000:1 is better, 10000:1 is closer to what the eyes really crave)? The screen I'm on now requires the brightness to be cranked up to a sickening level to render the rated 1000:1 contrast.
In the digital camera world those of us that switched to SLR many years ago (the days of FILM my friend) have been begging for some attention off and on for a while—only to be stomped by the damned megapixel march mantra. WTF good are more pixels when they aren't even 14-bit yet?
Who still buys into the "small fonts" crap? Almost all software I know of scales the DPI to that reported by the display.
+Helena Borgman - If Linus becomes President, will he open source the Government and sign a Bill that mandates all agencies to use Linux Inside?
+Ronald Pottol I had that same T60P, actually still do.  However, I moved to the Macbook 17" for the 1920x1200 res and just retired that one for the 15" Retina which I have "scaled to the same 1920x1200.  Someone here said something about UI scaling lag but I have not noticed that at all.  It's crystal clear and for the same res as my big 17" it's razor thin and quite powerful machine which makes it ultra portable but at the same time super usable (because there is actual allot of screen space).  It's true that if you select "Best Retina" option it's not nearly as much desktop space (though icons and text still have all those pixels, just less desktop space).  To me that doesn't makes sense to use it in this "best" mode because every app you can scale bigger if your having a hard time reading it or just use larger fonts.  For me it's all about getting some elbow room on the desktop to have a few windows open.  

What's really odd to see on the retina is the newest VMWare Fusion you can run your VM in full retina res and though everything is readable, it's comically small on the screen.  I can run a 1600x1200 windows VM in a window and still have access to my host machine!  It seems to have no problem flipping back and forth for what ever you want though.  Also I found that if you bootcamp a non OSX (like Windows) you can get the full 2880x1800 resolution.  This type of high density pixel display needs scaling though because on a 15", however cool it looks, not probably going to be great on your eyes.  However, just because you scale, does not mean you lose the resolution of the display, not the same as just zooming up on a photo and seeing blocky pixels.  

The first time I help the old iPhone 4 with the retina display (about two years ago now?) I was hooked.  Apple fanboy perhaps but the display is my number one priority in the systems I use these days.  That and it has to run some form of Unix.
It is completely unreasonable that my cell phone has a higher display resolution. And I should not have to pay through the nose for an*actual* (1080p) HD display in an 11" or 12" form factor. 
All +Lenovo has to do is build a laptop around the Samsung 2560x1600 display, any speed or architecture, and they'll have 1500 of my hard-earned dollars, no questions asked.
Exactly man good post Linus, so fricking true.
I couldn't agree more. I am tired of lugging around a 15" laptop for 1920x1200
Yeah, you're right.. 
+1 to this, tablet makers seem to want to make themselves irrelevant to the future

if you could leave me be i would appreciate it
Can anyone honestly say " I was unable to program on this computer because the screen resolution was so bad" ? Because such an idea has not popped up in my head since I used my first computer ages ago. 

When did people become so susceptible to marketing folks telling you want you need? And what is this obsession with pretty computers? The type of demands made by majority computer users gives me a sad.
It's a trade off. Screen resolution vs screen quality vs cost. Also 1080p television are perfectly fine for what they are used for. Any higher and movies would be stretched and become uglier. 4k TV's are out there but they cost $20k each and are something like 80 inches big and no content is made to take advantage of this crazy high resolution. 

Higher than 1080p screens for desktop monitors would not work if people are gaming. To run games at 1600p takes some serious graphics grunt, especially with newer games as there are literally twice as many pixels.

