Toshiba’s new 13-inch ultrabook sports 2560×1440 display

Toshiba is working on a high-PPI competitor to the 13" Retina-equipped MacBook Pro, and the firm appears to have let the cat out of the bag a little early. A press release went out this morning announcing the KIRAbook, a 13" machine with an impressive 2560×1440 display resolution. However, that press release seems to have been removed from Toshiba’s site along with the product page for the new notebook. The only official confirmation that remains is a user guide (PDF) with precious few details on the machine. Fortunately, Bing has cached the original release, which was apparently supposed to go out tomorrow, April 18.

The KIRAbook’s PixelPure display packs 221 pixels per inch, according to the release, putting it only slightly behind the pixel density of the MacBook Pro’s display. The 13" Apple system has a 2560×1600 resolution; both displays have the same number of horizontal pixels, but the Retina boasts more vertical pixels thanks to its taller 16:10 aspect ratio.

While the MacBook lacks a touchscreen, Toshiba says the KIRAbook will be available with or without capacitive sensors built into the display. The option to configure the system without a touchscreen is certainly welcome, and I imagine a lot of folks will take advantage of it. Touchscreens make perfect sense for convertible devices, but we’re talking about an ultrabook here.

Yes, the KIRAbook is thin enough to gain entry into Intel’s exclusive club. The system measures just 0.7" thick and weighs a scant 2.6 lbs. The AZ91 magnesium alloy used to construct the chassis probably deserves some of the credit for the system’s light weight. Toshbia says this material is 100% stronger than aluminum, and the company used honeycomb structures to improve rigidity in key areas. The metal chassis is probably a looker, too. I can’t find any pictures online, but here’s what the press release has to say:

Products that will carry the KIRA name will be more than a collection of the latest hardware technologies, but a statement of craftsmanship, fit and finish, and features built for the consumer’s benefit, not technology’s sake.

Translation: the KIRAbook won’t be cheap. Prices will range from $1600-2000 when systems go up for pre-order on May 3. You’ll have a choice of configurations with Ivy-based Core i5 and i7 processors, and it looks like SSDs and DDR3-1600 RAM will be part of the package. There’s no word on discrete graphics options, though. You’ll probably be stuck with Ivy Bridge integrated graphics, which will no doubt struggle with games at the native resolution. That said, I’m happy to see another notebook maker venturing into ultra-high-resolution display territory, even if it’s with a premium machine that lacks a discrete GPU.

Comments closed
    • Forge
    • 9 years ago

    Be careful when you throw around terms. “Retina Display” is a trademark, and it’s also relative to distance from the eye, as defined. While a 4″ phone needs to have 300-400dpi to be Retina, a 10″ tablet held at a greater distance can apparently hit “Retina” with ~250ppi, and a desktop monitor type display can probably hit Apple’s definition with ~175-200ppi. Don’t go thinking that a 400dpi 4″ 1080p panel means you can have the same tech at 30″ diagonal at a sane price point. Display tech doesn’t scale that way.

    Actually, these 27″ 2560*1440 panels that are all the rage are probably very close to a hypothetical Retina desktop.

    • continuum
    • 9 years ago

    It’s not– some available modern panels are better in gamut, response time, input lag, etc…

    But yeah, the 2405FPW is quite decent still– I run one at work next to an HP ZR24w, and yeah, while I can tell the HP is better when I’m doing color critical work or watching videos, the other 98% of the time the difference doesn’t bother me…

    • DrCR
    • 9 years ago

    Penguin: No problems with eggs.

    • Deanjo
    • 9 years ago

    Guess again, even an 8350 bottlenecks the Titan (especially on compute uses primarily because of the PCI-e V2). Then there is of course the drastic random drops in frame rate with AMD CPUs. Be realistic, you are not going to buy a $1000 graphics beast, just to hamper it with a mediocre $150 processor, budget board and a $50 bargin bin 700 watt (I.L.S. rating), a no name case, 4 GB of DDR3 10600 ram, etc.

    • PenGun
    • 9 years ago

    Indeed! 16 lanes of PCIe2 and a reasonable quad core will do just fine.

    • Zenphic
    • 9 years ago

    I could really use a sub 24″ display with a resolution higher than 1080p.

