Intel boosts screen resolution but not size
ACCORDING TO SLASHGEAR, Intel is letting netbook manufacturers up the ante on their machines by raising the average screen resolution in systems using its Atom N-series chipsets.
Put like that this does not sound very exciting at all, but consider how much more you would enjoy pictures and video on a screen that is 70 per cent larger in terms of display resolution.
The netbooks in question are the Atom N-series models which previously could not sustain particularly high resolutions. SlashGear said, "According to HKEPC, Intel have [sic] increased the maximum allowed resolution from 1024 x 600 to 1366 x 768, as seen on the recently-announced Sony VAIO W," before sending us off to a site that needed a lot of translating.
It did, however, explain that Intel had apparently relaxed rules over the use of its chips as it presumably grew tired of trying to create a distinction between those set aside for netbooks and those pitched at notebooks.
The updates won't do anything for the physical size of most netbook screens which remain at just 10.2 inches.
Intel had not responded to calls for confirmation by press time. µ
Share this:
ShareBusiness Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
Well it means that the netbooks will be able to do HD Ready video. Presumbly Microsoft (or maybe Apple) will support 720p HD video playback on netbooks with this screen resolution :-)
Rob
I thought the display resolution was based on availability of existing LCD panels? The 7", 9", and 10" screens were selected because they were already being massed produced for portable DVD players.
It won't matter if the screen can handle HD because the CPU/GPU won't be able to handle it. It would be nice to see an affordable Ion platform netbook (or any competitor) without those restrictions (10.2 inch screen, dual-core), but that would require competition... Oh well...
Indeed. My eeepc1000HA running at standard speed has issues playing divx encoded video at anything over 800x600 frame size.
But larger rez would be nice for typing, surfing, running multiple SSH sessions and being able to see two windows at the same time.
What does MS or Apple have to do with HD playback? There is plenty of software and the OSes does not really have much impact on HD support. There IS a hardware limitation. The current 945 chipset doesn't do hardware decoding and the Atom is too slow for smooth HD playback. This where NVIDIA's Ion or Intel's Pineview will be needed.
"Can you read what that says, honey?"
"Oh, just lower the resolution already."
How legal is having Intel impose usage restrictions on Atoms, actially?
I don't see what all the fuss is about?
Intel want to keep netbook screens at a certain size, so what? Surely if they release a "netbook" with a 17" screen then its a notebook?
I think its a good thing that a standard is being defined, I don't necessarily agree that it should be forced on everyone, but surely having a netbook standard keeps things consistent. Who wants a netbook with a 15" screen which is likely to take quite a big hit on battery life? The idea is that they are small, consume very little power and do what you need them to do while you're out and about.
"I thought the display resolution was based on availability of existing LCD panels? The 7", 9", and 10" screens were selected because they were already being massed produced for portable DVD players."
Someone hasn't got a clue about LCD panel production, yet makes a statement showing they're greener than CND.
The poxy resolution has been the one thing that has always put me off an Atom-based netbook - it's why I've got a VIA-based mini-note. Stuff HD video playback (and 1366x768 is the spawn of satan anyway - god forbid that if you want HD video playback you should pick a panel that *matches one of the HD resolutions*; 1366x768 will *not* display 720p better than 1280x720 would) but enough space to see what you're doing when programming or surfing the web would help.
Everyone's always complained that 1024x600 (or 1024x576 if you insist on a 16:9 panel) is too small, so it's about time they fixed it. I suspect the change in restrictions has more to do with 16:9 panels becoming prevalent (and the "latest greatest Intel technology" therefore having the same vertical resolution as a PAL SD television set) than sudden leniency.
It explains the recent exemptions to the size limit - although I'd always thought that only referred to the physical dimensions, which was how the Vaio P got away with 1600x768.
As for squinting, a 10" 1266x768 panel is about 157ppi - still substantially less than an iPhone, which everyone (almost literally) seems to cope with, and much less than, for example, a Touch HD.
"Can you read what that says, honey?"
Wasn't that one of the new things in Vista that you can use much ultra high res. and still get readable text?
XP does this a little, but few (3!) settings available. Not wanting to squint while using a sharp display is soooo basic, maybe somebody will do it without Vista's interface contortions, even before hell freezes.