A Rant...Why does my laptop Own current LCD line-ups?

L

laguerre

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
1,133
Seriously, I've had my laptop for 4+ years with a 17" at 1900X1200. You can complain about lag, and viewable angles, but not with a goddamn laptop. I'm not competing for the championship FPS tournament, I'm using it for everything, and enjoying it with everything. Here I am 4+ years later and what the hell?... Where is the demand for something better? Why haven't we seen a review of new BETTER monitors. Hell the FP241VW just got a review by Andandtech...What? Comeone, here we are two years after the release and companies are sending that to be reviewed. Where is the OUTRAGE?

Why can't we demand a 30" monitor with something like 3840×2400. Yea yea yea, I can't utilize it, ya'll remember when we were moving from 800x600 to 1024x768? Sure, only a few items supported it, but Oh Hell Yea was it nice. And input lag, how is that every acceptable, going backwards to go forward?? Does Moore's law stipulate that? ""In order to get better we first must sucketh Moore"???

Damn you Monitor industry for getting caught at price rigging and simply turning the cheek and gouging us with lack of innovation. I am tempted to hook up my scientific calculator up to my computer and using that as a monitor, at least it's self charging....pussies.
 
Last edited:
you ever tried to drive a 4 million pixel display on any game made after 2007?

takes about $1000 worth of desktop... and some games still laugh and keep going

besides, what does more pixels give you anyway - if you need more than 2+million then you're doing it wrong

im not saying we shouldnt move forward with advancements and r&d / but you have to find a balance - work play productivity entertainment etc

games and office apps and websites etc they all work best well below 2560x1600 - sure they can pour and pour and pour money into making a beast of a 3200x2000 monitor at 37"

but who's going to make hardware to drive it? who's going to make powersupplys and processors to fuel that...

and since said display and its accoutrement are going to cost $10,000+

who's going to buy it?

maybe i misunderstood but it seems like you want bigger faster stronger better etc....

have you looked around? the samsung led tv's are amazing... they are squeezing 1080p hd displays into 20" form factors.... working on multi touch screen haptics and etc

your laptop display has a higher resolution / but that's probably it - fps games require up to date video cards and faster displays and better colors and et al

bigger isnt always better...

think of it this way - what's better for the whole

a 2 lane highway with no speed limit

or a 16 land super highway where sure there maybe a limit but we can all get in on the fun

im not saying you're wrong... only that in computers ... advancements are being made in a wide scope, quad and more cores instead of aiming for the fastest ghz - stuff like that
 
I've never been limited by my display. I've had my OS operating at 1900X1200 since I set it up. When I purchase a game, I only hope that it has that compatibliity. Now of course we see it fairly common-like, but before, nope. What I'm saying is, I don't expect graphics to keep up with displays, but I do expect displays to overcome graphics.

There are issues with bandwidth. Understood. Hmmm. area of focus... Bandwidth. USB 3.0 Sata 3.0...oh yea, their coming. When is the last time you were excited about a monitor?
 
I generally feel that since ~2005 all the energy have been but in HDTVs. And yes the resolution options on LCDs are pathetic (but thats always been the case, of desktop LCDs at least - there was a time when you could choose between three resolutions when you bought your laptop).

I don't see your logic when saying that your 4+ year old laptop LCD owns modern ones. First off, laptop displays suck - due to the constraints of being in a laptop. The goal of a laptop display is not to make it *good* but to make it suitable in a laptop (functional, small, efficient). So when you say that there haven't been improvements it depends on how you look at it.
But you seem to compare your laptop display with desktop ones which itself is futile (IMO).

LED technology alone makes for smaller, more efficient, cheaper (with production up and running), and more accurate (easier to achieve - I believe (in a laptop environment)) - so theres a ton of factors that make your laptop LCD obsolete to new ones.

A high resolution doesn't make the monitor good. It isn't that strange that laptops often have higher resolutions either.

Input lag really isn't something new. At least ever since overdrive has been used (I don't know if overdrive necessarily imply input lag but it sure is a common side-effect) there have been input lag issues. With the benefits of faster displays and/or cheaper displays. In the golden days I guess you just lived with it, while today you whine :)

But I'm not satisfied with the evolution either. I'm looking for a laptop for my father and it's not easy to find one without a glossy display. And wide-gamut for desktop LCDs is just a plague.
16:9 also is a step down but thankfully that haven't made it to >TN displays yet anyway.

I'd say that the main problem today is that the market drives for cheaper and cheaper displays with no regard what so ever on quality. Oh that and uninformed customers, which in part is due to uninformed reviewers - it truly is a mess out there :(
 
I agree with you brumwald. I'm not saying that my laptop is technically better, it's like saying, should my pentium 4 at 3.2 Ghz is better than my I7 at 2.66. Although this isn't a perfect comparison, the point is, why do I have to sacrifice anything?
I'm not saying the newest line sucks, I'm just asking, when was the last time monitors "Wowed" you? When was the last time you saved up for a monitor not because of size, but quality. If your cpu could multitask, but run all your games slower than a dual-core ;) would you really upgrade?
 
Last edited:
for work i'm in the process of replacing my old Dell D810 (15,4" 1920x1200 IPS) with a HP 6930p (14,1" 1440x900 TN) and oh boy what a difference........

I knew my display on the Dell was good, but that TN crap on the HP is ooooh so bad...

luckely I was able to justify the request of HP 24" 2445 Desktop display together with the laptop...

That is also a sucky TN, but at least I don't have to go back to the stone age with my resolution

quite funny on the HP 24" is that an even red background is red / orange / pink or even a combination of those 3 depending on the angle you look at it...

I'm going to miss my Dells display :(
no angle differences AT ALL, decent colors, no blinding brightness, etc
 
To me it seems there are several problems killing display quality.
For one the users forgot how a quality display is supposed to look since CRTs died out in the mainstream.
Back in the beginning of the LCD takeover there was still cheap competition that looked better than the TN next to it on the shelves.

Then the average programs never got resolution (and gamut..) independent. So building a higher res display will be a to high risk for its manufacturer cause it'd be uncertain if anyone will want to use it. (remembers me of this post http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/09/13/follow-up-on-high-dpi-resolution.aspx)

And we all know the LCD technology will eventually be replaced by OLEDs, SEDs or equivalent technology.. so there's no valid reason for the manufacturers to invest a lot of money in polishing a well selling turd that will be phased out in 10 years anyway.
 
Are you kidding me? Laptop displays 4 years ago blew. They had bad input lag and poor viewing angles. If you have a CRT monitor, hook it up via VGA, run dual display and do an input lag test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top