    • PenGun
    • 9 years ago

    Elucidate. Where do you see the bottleneck?

    • Deanjo
    • 9 years ago

    Lol, not one that isn’t going to bottleneck.

    • PenGun
    • 9 years ago

    Sweetie with all kinds of bundle deals for Mother/Processor in the $300 and change range it would be no big trick to build what I have described even with all the crap we need for an exact comparison for very close to that price.

    • Deanjo
    • 9 years ago

    Oh ya well I can build a Dual Xeon with 32 GB of ram, 24 TB of drive space with bluetooth for only $6 once I get my bluetooth dongle off ebay. ;D

    • Beelzebubba9
    • 9 years ago

    The 15″ rMBP uses a Geforce GT 650M GPU which certainly has more than enough power to handle those displays. I have a 13″ rMBP currently running the internal display and a Dell 2007FP over HDMI and [i<]most[/i<] GUI interactions are fine, but man, it does not like Mission Control. But yeah, I've never had issue with video, animated GIFs, etc. I do think Haswell with the GT3e is sort of a pre-requisite for a laptop like this though.

    • ludi
    • 9 years ago

    “I can build an SSD-based laptop for $200 if I already have the laptop.”

    • PenGun
    • 9 years ago

    Well it says $1600 – $1900 and I of course have all the rest already. I did as well say ‘close to that’ so I’m not sure why the disapproval but I am used to it.

    Some one is invested in lappys perhaps.

    • Beelzebubba9
    • 9 years ago

    It’s funny how this has become the depressing refrain of the computer enthusiast. I stacked coupons and bought a Dell 2405FPW in 2006 (1920×1200 was insane back then) for $700 assuming the screen would last me two to three years tops. In 2013 there’s no real replacement in sight unless it happens to die on me and I’m forced to buy another, almost certainly very similar, panel for $400+.

    I cannot be the only one here who would drop real cash if someone made a PC display that was a worthwhile upgrade over my 7 year old Dell LCD, can I?

    • Airmantharp
    • 9 years ago

    I think it’s fine as long as you keep the effective DPI up, since video cards have pretty good scalers.

    • Deanjo
    • 9 years ago

    Pengun has moar purchasing power then newegg and amazon combined. He can get hardware 83% off retail.

    • paulWTAMU
    • 9 years ago

    why the frigging hell is something EOL’d in 2005 objectively better than most of what I can buy today?

    • paulWTAMU
    • 9 years ago

    please god this.

    • Kurotetsu
    • 9 years ago

    [quote=”MadManOriginal”<]1) 'quality' - get a good true IPS (not e-IPS) monitor.[/quote<] I'd like to point out that just getting an IPS monitor is no guarantee of quality. IPS monitors, even moreso than TN it seems, appears to suffer ALOT from things like backlight bleeding, uneven color distribution (e.g. yellow tinting), IPS glow, dead pixels, slow response time, etc. At this point I'm not even sure if many of those of those issues are the fault of the monitor manufacturer or are inherent in the IPS standard itself, since so many monitors from different companies seem to suffer from them.

    • tipoo
    • 9 years ago

    A 1000 dollar video card with a 600 dollar system including monitor and peripherals?

    • tipoo
    • 9 years ago

    As mentioned above, there are a whole host of shenanigans that go on with Windows DPI scaling, which is why I leave mine at 100% despite being pretty small at 1080p on 15″. The Retina macbooks aren’t perfect, but they do break less shit with 1:4 scaling. I did mention it being the fault of bad applications, I’m not sure why the “amazingly ignorant” comment was necessary. And in Control Panel\Appearance and Personalization\Display I do only see up to 150%, not 200. If there’s a way to get 200, it’s not immediately accessible to users.

    • Deanjo
    • 9 years ago

    So you are going to build a complete system with a titan and hidpi monitor for “close to that”? The display and titan is going to take $1500 alone.

    • Chrispy_
    • 9 years ago

    It may be considered heresy by some, but I personally wish more laptops and monitors would just embrace high-DPI because higher-DPI means you can run them at a non-native resolution without them looking awful.