For companies to create ultrabooks with higher than 1080p resolution displays they needed a version of windows that was less reliant on graphical processing (Windows 8?)
No one needs such a resolution, what a waste of battery. Rather bulls in batteries that last 24 hours instead of 8, which ends up being only 3 1/2 hours...
Brian L
"no content is made to take advantage of this crazy high resolution." - Practically ALL content is made for that resolution, and it is then degraded to 1080p.
Looking forward to the day laptops and desktops catch up to the Nexus 10 and have "reasonable resolution"
This reasonable resolution would also be fantastic for drawing apps like SketchBook Pro that limit the created image resolution to screen resolution.
Brian L
response to Brad, part 2:  "Higher than 1080p screens for desktop monitors would not work if people are gaming. To run games at 1600p takes some serious graphics grunt,"  - really?  Do you really think that?  I had a monitor doing near 1080p over a decade cards are several orders of magnitude more powerful now than they were then.  Sloppy coding is the only reason we need more and more powerful graphics cards...a PS3 is still stuck with 512M ram and relatively slow, antiquated graphics...yet is still playing enjoyable, new games.  The ATI R300 came out over 10 years ago and easily handled 1920x1080.  You've been handed 1080p at 4:3 and told to like it for all applications across the board, when really - it's only good for movies, and first-person shooters.    There are more games than just that style, and there's a lot of business use that could really benefit from a bit of vertical resolution coming in to play :P
Let's get 4K displays down to desktop monitor size please! Sony releases a $25K 4K TV and it is frickin 84". Bah.
If you read the comments, all the disagreement from from those wearing glasses! Lol if you can't see properly you're not qualified to say our current resolution is good enough.
Here's a little motivation for the industry; my last 3 laptop purchases:
2001: 1600x1200
2004: 1920x1200
2012: 2880x1800
My 13" laptop has 1600*900 and it was my main spec I was looking for.
I'm programmer.
It's very hard to find cheap
The thing that utterly pisses me off about modern laptops is that you can't buy 4:3 ratio screens. If you have poor vision then you want taller fonts. My wife has to have fonts at 230dpi meaning because you are forced to have window borders and menus that she only gets about 20% us able vertical screen area for browsing or word processing.. bring back 4:3!
but why would you want fonts so small ???

errr ... j/k :)
Lee OB
Your maaaaaaaaa
+1, but it does seem like full HD is becoming the standard these days. can get 1980x1020 on 13" laptops. I do agree that it should be fairly easy to get 25x16 on 11" if they have it on tablets that are essentially the same size.
 I'm so with you here! It's so hard to find a laptop with decent screen and resolution that DO NOT cost a fortune.
+Jake Weisz maybe it is your eyes. I do notice the difference in pixel density comparing my Smartphone with my Laptop. And no, it is not only psychology or belief. I thought like you before I bought this smartphone for other reasons.
is it possible to have laptop without decent screen?
I wonder why did they just stop the resolution at laptops screens?
I hope it is not somehting about the costs or any merchadise crap.
Hey, I agree with you on something! It's annoying finding laptops that are 1366x768 still. Sometimes it's still hard even trying to find a laptop with 1920x1080. Yet here's a tablet, a 10" tablet, with a higher resolution than many laptops.
I could not work without my full HD screen added to the laptop screen.
its so much more money in england 4 mobiles we are sick. ov it..dean anthony

I don't understand those saying their fonts will be too small.

It's time to stop measuring in pixels! THAT is what holds resolution back. 1pt != 1px. Stop thinking (and coding) that damnit!!

12pt is 12pt is 1/6 of an inch. Not 12px. 
Asus offers a tablet with possibility to attach a keyboard, look at this Asus Transformer Pad Infinity as an example, resolution is 1920x1200 with 10.1" display
You get what you and other people buy. If people would buy higher resolution screens they would make more of them.
+Linus Torvalds, you call me ignorant, but if you call me ignorant you call ignorant to the most of CMS developers too.

I know that a resolution of 1366x768 in a screen of 15'' is a shit, it looks very bad. My Galaxy Mini looks bad too, but move from an extreme to the other is not the solution.

I don't know where do you live, but where I live, in Andalusia, at south of Spain, many people haven't money to renew their old website, what do these shops?. In my region, except iPhone, only a few people have an Apple device because are too expensive.

Welcome to real world, +Linus Torvalds, welcome.

