Netbook manufacturers, I beg of you: please focus on increasing screen resolution before adding any more features. This 1024×600 business has gone on long enough. There’s a fair amount of software that’s built to be shown in at least an 800×600 resolution and when you’re using a screen that tops out at 600 vertical pixels without accounting for the taskbar, things get dicey – not to mention trying to read web pages that look like they’ve somehow hiked their metaphorical pants up to somewhere between their non-existent navels and their imaginary nurples.
To anyone with time on their hands: try finding a currently-available netbook with a 10-inch screen or smaller that features anything other than a 1024×600 resolution. You’ll be left with the HP 2133 Mini-Note. That’s it! I’ve spent the past three days looking for something… anything… and the 2133 is the only option. Please, please, please correct me if I’m wrong.
What’s more frustrating is that HP has offered a 1280×768 resolution on the 8.9-inch 2133 since last April. There’s no reason every other company couldn’t do the same unless, somehow, HP has a fenced-in lot full of all the hi-res 8.9-inch LCD panels in the world that it guards with dogs or bees or dogs with bees in their mouths so when they bark they shoot bees at you.
Yes, it increases the price of the product, but as long as we’re adding gigantic hard drives, huge batteries, multiple operating system choices, and now, apparently, optical drives, a few models with standard-resolution screens shouldn’t be too much to ask.
Why don’t I buy a regular notebook, you ask? I arrange letters into words for a living. I could do this with a DX2/66. All I need is a cheap, light, portable computer for word processing that lets me see most or all of the three or four paragraphs I’m cobbling together. My life is almost entirely “in the cloud” so don’t need a big hard drive, a fancy OS, or lots of RAM — just a decent screen. Watching me type up a post on a netbook is like having front row seats at Scroll-Down-a-Palooza or Scroll-a-Thon-2009 or Scrollerblade Camp.
I do have a desktop that use for everyday stuff and I also have a Sony VAIO notebook that I paid a pretty penny for a year and a half ago. It still has more power than I’ll ever need but it weighs 4.5 pounds (!), it runs hot, and the fan sounds like a weed whacker.
So now I’m weighing my options between biting the bullet and picking up the 12-inch Dell, grabbing the old HP 2133, or waiting for the new high-res HP machines to hit the market in six weeks. The VAIO P is also a distant last resort (too pricey). However, it’d be nice for MSI, Asus, Acer, and the million other netbook manufacturers to offer a few high-res models too.
Motion Computing used to have a notebook (8.4 inch screen) that ran 1024×768 resolution. If this machine had not come out a few years ago it would be a netbook today. They no longer make that machine.
It does confirm your statement that better resolution is possible.
As a happy Asus Eee 901 owner, I couldn’t agree more. All of the basic netbook specs are fine, but most would benefit from a higher resolution screen. I’d be much happier with 1280×800 on my 9-inch screen than 1024×600, for instance.
HP has this right with the HP 2140, which has a 10-inch 1366×768 option.
For me, 1024×600 is the sweetspot for netbooks.
Don’t get me wrong, the screen on the 2133 is beautiful, and it’s great in short spurts. However, I used mine for more than eight hours a day. The LCD was so sharp, and everything was so tiny, that it gave me headaches to look at for extended periods of time.
From a sharpness and beauty standpoint, the 2133 is the best I’ve seen. As ugly as 1024×600 is, it’s a lot easier on my head, though.
that is the ONLY thing that has kept me from buying one. the screen resolutions are a joke. if i want to scroll around constantly to see a webpage, i can just use my iphone.
You probably should have done a bit more research before you wrote this article. In order to qualify as a netbook in Microsoft’s eyes, you need to be below a certain max resolution. My guess would be that the HP runs Vista for this very reason (and I believe the ship with 2GB RAM which is also a no-no). So in order to get XP on the machine the makers will continue to ship low res screens. Blame this one on MS, maybe things will get better with Win 7.
Ah, the research card. Thanks for playing that.
“In order to qualify as a netbook in Microsoft’s eyes, you need to be below a certain max resolution.”
If you could show me your research that says Microsoft restricts netbook screen resolution to a maximum of 1024×600, I’d love to take a look at it.
Everything I’ve read limits the actual screen size itself at 10.2 inches — nothing about resolution. And that’s been per Intel, not per Microsoft. Since June, Microsoft has allowed up to 14.1-inch netbook screens, according to this article:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9106318
Plus, Dell negotiated a 12.1-inch screen at 1280×800 resolution with an Atom CPU (it uses Z-series Atom chips instead of the N-series) and XP loaded onto its Dell Mini 12. And these hi-res HP 2140 units are expected to have XP, up to 2GB of RAM, and 1366×768 resolution, all running on an Atom CPU.
Basically, all that stuff can be negotiated and/or manufacturers can use the N-series chips if they want to build products with bigger screens or non-standard form factors (like Sony’s VAIO P, for instance).
And whatever Intel’s weird rules are for any of their netbook chips, they’re going to have to loosen up in the face of competition from Via’s Nano and NVidia’s Ion platforms, neither of which are subjected to arbitrary restrictions.
Microsoft’s netbook rules: http://www.itexaminer.com/microsoft-adds-to-atoms-restrictions.aspx
More about Intel’s Atom restrictions: http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20081230PD214.html
Info about VIA Nano vs. Intel Atom restrictions: http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/05/29/No-technology-limits-for-Via-Nano-chip-unlike-Intel-Atom_1.html
More about Atom vs. Nano vs. Ion: http://www.pcworld.com/article/156463/amd_via_battle_intels_atom.html/
Atom Z-Series vs N-Series: http://www.pcworld.com/article/156766/intels_atom_grows_up_moves_out_of_netbooks.html
The Gigabyte M912 also has a 1280 x 768 screen option. But it’s on the pricier end of the netbook spectrum and it isn’t available in the US.
