Hacker News Reader

Comment by cerberusss | Hacker News Reader

Whenever I see Full HD, I think fist-sized pixels. However, it's an 11-inch screen and the article mentions: "The display on the EVOO is FHD 1080p, not the 1366x768 typical of many cheap laptops". So in this case, I think it's not all that bad.

View on HN

Full HD is another word for 1080p. What about Full HD makes you think of fist-sized pixels?

Only a thousand rows is pretty low these days - you can definitely see the big pixels on everything except a tiny screen.

A thousand rows wasn't impressive in 2000. I think people've forgotten (or weren't around for, so don't realize) how big a step back we took on picture quality and pixel density for monitors, for many years, with the switch to LCD.

Right - I swear I remember running CRTs at 2000+ rows in the early 2000s. Now people seem impressed with 1000, even on fairly expensive full-sized laptops?

You weren't running those CRT's on laptops though. The laptops of the time had low res displays with very narrow viewing angles.

When I look on Amazon for desktop monitors, I also see products proudly boasting that they're 'Full HD'. And what's more we seem to have stopped at Full HD - weren't most LCD monitors Full HD like ten years ago? What's going on?

If you're not seeing 4k and 5k monitors, you're not looking hard enough. They're plentiful and pretty cheap these days.

> If you're not seeing 4k and 5k monitors, you're not looking hard enough.

I didn't say I wasn't seeing them, though did I?

I'm saying I still see monitors with this ancient low FHD resolution. When you search for hard drives you don't see 2005-era capacities as your first result. Why do we still see 2005-era resolutions as our first result for LCDs? And some of them cost hundreds of dollars - the same price as in 2005.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com