About the amish, I preffer not to comment.
I know Ubuntu has been stuck on low res for a long while, or was that Linux in general? What we really want now is real apps for tablets not all this kiddy games crap...
+Eduardo Medina So you are suggesting that it's reasonable to halt progress just because there are people that can't keep up? Well you should go back to design on 800x600 then because surely there are people in Burundi who can't have anything better. 
Real World is what we do of it. 
+Ian Norton You're railing against the wrong thing. 4:3 doesn't really have that many advantages - your problem is that the operating system you're using isn't resolution independent, ie you can't set the physical size of your fonts and icons independently of the pixels. A proper OS would let you specify that you want normal text to be so and so many millimeters high and the computer should be aware of the screen size and pixel count to make that happen. Ie, resolution independence - more pixels = smoother screen, not smaller fonts.
not even last century, in 1998 i had a 1600x1200 monitor >:|
They haven't stagnated. They've gone backwards. My 6 year old laptop has a higher resolution than the crap sold today!!! It's an outrage.
+Brian LaMere All you have to do is point at the last couple generations of AMD Radeon graphics cards. They come with multi-gigabyte memory on board and do Eyefinity - which is their name for running multiple screens at once for games. I believe the resolution cap there is 7680x3200 ... but granted to get fully fluid graphics at that level on the most modern games you probably need a couple of those cards working together. But doable, definitely. 
I agree 100% and it's why I stay out of laptop territory. I only use my work laptop away from my dock when I absolutely have to, because of that awful resolution. For developers who use any sort of IDE 1366 x 768 is just insane. I've gone as far as finding simple themes that use less pixels around the border in order to make up for the horrid resolution.
Hahaha, u're absolutely right, my eyes can't see the tiny words on the screen very "clearly" now. I also wonder how come the quality of the laptop computer just can't get any improvement.
I love that last sentence. I have bad vision, so I completely agree with ya.
Oh wait. He is that Linux guy right? No wonder he hates MICROSOFT, Apple,NVIDIA,Google etc.

Don't worry I can name many more companies who didn't support that Linux crap and made a better software out of it (android) or without it (windows and OSX)

linus torvalds is the bill mahr of computers.
Eduardo, you basically just confirmed Linus' point. You can't take a bad display turn the resolution on high and use it as an example of why we shouldn't adopt a higher standard of displays for notebook computers. My favorite machine is a 13" that runs 1440x900 and its beautiful. The fact that you think a lower resolution on a 15" is garbage is more indicative of the display and it doesn't nullify the point that we need better displays on notebooks. My next notebook will be a 13" running 2560 x1600 and once again it's beautiful. Can you please write a follow up where you put a bluray disc in a standard dvd player and argue that it's "shit"?
I think this decade will be a technology revolution. It seems to be right
I love your tough talk +Linus Torvalds . You are the only celebrity I know who acts human, literally ^^
simon t
crt, tft, lcd, plasma,.. thats all dinosaur tech,... for a maximum resolution (and why stop at a certain point?) we need new inventions,... oled is going into right direction,...
Maybe you should work on getting Linux to work on more computers without a hassle, then you can think about upping the resolution to such high scales. 
I would take that on a desktop monitor at 24"
I have latest MacBook Air 13" with Ubuntu. Not crazy screen resolution, but 1440x900 is still a little better than 1366x768 :)
I really notice the quality or lack thereof in monitors, laptops etc, with the rise in pixels in smartphones, I have a 1080p desktop display that now looks positively grainy! The game has changed.. But retina display is a term for numpties! 
that is also my very first check on spec: what's the resolution - i am not even paying $299 for a 1300px laptop even if it an i7 - only if I can find a replacement LCD and do an upgrade myself, been doing that for a long time... :-) ---- I vote for 2500+px as well...
Desktop programs and desktop websites tend to have no concept of resolution independence, and people really get up in arms when their stuff gets smaller.
What about Linux supporting a dual vga system? New laptops with new hardware on ivy intel are not supported... This is as important as res.... 
It seems useful to have a term to describe the resolution threshold beyond which no appreciable difference can be discerned in normal circumstances (because of the limitations of the human eye), especially considering it depends on resolution, the size of display, and how far from the eye a given device is typically used, and we don't necessarily want to have to work all that out. I don't care whether its called 'retina' or not. What should we call it? Resolution could even be expressed as a fraction/percentage of that threshold. It would help to clearly highlight gimmicky devices whose resolutions are unnecessarily high.