This is something that has bugged me as well. There is a point at which netbook makers are going to run out of ways to impress people – you can only have so many redesigns or move the buttons/keys around so many times.
Eventually more people will search out the higher resolution displays. It may not happen until we get the dual-core Atoms or perhaps NVIDIA’s Ion chipset, but it’s going to happen.
Agreed… a few more pixels please.
These “rule” games that Intel and Microsoft are playing for netbooks (for Atom processors and XP) are very annoying for us users. This is only possible in a market where some dominate the scene.
On the screen size /resolution topic:
I would like to see dvd movies at 16:9 on a nettop (copied via external player onto the HDD).
Also I don’t want to strain my eyes on text with superfine resolutions.
Give me a 12 inch wide screen (saves power over full height) resolution matching mpeg-2 videos.
No HD quality needed, thanks.
Anyone know the cost of a 1024×600 10″ panel vs. a 1366×768 10″ panel? I’m betting that’s where the reason lies – if it costs the manufacturer more than $20 PPU for a higher-res screen, that’s why they go with 1024×600.
And if 1024×600 sells so well (aka “isn’t broken” to the bottom liners), then why would they “fix” it?
Bingo – you hit the nail on the head! Having been a notebook product manager in a past life, I can safely say the screen choice for the notebook vendor primarily come down to what spec. panels the screen manufacturers are building in volume – those will have the best pricing and availability so that they can deliver the products to the channel on time and on budget.
Having said that, I DO empathize with the original post. When I bought my current computer late last year, the major reason I went with an older ThinkPad X61 tablet rather than the current X200 tablet wasn’t cost but the fact I was able to snag an SXGA+ screen (1400 x 1050 on a 12″ 4:3 aspect ratio panel) on the X61t rather than the WXGA screen (1280 x 800 on a 12″ wide panel) of the X200 tablet. When rotated into portrait mode, 800 pixels is just too narrow, while 1050 x 1400 in portrait mode is great!
Doug, the Dell 12 doesn’t have LED backlighting, IIRC. It’s amazing that every netbook has at least one glaring error – the Windows Tax being the most egregious. Microsoft should have their nuts nailed to their foreheads because of their intimidation / bribery of netbook manufacturers to dump Linux as even an option.
Battery life, battery life, battery life!
I’d suffer through 800 x 600 for an all-day battery…there are simply too many cafes open late that don’t believe in AC outlets.
As a compromise that would still allow for reasonably-sized text viewing on a 10.2″ screen, why not use 1152×768, the same resolution used on Apple’s G4 Powerbooks?
One wonders, besides correcting the screen size, when ANY manufacturer will actually hire engineers that touch-type.
PCs have been in production for 30 years now, and 99% of them have lousy keyboards. The engineering is well-known – cherry, lexmark, ibm, all implemented good tactile-feedback designs in 1981, and ibm with their thinkpads in the early 1990’s.
Why then do so many (and all netbook makers, including lenovo) focus solely on appearance, and give us slimy, untapered, n-key-rolloverless keyboards?
Doug, I FEEL YOUR PAIN. this was extremely frustrating for me as well. Everything about these netbooks is wonderful and perfect- except the constant scrolling. Well I’m going to tell you something that completely REVOLUTIONIZED MY LIFE: open Firefox, go any web page, and then hit command key and the minus key at the same time to “zoom out”. It saved my life. Hit it a few times! Then hit ‘command’ and ‘plus’ to zoom back in, and ‘command’ and ‘0′ to reset.
I am so glad i saw this string in my Google search. In my opinion, the wide screen aspect ratio is fine for TVs but stupid for computers. I saw all the big LCD monitor screens migrating to widescreens and a couple months ago I went out and bought another 20″ 4:3 aspect ratio PC monitor even though i did not need it. I bought it to have for when my current standard ration 19″ LCD dies. Even on a large screen for a PC, virtical screen real estate is more important than horizontal real estate. Virtually all applications work better at 4:3 than 16:9 and require a lot less scrolling up and down. I dread the day my current laptop does and i have to replace it with a unit that has a wide screen on it. To me, this whole widescreen thing has been forced upon us without anyone really thinking why the standard already in place was actually the better. It’s a shame.
Hi Folks
I recently purchased an Acer Aspire D250 netbook. I’m generally happy with it’s performance but am confused about the 10″ screen aspect ratio.
Like most netbooks, it uses the 1024 x 600 res for it’s own screen which gives if I calculate correctly and aspect ratio of ~ 1.7:1. Using a ruler to measure the actual screen’ s dimensions it comes to ~ 1.78:1 i.e 16:9 for widescreen movies etc.
The result is that all digital photos etc (4:3 or 3:2) all look about 4 – 5% stretched. (my wife doesn’t like looking overweight!).
I’ve played with the graphics settings but nothing helps. All the pics look fine on my main desktop.The only thing I can do is reduce the photo widths in my photo program by ~5% and they look fine. Even circles are correct.
Is this a problem with other netbooks as I notice that BenQ, Dell and HP use a res for their 10″ screens of 1024 x 576 which gives a true 16:9 ratio?
Any thoughts, suggestions or settings I’ve missed would be really appreciated.
Thanks
Rob