    Sure, people have horrible memories of running 1024×768 on their first 1280×1024 LCD and never doing it again, but with high-enough DPI, and modern GPUs handling the scaling with an added dose of antialiasing – it doesn’t look bad.

    As an example, I have a 13.3″ 1080p screen here. The pixels are small enough that text is still sharp when I run it at 1600×900 or 1366×768. I know it’s not pin sharp like it is at 1080p but with so many more pixels to work with it certainly looks okay, and I’d argue that it looks much better than the equivalent-sized 1366×768 panel would – no screen-door, and no jaggies visible….

    Once Microsoft fixes the lousy GUI scaling, things will improve but running at non-native resolution is a far more compatible way of dealing with Windows DPI issues than using the Windows DPI options.

    • Spunjji
    • 9 years ago

    You need to learn to read like a human being instead of a text-parsing robot. -1 for pernicious pedantry.

    • Spunjji
    • 9 years ago

    I remember reading about that IBM display aged 15 and thinking “Finally! In a few years time I will be able to get my own proper high-res display!”

    Poor, naive little me.

    • Spunjji
    • 9 years ago

    “Moving images and media didn’t create any lag”

    I’ll believe that when I see it. The standard OS X interface is slow enough on Intel integrated using only one high-res display… Roll on Haswell, etc.

    • Spunjji
    • 9 years ago

    I would have thought for manufacturers it would be less about resolution and more about pixel size. 1920×1080 at 21.5″, 23″, 24″ and 27″ are all going to require different tooling. I know it’s not as simple as “make a bigger wafer” but still… not sure the same resolution has any huge benefit besides marketing.

    • Spunjji
    • 9 years ago

    I’m afraid you’re completely full of it. Windows and applications running on it pull all sorts of wonderful shenanigans when you use DPI scaling. My personal favourite is that if you try to play a full-screen Flash video at 150% DPI scaling the task bar refuses to hide.

    The point here is that you can whine about it not being Microsoft’s fault until the cows come home but the consumer still has to deal with the resulting problems. The source of the blame is no consolation to an inexperienced user.

    • Spunjji
    • 9 years ago

    You’ll find that most displays still do some sort of filtering anyway, often bilinear which means lots of lovely blurring. Still doesn’t look worse than a lower-grade 720p panel, though.

    • Spunjji
    • 9 years ago

    It’s a legitimate complaint, though. Windows 8 was supposed to help fix this and it didn’t; in fact it made it slightly worse.

    Bear in mind, I love high DPI displays. I want more of them. I just want the appropriate software support too…

    • Klimax
    • 9 years ago

    Wrong. Windows can scale and do. What doesn’t scale are third-party programs which were coded by idiots or lazy people and have hardcoded DPI. (Also websites making quite few assumptions)

    That’s why there are two modes of scaling. Original simply reports real DPI and other metrics, which are programs supposed to use for calculations. Vista and higher mode no longer trusts programs (unless explicitly stated by them) and does scaling on system side. Problem is, that there are many ways to paint content of Window and to write text in there, so it is not possible in general case to fix things. (And not to blur anything – see FXAA antialiasing forced through drivers; same thing)

    So your entire post is very incorrect. (But apparently voters don’t know and are upvoting wrong.

    • PenGun
    • 9 years ago

    Hmmm, I see prices like this and I can’t help thinking I can build a Titan powered beasty for close to that.

    • stdRaichu
    • 9 years ago

    If you use half the resolution (i.e. 1280×720), the output won’t need to be scaled at all; it’ll just use four pixels on the screen instead of one.

    • grantmeaname
    • 9 years ago

    Funny. I wouldn’t hold your breath.

    • Deanjo
    • 9 years ago

    It isn’t the same difference, especially when you are talking about a monitor with a poor scaler. GPU scaling can make a night and day difference and a native lower res solution isn’t going to look any better.

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 9 years ago

    cool, so what about a discrete GPU???

    • Byte Storm
    • 9 years ago

    Your wallet’s going to spawn a fist, and punch you in the face.

    • lethal
    • 9 years ago

    Thats pretty expensive for a [i<]Toshbia[/i<] laptop 😉 .

    • Grigory
    • 9 years ago

    So many pixels! What if it breaks?

    • Airmantharp
    • 9 years ago

    Exactly what went through my mind when I read the headline.