Other than that, I totally agree... clearly it's not about having tiny text (though I quite like being able to do that on my phone, as it happens), rather it's about having better definition on normal-sized text, buttons, icons, and everything else. How can that not be obvious? Who the hell are these tech pundits?
I guess you will have to go for another MacBook (pro) with that kind of resolutions (2560x1600 on the 13 and 2880x1800 on the 15 inch with retina display) ... or just wait for PC resellers to follow the movement ... it will most probably become a reality soon ;-)
Displays with better resolution are easy to find, world will be a better place if other raw parts for assembling a laptop could be as easy to find as for assembling a desktop computer.
1080p, 720p, 480i are television standards! How would the world be today if in 1993 we decided that computers should mirror the then TV standard of 320x[240/2 fields/frame]?
Even if my screen resolution coincidentally matches one of those standards, I do not want it marketed to me as such.
To all you complainers, why do you not buy laptops/screens with the highest possible resolution? That will mean compromises in other areas, but isn't that obvious?
This is long overdue. Would be nice to have some choice when it comes to laptop screens with over 1200 vertical pixels.
What is even worse is they advertise as HD and when you look at the specs, it is still a low resolution screen. 
It's funny that the "retina display" in the New iPad is 264 ppi but the retina display in the iPhone is 326 ppi. So which one is "the retina display"?

They could have said that the iPad mini has a retina display and people would still believe it..

P.S.: The new Google Nexus smartphone/tablets offer is just mind blowing.
For all the spec increases... resolution, high speed connection ala 4g... keep an eye on all that data usage I doubt data prices are getting lower...

You are so right!!!
Stagnation is a mild word for the laptop industry.but on the other hand we now live in the-end-of-laptop era, and the beginning of the hybrid tablet-laptop era...
I have a 13" laptop with a 1920x1080 screen, and the first thing I did with it was to install Gentoo linux. And I agreed that "high resolution" != "tiny text" and enjoyed the crisp and easily readable letters... until I decided to reinstall Windows due to critical bugs in systemd, dracut and in gdm that happened at approximately the same time. I.e. until I decided that linux/gnome core userspace by itself is rapidly becoming too raw for me.

In Windows, you can, of course, set the font magnification factor to 150% and thus get the same comfortable physical font size as on a 1366x768 display. But in most applications, the result is blurry text upscaled from 1366x768 and mouse input related bugs - i.e. the situation looking worse than on a 1366x768 display. Even Google Chrome and Adobe Reader are affected, and there is no user-friendly way to disable this stupid bitmap-based upscaling for 64-bit applications. Yes, there is a well-hidden checkbox that disables it globally (named "Windows XP scaling mode") and reports the raw high DPI to the applications. But the problem is that virtually no applications listen to that, Java applications like Jitsi being the worst example (they display tiny fonts with hard-coded size in pixels). Other applications clip the window contents incorrectly.

So the real problem is that hardware manufacturers, faced with the necessity to work with Windows, just CANNOT make high-resolution displays generally available and useful. So it's not surprising that the only retina-display devices on the market are designed to run a different OS.
+jonathan grace hope higher resolution won't result in higher data bill. well maybe because more data fit on screen ;-)
There are already 5" cellphones with 1920x1080 resolution, too late Linus, too late.
i still enjoy browsing this in xga resolution with my lynx browser
Ian Roy
So true. I shouldn't have to buy a 30+" display to get higher resolutions. 
Yes, exactly this. I could shell out $1600 on the Macbook Pro Retina, except, come on, college student, I can't afford that. But I won't buy a laptop until the resolutions are good again.
I've always looked at laptop prices and just wondered how these people can get away with it. Even considering other things than the screen, the general cost of a laptop is always so much higher than it should be. Yes, I own a laptop, but I've owned my laptop for the past 5 years, and it STILL has hardware rivaling what they push out these days as standard. And the pixels are actually more compressed (since laptops come out with 1366x768, just spout out about a bigger screen, and my laptop has a reasonably sized screen); the images are more crisp, albeit smaller. But they'll continue this trend as long as they can continue people buying into it. It's when the tablet market absolutely destroys the laptop/netbook market (at least I believe they will) that they'll really need to step up their game, or give up.
I find it interesting how different people demand different things.  I am not all that bothered by displays that other people hate.  If I am given a display that is of average resolution I can barely see the difference between that and a retina display.  I do like to have higher resolutions when I go over 19" but anything smaller is fine with an average resolution.  

