• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

1792 x 768. another useless resolution

I wouldn't mind it. It would work well for movies and it's better than 1366x768.
 
dr.kevin said:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Toshiba...1218660314647&skuId=5560037&slref=10&slloc=01


what are you going to do with such little vertical space...

and you can't really put 2 websites side by side, since most are optimized for 1024px wide.

toshiba doesn't know what they're doing. They should've stuck with 1600x900.
Click to expand...

Back when I owned 3x1280x1024, it was my experience that most websites weren't optimized with x1024 in mind. Then again that might just be the corners of the internet I hang out in.

Either way it is a bizarre resolution.
 
Also works well for programming since you can have two windows side by side.

I'm just glad they're deviating from the 16x9 standard. Any resolution that offers a different choice is a good thing, imo.
 
Agreed, another totally crapulent resolution. Moving in the wrong direction from 16:10 which is what every display should be (4:3 is also acceptable).

16:7 - ratio 2.33 (1792x768)
16:9 - ratio 1.78
16:10 - ratio 1.60
 
I don't see why 900p isn't standard yet, with more higher end screens running 1080p (and higher).

pelo said:
Also works well for programming since you can have two windows side by side.
Click to expand...

Not really, since you still lose 1/3 of the vertical space from 1080p (plus some pixels from the side). Fuck stepping through code on such a limited screen - that will just be painful.
 
Why would you want to have different aspect ratios? Then you have to worry about scaling, adjusting images, and all sort of nasty stuff...
 
HaX said:
Its mostly for cinema widesecreen entertainment
Click to expand...

Yea so instead of having letterboxing above and below...you get letterboxing on the sides. The ratio just isn't suited to anything, other than looking cool when the machine is closed.
 
im pretty sure it's a 21:9 ratio for this laptop and for widescreen cinema could be wrong.. but it wouldn't have black bars on the side. this is not uncommon ratio mind you vizio made such a ratio display on a 50incher back in CES 2011. This laptop is mostly a gap fill. While most of you may thinks it's uses are pointless but for a 21:9 ratio cinema display i see it filling the gaps in display ratios.

well some might think in this case why the hell would you want widescreen cinema on a laptop.... well... do people watch movies on laptops? i'll let you decide that question.
 
Movies are 2.39:1

I'm hoping 21:9 catches on actually. I'd like to see a desktop monitor with that aspect. Could be a good middle ground between 16:9 and multi-monitor.
 
Intel_Hydralisk said:
Movies are 2.39:1

I'm hoping 21:9 catches on actually. I'd like to see a desktop monitor with that aspect. Could be a good middle ground between 16:9 and multi-monitor.
Click to expand...

Its not so much the width that's annoying.

Its the pathetic depth. To be useful it needs to be 900-1080 deep at least. Not sure what the width res would have to scale up to then.

I mean if you are going to watch movies......:rolleyes:

Makes you wonder if someone made a typo on the initial production order for some 1386x768 screens. "What the hell are we going to do with fifty thousand 1792x768 screens you idiot??!!"
 
Last edited:
daglesj said:
Its not so much the width that's annoying.

Its the pathetic depth. To be useful it needs to be 900-1080 deep at least. Not sure what the width res would have to scale up to then.

I mean if you are going to watch movies......:rolleyes:

Makes you wonder if someone made a typo on the initial production order for some 1386x768 screens. "What the hell are we going to do with fifty thousand 1792x768 screens you idiot??!!"
Click to expand...

If the panel was 1000-1100 pixels tall instead of 768, it would be 16:9-16:10 I think.
 
daglesj said:
Its not so much the width that's annoying.

Its the pathetic depth. To be useful it needs to be 900-1080 deep at least. Not sure what the width res would have to scale up to then.

I mean if you are going to watch movies......:rolleyes:

Makes you wonder if someone made a typo on the initial production order for some 1386x768 screens. "What the hell are we going to do with fifty thousand 1792x768 screens you idiot??!!"
Click to expand...

Well for watching movies the vast majority of movies in 1080p are ~803px tall

1920x803 is cinema 1080p in 2.39:1 aspect ratio.

In 720p would be 1280x536.
 
Just when I thought the departure from 16:10 couldn't get any worse..
 
What's the point of this? There are practically no videos shot in 21:9 aspect ratio, and 768 vertical pixels is a pain when you are trying to read something.

:confused:

EDIT I guess it's alright for FPS gaming since horizontal pixels come in handy but I mean it's an Ultrabook with Intel HD 4000 graphics. People aren't going to be doing intense gaming on this.
 
What are videos shot in because it sure as hell isnt 16:9
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top