    The technology is great and I love that Toshiba is pushing it out, but man, I don’t want to use one of those without good scaling.

    • mikehodges2
    • 9 years ago

    Hardly whining, 150% is slightly too small – it starts to strain the eyes after 10 mins or so. 200% works, but there are a lot of areas/dialogue boxes that dont display properly. Also, many applications default window size is too small, and don’t remember when they’ve been resized. (CPUID is particularly annoying, window too small and columns too narrow [i<]every[/i<] time! And for what it's worth, OSX is nigh on perfect now. The only problem was blurry text in a few apps that weren't prepared for it, but afaik they're all done now.

    • mikehodges2
    • 9 years ago

    [url<]http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/20/retina-macbook-pro-can-run-three-external-displays-simultaneously/[/url<] "This setup powers four screens with a total of 15,680,000 pixels. "

    • mikehodges2
    • 9 years ago

    I haven’t seen any blurriness while gaming at a range of resolutions….I use 1280 x 960 for css, 1650 x something for just cause, 1366×720 or something for gta IV…for whatever reason, it all looks fine.

    edit – 15″ rmbp

    • Wirko
    • 9 years ago

    [b<]Chicken soup, and an omelette:[/b<] Ordinary Joe walks into a store, sees a 150dpi desktop screen, asks "Is is multitouch?", then walks out.

    • Firestarter
    • 9 years ago

    Same difference. Although I think that with such a high DPI panel, using a lower resolution will work pretty well for games.

    • Deanjo
    • 9 years ago

    Use GPU scaling then.

    • Chrispy_
    • 9 years ago

    [b<]Chicken:[/b<] Windows DPI scaling. [b<]Egg:[/b<] High DPI screens.

    • ish718
    • 9 years ago

    Some monitors don’t look too good unless you use there native resolution…

    • Beelzebubba9
    • 9 years ago

    I think you forget that ~~*!GAMERS!*~~ need all of the power all of the time for the win, even in an ultrabook designed around form factor.

    If it can’t play Crysis 3 at 120FPS (for the 3D effects), it’s a useless product and I make sure to post that in every thread.

    • Chandalen
    • 9 years ago

    I’d buy three of those. I currently have a missmash of screen sizes/resolutions/etc (20″ 16:10 dell, 23″ 1080p samsung, 19″ 900p LG) and would love to get a matching set, but I’ll wait for something like this to come along first. I just hope my dell 2004FP doesn’t go tits up on me first, and I’ve already repaired the crappy caps in the LG I’ve got on the other side once.

    I have a korean 27″ IPS and I love it. But I don’t use it for actual computer work. It’s to big physically for the distance I sit from the screens, so I have it facing my couch and use it as a screen for watching shows on the computer.

    • Beelzebubba9
    • 9 years ago

    The panels Apple uses in their rMBPs aren’t actually that expensive – I believe the BOM for the LCD alone was around $130 for the 13″ and $180 for the 15″. If those figures are accurate, then that only makes the companies not offering that option even more braindead and useless.

    • Beelzebubba9
    • 9 years ago

    The 13″ rMBP can drive three displays at once; it’s internal monitor and up to two external displays at 2560×1600. The 15″ can actually do that as well, only at a reasonable frame rate.

    I have a 13″ rMBP like hell I’d trade this display for a 1080p one. 🙂

    • Laykun
    • 9 years ago

    Now you might find this outrageous .. but … you can turn the resolution down in games. :O. In fact I imagine games would look fine at half resolution as it’s still high res enough for a 13″ and you have pixel doubling which isn’t as bad as the fuzziness you get when you use an intermediary resolution.

    • dwc13
    • 9 years ago

    (Almost) anything that helps hasten the demise of 1366×768 14″ and higher displays on notebook computers is a step in the right direction.

    • cynan
    • 9 years ago

    The larger the size of the display, the cost of the materials (substrate) goes up exponentially. Eg, chucking out 2 10″ panels wastes less materials than a single 20″ screen… While it may or may not be “easier” to do at lower densities depending on manufacturing process, the waste is much larger with production failures on larger screens. Higher density means more chance of failure, and larger size panel means having to waste more materials per failure.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 9 years ago

    I don’t assume. People need to learn how to write what they mean.