In contrast to this if I have poor sound on a laptop it will drive me insane.  There are many laptops where I can only watch video if I have headphones plugged in.  Even among laptops that are touted as having high quality speakers I will get annoyed very quickly.
+Ro Atkinson I think it is not that retina Display are better, then other displays. The discussion is between Apple enthusiasts and Apple haters. The one side reject everything thats designed in Cupertino, may it be better than everything else or just overpriced consumer electronic with some nice looking casings. The other side thoughtless worships everything that comes from the company formerly led by their iGod,
As I said befor, a lot of todays standards or usual shapes and dimensions are focused on leisure purposes. If you want to have something forged to your purposes you have to pay high prices, because it is most times only produced in smal quantities or uniques. You can get an cheap 16:9 laptop, that will nearly always be advertised with its fullHD resolution (or something close to it) for watching movies. But a 4:3 laptop, that would fit my purposes much better, is hard to find.
Apple has a thing about giving products non standard names. Once the rest of the industry follows their lead it will become the norm. No need to get your knickers in a twist.
I dont think this is just a hardware issue. Both Windows and Mac OS were not ready for scaling up the OS until recent.
I watched this thread in the fall, and see posts still coming in. I am using a 4 year old Clevo 15.4 with 1920x1200.  Despite its age, I have no desire to replace it with what would be a step backwards in display.  1920x1080 is crap - all 16:9 is for a laptop.  Almost went Macbook Retina, but cannot stand Apple's lockdown model, especially if it's my 2 grand paying for it. Give me 2560x1600 with no Secure Boot so I can put my fave distro on, and I would be more than happy to pay another 2 grand!
"Even at 11? Please." sigh In fact, we (laptop users) probably need the extra pixels to increase our screen/desktop estate for *work than tablet folks need them for sharper pictures.

Monitor/display manufacturers have always milked us inch-by-inch, pixel-by-pixel.  Remember where we started off at? (640x480 CRTs). I can't wait to see what they will do with the new AMOLEDs and IGZOs in the consumer monitor market. Pfff, If they even try to push them out below 22-23", I am not even gonna bother.
If Windows and OSX didn't absolutely suck at scaling, I'm sure that higher resolutions would have been commonplace sooner. Linux users are a little spoiled in that respect.

Also, reducing your resolution is the quickest fix for poor frame rates in games. You can thank benchmarks and PC gaming's ridiculous system requirements for making low resolutions seem like a good thing.

These issues are just not present on tablets and phones. It's a lot easier to bump up the resolution when all the users care about are battery life and crisp 2D graphics.
I honestly don't get it. Back in 2006 I could get a laptop with a 1920x1200 screen easily, but now I can barely get a laptop that has a screen with a greater resolution than 1366x768. Getting a screen that is greater than 1920x1080 is next to impossible now, which is depressing considering how easy it was to get a laptop with a higher resolution screen back then.
As a historical footnote, I contacted many of the major LCD/display companies (IBM especially) in 2004 [1] and asked them to support a "Letter-Quality Linux" initiative that would have gotten ultra-high dpi displays to key Linux developers. There were no takers!

