The upcoming years will see us flooded with sub-par chiclets keyboards... but at least the screens might get better.

Personally, I think the idea of higher-than-resolution-of-eye density is stupid. For everyday usage, there is no increase of information density on screen and therefore no practical advantage. Maybe it helps when you're proofing material for print, but for browsing the internet, word processing, etc., the higher density is useless since people have to zoom in to read the text anyways. On the other hand, the high resolution screen promotes wastage of resources and data: for example, for an application to "look good" they have to use full-resolution images in their GUI elements, which takes up much more space and doesn't offer any real improvement. This is just another product of the prevailing consumerism trend: people ask for way too much, end up not using half the capabilities, and the other half goes to waste.

Not to mention the increased HUGE demand on GPUs and additional power demands to display this crap!
Look at all the negative comments of the new iPad, with its increased power consumption, just because of a higher resolution that nobody can even see!

I agree, it gets to a point where its stupid - my 22" wuxga screen is just the right pixel density that it looks sharp, but everything is legible at normal viewing distances, and it is still low enough resolution that a decent cheapish ($100) video card (gtx460) can drive it at native resolution for most games, and if you don't want to play games even an intel x3100 can drive it for office type work/movie watching.

Once again, the industry is wasting time and energy introducing "improvements" that few people need. I think the desktop monitors we currently have are already nearly perfect, especially 30" 2560x1600 IPS and 27" 2560x1440 IPS, so please just leave them alone. For laptops, instead of developing "retina displays", it would be much better if the industry can bring back 16:10 and 4:3. How about giving us laptops like these:

15.4" 1920x1200 with wide viewing angles, 4 lbs
14.1" 1600x1200 with wide viewing angles, 3 lbs
14.1" 1680x1050 with wide viewing angles, 3 lbs
12.1" 1400x1050 with wide viewing angles, 2 lbs

It shouldn't be too hard to make laptops with these specs. The upcoming Samsung Series 9 will be 15.6" and weigh 3.7 lbs; the Panasonic Toughbook Y Series with 14.1" 1400x1050 and internal optical drive weighs 3.4 lbs (my Y4 was actually 3.38 lbs); and the Panasonic CF-NX1 with 12.1" 1600x900 weighs 2.34 lbs.



I agree, although 9.7" @ 1024x768 was indeed too low. If I were Apple, I would have gone up to 1400x1050 instead of 2048x1536, for a reasonable balance between image/text quality and power consumption.

Try viewing a T221 or VP2290 screen and you'll realize just what the diff is.

3840x2400 and you won't wanna go back.

Unfortunately, these monitors are not practical to use today, but the pixel count and image quality is really something.

My electric bill would skyrocket and I would need to upgrade my graphics cards. No thanks.

^ Like I said - these monitors are not very practical to use these days, but they sure look great and are prime examples of why high density pixel counts and resolution really do matter.

I think its a matter of what you get USED to. Just how people here were FlexView obsessed. Now, when you read on MacRumor Forums, everyone who has the new iPad 3 talks about how they find their MacBook Air deficient and want to have the crispness of the new iPad 3.

In so many years of computing the focus has so much been on COMPUTING PERFORMANCE PARTS and never on Human Computer Interaction. Finally its changed..

Size, Weight, Ability to move around & hold like a book, Longer Portable Usage, Better Screens, Finger Touch, Stylus/Pen Digital Inking/writing..
And Better/ Good Keyboard hopefully (like Thinkpad keyboards).

With all due respect.. As Bill Gates once said you will never need more than X amount of memory

Anything a person with human mind & ingenuity creating a technology throws out. There is someone who can come with something to use it and some even to humble it

^ Well, sure - let's go back to Gates 540k or whatever it was and while we're at it, a really nice B&W CGA(320x200) or VGA(640x480) monitor will cinch the deal. I've been there and it ain't no fun...

As mentioned above, pixel counts do matter

Why sure, let's talk about the evolution of human-computer interaction, i.e. the user interface.

The invention of pointing devices (trackball, mouse) allows users to interact with an interface non-linearly, i.e. no need to "tab through" everything just to get to one textbox.
The GUI as compared to CLI enables everyone, not someone who memorizes lots of commands, to use a computer, and opens up new tasks that were completely impossible with a CLI (e.g. image processing).
Increasing screen resolution from CGA, VGA to modern dimensions, as well as changing from B&W to color, both vastly increases information density on screen, allowing much more information to be present on the same screen at the same time.

All these improvements are direct productivity improvements. Now, where does a super-high-density screen stand?
As already stated before, a super-high-density screen does not increase information density. It adds details that a human eye can't even process, let alone make use of. Therefore, it is not a direct productivity improvement; it is a consumeristic improvement.

It's like installing leather seats on a battleship. Sure, our dear Flight Lieutenant Jeff "Joker" Moreau may like it, but there is a reason why the System Alliance does not consider that standard equipment.

Yes, maybe 250 PPI are not so useful in an overall consideration,
BUT, 130-180 PPI are very useful to the eye, especially when viewing text.

Looking at todays LCDs in laptops and external monitors we barley can buy anything
above 110 PPI !
At an European Price comparison site
there are approx 16 external monitors with 109 PPI or more starting at 17inch, 16:9.

I am looking forward to those new high-res LCDs!

<shrug>

I'm using a L200p (20" UXGA) now. Works for me.

Sure this will affect me... but with my buying patterns it won't matter to me for another 6-10 years.

It does improve Information Density upto a certain point. Of, course, wont improve it PAST the point that the human eyes can recognize. Going to a Pixel Density where no human eye at closest distance even with 20/20 vision is probably the upper limit to want/ have.

As one moves closer to the screen the ability to discern pixelation increases. But if density was high enough then a human eye cant do that.
THAT is the density Max. Past that, its pointless.

All we need now to accompany the true to life imagery of high res is this and this for more than visual punch. Here is some more reading for inquiring minds

Early cinema gimmicks

HA! Good stuff...maybe Lenovo + Smell-O-Vision = StinkPads ??