    • deathBOB
    • 9 years ago

    [url<]http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/17/4235660/toshibas-high-res-kirabook-takes-on-the-macbook-air-and-pro-all-at[/url<] $1,599-1,999. Looks like it has some software to help deal with the resolution.

    • superjawes
    • 9 years ago

    Indeed, he did not mention DPI in the original post, but in response to your first:

    [quote<]Just post me a link to a high DPI 24" monitor and I'll go order one.[/quote<] With that, I don't think it unreasonable to assume that he meant a relationship between "quality" and DPI.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 9 years ago

    See, I’m just replying to the words that were written. He actually didn’t say anything about DPI, just ‘quality and resolution,’ both of which can be found. Not my fault if people can’t write what they mean. Do you have to spend money to do it? Yeah, that’s why I said ‘spend more than $150’ aka don’t cheap out. (I did take some liberty with the 24″ thing, but really, the difference in physical size between a 24″ 1080p or 1920×1200 monitor and a 27″ 2560×1440 monitor is small.)

    • superjawes
    • 9 years ago

    Lowest 1440p listing on Newegg is over $600 and 27″. Lowst 1600p listing is 30″ and over $1,000.

    24″ screens cap out at 1080p, or if you’re lucky with a 16:10 aspect ratio, 1200p. Considering 1080p is becoming very common on much smaller screens, the DPI going to a 24″ screen is WAY lower.

    • w_km
    • 9 years ago

    I totally agree, and credit to Apple for improving there anti-glare coatings. Their new coatings are remarkable compared to the glassy panels of 2+ years ago. BUT, 1080p is perfect on a 13-14″ laptop imo…much better battery life, similar if not better user experience, ability to connect to an external and drive both screens simultaneously (no laptops can drive a 2560×1440 internal display + 1440p external monitor, but they could run 1080p w/ the HD4000/4500 iGPU and 1440p w/ a dedicated GPU). I just can’t wait until 4K monitors hit the market…retina desktop monitors change everything.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 9 years ago

    [quote<]A 24" monitor that could at least compare to the quality and resolution of other displays that are a fraction of its size.[/quote<] 1) 'quality' - get a good true IPS (not e-IPS) monitor. 2) 'resolution' - [i<]plenty[/i<] of 1080p, 1440p 16:9 monitors, or 2560x1600 16:10 to choose from that also meet point 1). Those two points meet the requirements you wrote in the post to which I previously replied.

    • Parallax
    • 9 years ago

    Yes!

    • windwalker
    • 9 years ago

    Sure, how much are you willing to pay?
    $1500 a piece for at least a 10000 unit order should be feasible.
    Are you still interested?

    • Shambles
    • 9 years ago

    Sounds good. Just post me a link to a high DPI 24″ monitor and I’ll go order one.

    Oh wait…

    • MadManOriginal
    • 9 years ago

    Try spending more than $150 on a monitor and you can get good quality.

    • Arclight
    • 9 years ago

    [url=http://i.imgur.com/zO4aNj6.gif<]What?[/url<]

    • JustAnEngineer
    • 9 years ago

    Medical imaging monitors are expensive.

    • Shambles
    • 9 years ago

    It’s the same pixel count regardless of the size of the display. If anything it gets easier to do high resolution on larger displays because your pixel size can be so much larger. Either way we have laptops with 2560×1700 displays and 4K TVs showing up anywhere from 84″ to 110″. So what’s stopping someone from making a decent resolution screen in between those two sizes?

    • cynan
    • 9 years ago

    Would be nice.

    Maybe an oversimplification, but I think it mainly boils down to the fact that larger high density displays cost the manufacturers that much more to produce, above and beyond whatever start-up costs required. If there are errors on a small high density display, like you find on a tablet or phone, then you only loose a small portion of the LCD wafer. As the physical size ramps up, you loose more and more of your production run the more individual portions are rejected. And the likelihood of errors increases proportionally with resolution density. OEMs have traditionally erred on the side of lower cost in the PC market, because, at least traditionally, most people don’t know enough to know what their missing with a lower resolution screen.