Yeah. it actually kind of pisses me off that even HANDHELDS......HAND....HELDS......... have MORE screen real estate than a full size laptop.... and they ALWAYS run if full screen!! have you tried using Blender on a standard 1366x768? monitor? everything's cramped and portions are actually inaccessible with the default layout. It's one of the main reasons holding me back from getting a new laptop is because they ALL have the SAME screen resolution.... XGA (from the 90 and before) with just some more sideview. I think 1920x1080 would have been available in ENTRY level setups by now.  Makes me want to just buy a tablet and use THAT as my primary screen......... pathetic.
+Nirmal Elevarthi Exactly. I'm still holding on to my 6-year-old Dell Latitude D830 only because I can't find another 15'' WUXGA. All of the sudden all notebook manufacturers decided that everyone is using their notebooks for Facebooking at Starbucks or to watch BluRay discs. There are also people who use them for WORK, FFS. Mind you, using cheaper panels didn't make them less expensive.
If this forum is so interested in 16:10 high resolution monitors, why not have one made custom and see how many people would buy it? I have done this and it's not too difficult with overseas manufacturing today.
In other news, 4K display can be had in China for under $600.
2560x1600 is a perfect RATIO and resolution. There's no reason that PC's can achieve this for little cost. 16:10 is the reason that I bought a macpro 17 and loaded windows on it, because NOONE makes this ratio any more.
Well there are lots of people using windows, sorry to say. But I am passionate about the 16:10 aspect ratio. As I said before, if linus really believed in high resolution monitors, he'd make his own pc/monitor line with 2560x1600 (at least). I just bought a dell with 3200x1800 which is great, but I STILL want a taller screen (16:10) as I hate the artificially squished letter box format.
And in 2014 people still don't agree with this being the new standard smh
Still waiting for my "reasonable resolution MBA 11''
I can't read anything at that res.
I hate the 16:9 aspect ratio and will avoid buying it. I will always favor 16:10. The industry just doesn't get it...
>14000+ here, why is no company creating a product of the idea? Till now, the same crap everywhere....  
It's absolutely ridiculous that I can order a dell laptop with full HD and for another 70 dollars go to 3200x1800 when ANYONE would make or purchase a screen with resolution of 1366x768. I think we should get together here, and custom design the screen with our own high resolution specifications (with touch capability also!). Any takers?
john li
i have a 1440p note 4 smartphone
It's rediculuous that we can't have a decent 3840x2160 or 3840x2400 screen res in 15" or 17"
Can't believe this thing is still kicking after 3 years.
I can't believe that people still pay money for laptops with cheezy resolution
4:3 or 3:2 screen-format is really nice and fits in alot of pixels. thank you for linux mr. torvalds , it is a great adventure.
The most efficient ratio, in my opinion, is 16:10. Others, like 16:9 are too envelope-like and 4:3 are too square. At this point, it's the ratio...
4:3 is good for small screen (<=10 inches)
3:2 for >10 and <14
16:10 for >=14
16:9 no way.
let's just all get together and order a bunch of custom monitors from China.
+Douglas Keene will it actually be possible to start a crowdfunding campaign like they did the guys at Purism? Even though I personally prefer square-ish screens, I agree with +Guy Roland KOMAN opinion on the >=14"
If I knew how many people would be interested in high resolution monitors with specific aspect ratios, I would be willing to help get them made for us! The strength is in the numbers. So, who's up for it???????
Unfortunately it's still impossible in 2016 to use FHD on a <=14" screen if you want to use a decent DE such as MATE, Cinamon, LXQT or XFCE. But at this moment only Unity has proper DPI scaling, which scales text and UI properly! I've bought a 14" screen with QHD recently, and my only option was to use Ubuntu&Unity to be able to view something on the screen. I hate Ubuntu, but no other options atm. Also wondering, what is so hard in Unity's DPI scaling, which other DE devs can't make?
+Mark Arch well GTK+2 won't do, so no MATE or Xfce for now. The other two maybe are just not as decent as you think, or at least as Unity :)
There are great 13, 14, 15 and 17 inch touch screens with UHD resolution (3840x2160). If we could only now get 3840x2400, we would be all set.
To get a Zenbook UX303 with a decent FHD screen I have to spend more than 800 EUR. How is that decent after so many fucking years that we're stuck with 1366 ?
Add a comment...