Is 1366x768 really still a common resolution on laptops?

[retta283]

I was doing a bit of window-shopping for a Windows laptop recently, and I noticed that many of them still use 1366x768 resolution. From 12" to 15.6", all the way up to $600+ laptops, a lot of them had 1366x768 screens. I was a bit surprised to see the low-ends still using them at all, but understood as these are really budget laptops. But when I see a 15.6" $700 machine with this resolution, it's really not good. For those that have seen more of what's available than I have, is this really a common feature of laptops below $1000?

1366x768 is a terrible resolution, IMO. Anything bigger than a 12" screen looks terrible with it. Too short for the web, not wide enough to display two documents at once. 768 is ancient in terms of resolution. Apple hasn't used it natively on anything larger than 11.6" since 2006. I don't like 16:9 either, 16:10 works much much better.

 

[maflynn]

This thread What's with the 1366x768 resolution for laptops/notebooks? [closed] and this thread
Why does 1366x768 resolution exist? [duplicate] explains it fairly well.

Its a common standard resolution that many manufacturers seem to like ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[2984839]

I hate it too, but cheap LCD panels abound in that resolution and that might be why everyone uses it.

 

[retta283]

I think that the reason it's so common is because laptops in the last 10 or so years have adopted a race to the bottom, so their components are as cheap as possible. 16:9 panels are cheaper than 16:10 or 3:2, and 1366x768 is especially cheap.

Sadly this has led to some of the midrange market adopting it as well.

 

[SKYNET-1]

dont know where u was looking, but with a 4c/8t CPU n FHD 1920x1080 screen starts at around $450

 

[salamanderjuice]

Yep. FHD is getting more and more common on the low end and can easily be had in a laptop for $400. You can still get 1366x768 although I'm not sure why you'd pick one. Newegg only has 58 new laptops with 1366x768 screens sold directly by them, the most expensive is somehow $820 while the cheapest is an out of stock $280 chromebook. For 1080p they have 175 models ranging from $2800 to $250. 1366x768 is becoming less and less a thing and is being pushed further down low end.

 

[ian87w]

I think that the reason it's so common is because laptops in the last 10 or so years have adopted a race to the bottom, so their components are as cheap as possible. 16:9 panels are cheaper than 16:10 or 3:2, and 1366x768 is especially cheap.

Sadly this has led to some of the midrange market adopting it as well.

It is an unfortunate truth. And yes, even there are still new 15" laptops with 768p screen that are in the range of ~$600.

 

[Falhófnir]

I think it was something to do with Windows scaling/ dpi before they added in the option to scale the UI so that 1080p at 15.6" wasn't miniscule. It's just remained as a cheap option at the low end and not been pushed out of supply chains quite yet.

 

[hftvhftv]

Simply because it is cheap and easy for older people to view text on an inexpensive 15" laptop is the reason why it still exists. It is still common on laptops below $1000, but quickly becoming less and less common thankfully.

 

[Donfor39]

I use FHD with dual Laptop/Acer Monitor screen.
Not my choice thankfully, only employers kit which does allow me to work from home.

 

[mac_evangelist]

It's on a lot of low end configurations of Windows laptops sadly, even in 2020.

 

[AshleyPomeroy]

I can remember when Ultrabooks were a thing. They were an industry-wide attempt to sell PC laptops at the same price as the MacBook Air, but with no extra functionality to justify the price. They might have made sense if the specification was good but in practice they were mostly just budget PC laptops in a silver-painted plastic case that resembled the Air, but covered in stickers.

One of the chief complaints at the time was that they tended to have 1366x768 screens. In fact Wikipedia's stock image of an ultrabook is a 2011 Asus Aspire S3, which looks like a cheap imitation of an Air and has a 1366x768 screen. Looking at Asus' website it seems the only 1366x768 model they sell now is a "cloudbook", which is essentially a budget Windows 10 netbook.

It's sad, because early-2000s ThinkPads often had high-resolution displays. The -p models were usually 1400x1050 or 1600x1200. The R50p was, bizarrely, 2048x1536, and that was 2004. ThinkPads were upmarket at the time but it's a shame the higher resolutions never caught on.

 

[salamanderjuice]

I can remember when Ultrabooks were a thing. They were an industry-wide attempt to sell PC laptops at the same price as the MacBook Air, but with no extra functionality to justify the price. They might have made sense if the specification was good but in practice they were mostly just budget PC laptops in a silver-painted plastic case that resembled the Air, but covered in stickers.

One of the chief complaints at the time was that they tended to have 1366x768 screens. In fact Wikipedia's stock image of an ultrabook is a 2011 Asus Aspire S3, which looks like a cheap imitation of an Air and has a 1366x768 screen. Looking at Asus' website it seems the only 1366x768 model they sell now is a "cloudbook", which is essentially a budget Windows 10 netbook.

It's sad, because early-2000s ThinkPads often had high-resolution displays. The -p models were usually 1400x1050 or 1600x1200. The R50p was, bizarrely, 2048x1536, and that was 2004. ThinkPads were upmarket at the time but it's a shame the higher resolutions never caught on.

Acer makes the Aspire line, not Asus.

You could buy high resolution (well for the time) Windows laptops during begining of the ultrabook craze. Asus for example had the UX31 with 1600x900 screens for the same price as the 13" MBA and it's 1440x900. The Acer Aspire S3 was several hundred cheaper. I bought a ThinkPad T430 around that time with a 1600x900 screen, the T530 had an option for 1080p.