    • danny e.
    • 9 years ago

    16:9 is only ok on tvs

    • hasseb64
    • 9 years ago

    Meh, too high res for windows & need to much GPU power to game on it.

    • jon_lui
    • 9 years ago

    This is why I hope 4k becomes popular so all our monitors will use the lowest common denominator of 2160P

    • anotherengineer
    • 9 years ago

    Something just as interesting, why is a 30″ monitor @ 2560×1600, about the same cost as a 13″ macbook with the same resolution retina display, and a working computer also?!?!

    [url<]http://store.apple.com/ca/browse/home/shop_mac/family/macbook_pro[/url<] hmmmm $300 premium over regular macbook, so basically they should be able to make a 24" monitor with 2560x1600 resolution for about $600 bucks then. Interesting indeed.

    • moose17145
    • 9 years ago

    I totally agree!

    They need to stop focusing on ONLY laptops and give the desktops some love too! And a desktop will actually have the processing power to actually use all those pixels too!!! I’m not even asking for retina display density either! I just would like to see a quality 24″ IPS monitor with a 2560 x 1600 native res!

    • DarkUltra
    • 9 years ago

    Back to topic, I’d rather have a 16:10 monitor on a laptop or tablet even if it was very high resolution. 16:9 is only ok on a 27″ 2560×1440 monitor, anything less coukd really use the extra vertical space.

    • DarkUltra
    • 9 years ago

    You can use non-XP Vista syle scaling (or what it is called) then Windows interpolate applications that does not scale well or at all, like Steam. In this mode, the higger the PPI of the monitor the better.

    Text looks so much better on a high ppi monitor with scaling, but it made the UI less responsive for me but this was on a Core 2 quad @ 3.2ghz. The ui of Windows 7 is slow even in regular mode though:
    [url<]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToFgYylqP_U[/url<] I find scrolling in IE10 almost butter smooth while noticably jerky in file explorer, but IE10 is hardware accelerated and I have a 120hz monitor.

    • DPete27
    • 9 years ago

    I wish I could thumbs-up this more than once. A bump to the top will have to suffice.

    • mikehodges2
    • 9 years ago

    I think it’s brilliant that others are starting to get on the high-DPI bandwagon. I have a 15″ rmpb, and the screen is outstanding.

    You make a good point though, that Windows doesn’t scale well. Adjusting the scaling to 200% makes it mostly useable, but some applications don’t scale well, so text is too big for the area it’s given. Some (Steam, I’m looking at you) don’t scale at all, so the entire UI is remains tiny.

    It’s definitely the way the industry should head, but it will require a big change on Microsoft’s part to get things working properly.

    • Aistic
    • 9 years ago

    Ah well. No need for despair then.

    • bhtooefr
    • 9 years ago

    You didn’t look quite hard enough.

    For current production, you can get a 21″ 2560×2048 medical display, also in greyscale, for about $15k.

    For discontinued stuff, you can get the IBM T221, a 22.2″ 3840×2400 IPS color display, albeit with an amazing 61 ms response time, for about $500-1000 on eBay. Introduced in 2001, discontinued in 2005.

    • internetsandman
    • 9 years ago

    I’m sure the solution to the shrinking PC sales figure is to release boutique products with relatively niche markets to compete with the other boutique manufacturer who’s success is less about the boxes you’re checking off and more about the appeal to the everyday layman

    • Vulk
    • 9 years ago

    Preface: I am not an Apple Fanboy. But this seems like a crappy effort to come out with a me too product to compete with Apple. It’s focusing on a check box feature instead of user experience. That screen at that resolution, with current windows is going to be unusable. They are making their product tangibly worse by including it. And that’s sort of the problem with the entire laptop space right there.

    Maybe Windows Blue will fix the scaling issue. If not, this is a crap product and you’d be better off avoiding it like the plague or working on a X11 mod to help Linux work on it properly while hooked up to an external monitor.

    It’s decisions like these that make the 14% drop in PC sales kind of understandable even if it’s really really unfortunate.

    • superjawes
    • 9 years ago

    The problem is that what makes for good monitors isn’t necessarily cheap to produce for a comparable volume. It makes a lot more sense as a manufacturer to make a single resolution, even if PC users get the short end of the stick 🙁

    • Goty
    • 9 years ago

    [quote<]Are there many ultrabooks with SSDs and ram soldered to the motherboard?[/quote<] Yes, especially the ones trying to squeeze into smaller and smaller form factors. There are some notable exceptions (Samsun Series 9, Asus' Zenbook line), but a large number (most of Acer's utrabooks, Dell's XPS 13, all of VIzio's new ultrabooks, others that I can't remember at the moment) have RAM soldered to the motherboard and don't offer easy access to the internals.

    • Deanjo
    • 9 years ago

    I hope we see more and more HiDPI, it would force the rest of the industry to finally realize that TV panels don’t make for good monitors, OS’s would have to finally fix their scaling issues and bring down hires displays to a reasonable price. I’m quite tired of seeing these integrated graphics solutions spewing “huge performance” based on a miniscule 1366×768 resolution.

    • Aistic
    • 9 years ago

    I was just searching for a sub-27 inch display with a resolution higher than 1920×1200. And I found [i<]one[/i<]! A 35000$ 21 inch 2048 x 1536 medical display. In grayscale.

    • tipoo
    • 9 years ago

    Yeah, my parents and professors all find it small but I like it, I wouldn’t go a bit smaller though, this is pretty much the threshold.

    • superjawes
    • 9 years ago

    This, this, and let’s see…this.

    • Firestarter
    • 9 years ago

    have you TRIED using 1920×1080 on a 13″ screen? Without any scaling, everything in Windows is frikking tiny at that resolution. This screen will be unusable at default settings

    • 5150
    • 9 years ago

    The only good part about it is that maybe it will kick Microsoft in the ass and get scaling working better.

    • 5150
    • 9 years ago

    I have a 1080 on my 15″ W530 and it’s perfect.

    • tipoo
    • 9 years ago

    It’s a valid complaint, if they didn’t make their own scaling mode independant from Windows. There’s a balance to be struck between the 1280×768 screens of yesteryear and the super high DPI displays Windows just won’t do well in. I love my 1920×1080 15″ laptop screen for instance.

    • tipoo
    • 9 years ago

    So the make or break question here is did they make their own scaling method independent from Windows? Because even in 8, in desktop mode there’s no good high DPI scaling. You can set it to 150% scaling but that breaks some (admittedly poorly coded or old) applications, and even 150 wouldn’t be enough for something this high.

    • cynan
    • 9 years ago

    I agree.

    This is another me-too product mimicking Apple’s retina display gimmick. The added benefit of resolutions higher than 1080p on a 13.3″ display (on a laptop) is minimal if even noticeable, irrespective of how well designed the OS is to make use of it. If it was a free upgrade, then fine, but I’d rather the extra $100+ cost for such a display over 1080p go toward a larger SSD and/or better build quality, etc. Or just have the thing cost a couple hundred less and give me slightly better battery life.

    • Shambles
    • 9 years ago

    You know what would be a lot more interesting than a 1080P phone or 1440P laptop? A 24″ monitor that could at least compare to the quality and resolution of other displays that are a fraction of its size.

    • chuckula
    • 9 years ago

    Oh good.. I was waiting for the first post to complain about the screen resolution being too high. I think the only way to prevent people from complaining about the screen is to omit it entirely!

    • cynan
    • 9 years ago

    Why wouldn’t you? Are there many ultrabooks with SSDs and ram soldered to the motherboard? Even mSATA drives are available approaching 500GB sizes. The only limitation on the ram would be if it has one or two dimm slots (and whether there is a minimum amount of ram soldered to the motherboard).

    • 5150
    • 9 years ago

    Yep, 1600×900 would be a huge improvement if it was IPS or at least a high quality TN.

    • 5150
    • 9 years ago

    What good is a screen resolution like this on a small screen when Windows can’t scale with it decently?

    • MadManOriginal
    • 9 years ago

    Hell, I’d be fine if 13″ and up notebooks just came with displays of higher res than 1366×768 along with a quality panel type instead of the bad-even-for-TN screens. The lack of good screen options in laptops is appalling.

    • Goty
    • 9 years ago

    Sounds great, but unless I can upgrade the SSD and memory myself, I still won’t be interested.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share this post with your friends!