Wow -- IBM was doing it right back in the day!
I was taking a brief peak at an ancient IBM Thinkpad A22p before stripping it for parts (doubt i'll be able to salvage much, sadly) and disposing of it when I noticed how crisp the display was, albeit a little dim. Upon closer inspection, this thing has a 1600x1200 (UXGA) -- the same as the 21" Samsung SyncMaster 213T I'm writing this on. That gives it approximately a 133 ppi rating. Not bad. It puts the 95 ppi of my Samsung to shame.
Similarly, new (flagship) tablets and smartphones often have higher resolutions than the same group of notebooks/laptops. Sure, I've (finally) seen some 4k monitors and notebooks arriving, but they are usually targeting the professional and their cost usually puts them out of range for normal folks.
Anyway, how did we go from 1200 lines of vertical resolutions on laptops (it was targeting cad / business users) to the terrible 768? I guess we can attribute some of it to the change in prominence of the 16:9 aspect ratio, as opposed to older 4:3 or 5:4. I'm not sure why I'm surprised. It is cheaper to provide a horrible, low resolution, monitor. And people don't complain (to be fair: don't notice, sometimes) enough to make a difference.
In summary
Respect to the A22p. I'm sorry I have to put you down.
Epilogue
I'm trying ubuntu/lubuntu and puppy on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment