Why do so many laptops have horrible screens?

Avatar image for tendoboy1984
tendoboy1984

253

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By tendoboy1984
Member since 2012 • 253 Posts

Why do so many laptops have horrible screens compared to phones, TV's, and tablets? Even hybrid laptops have better screens than normal laptops.

Avatar image for JigglyWiggly_
JigglyWiggly_

24625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#2 JigglyWiggly_
Member since 2009 • 24625 Posts

Because they're cheap.

Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
GummiRaccoon

13799

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 GummiRaccoon
Member since 2003 • 13799 Posts

Stop buying cheap laptops.

Avatar image for tendoboy1984
tendoboy1984

253

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 tendoboy1984
Member since 2012 • 253 Posts

@JigglyWiggly_: A $500 laptop has a worse screen than a $500 tablet or hybrid.

Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
GummiRaccoon

13799

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 GummiRaccoon
Member since 2003 • 13799 Posts

@tendoboy1984 said:

@JigglyWiggly_: A $500 laptop has a worse screen than a $500 tablet or hybrid.

Maybe, just maybe because a $500 dollar laptop has components that are more expensive outside of the screen.

Avatar image for Dogswithguns
Dogswithguns

11359

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#6 Dogswithguns
Member since 2007 • 11359 Posts

My plugged in all the time, and setting on not energy saving. if not it will be not clear.. maybe you should try that.

Avatar image for avidlaptopgamer
avidlaptopgamer

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 avidlaptopgamer
Member since 2015 • 25 Posts

It's mostly a consumer problem. Most people don't know the difference, so they opt for the cheaper laptop with terrible low resolution screens.

Most consumers just don't demand it. If there were, you'd see a lot better screens out there.

We basically need something like "HD" for TVs that got consumers asking for 720 and 1080 TV screens.

Avatar image for xantufrog
xantufrog

17875

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

#8  Edited By xantufrog  Moderator
Member since 2013 • 17875 Posts

I do find it amusing that laptops with x768 resolution are now being called "HD" or even "true HD" by manufacturers and retailers, when that's been the basic entry level screen res since XP and is really, IMO, unacceptable this day in age except on small form-factor laptops (i.e. that's alright pixel density on a 12-13", but pretty darn bad on a 15.4")

Avatar image for gerygo
GeryGo

12803

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#9 GeryGo  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 12803 Posts

@tendoboy1984 said:

Why do so many laptops have horrible screens compared to phones, TV's, and tablets? Even hybrid laptops have better screens than normal laptops.

Not sure what you're talking about but I know a friend who got right now Lenovo with 860M and it got IPS display with 4K resolution

Avatar image for osan0
osan0

17777

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#10 osan0
Member since 2004 • 17777 Posts

@xantufrog: if we are talking a gaming laptop then i dont quite agree.

my last laptop had a 1366X768 screen (15" laptop) and thank god it did. it could play most games at native res (it had a first gen AMD a6 apu). paired with a 1080P or 4K screen it would have been hopeless for gaming at native res.

i currently have a 780M and, to be honest, i would have preferred a good quality 1680X1050 screen instead of 1080P. i like my hardware to last and 1080P could be a problem within the next 12 months (star citizen, the next major total war..games like these will eat hardware up).

for more business focused laptops though it would be nice to have the option. more real estate if nothing else. i think part of the problem at the moment though is that windows is rubbish at dealing with 4K. i hear nothing but bad things about the look of even windows 8.1 on 4k screens. hopefully this will be improved for windows 10 and that may get more manufacturers interested.

Avatar image for deactivated-57d307c5efcda
deactivated-57d307c5efcda

1302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#12 deactivated-57d307c5efcda
Member since 2009 • 1302 Posts

I'm pretty sure he's not talking about resolution. Most laptops are cheap TN panels. One reason I will always recommend a MSI or Alienware laptop over an Asus. Screen Quality. They offer IPS screens on their models while Asus continues to use crappy TN panels with horrid viewing angles. But thats probobly reflected in the price too. MSI and AW both charge more for their laptops.

Avatar image for glez13
glez13

10310

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 glez13
Member since 2006 • 10310 Posts

@xantufrog said:

I do find it amusing that laptops with x768 resolution are now being called "HD" or even "true HD" by manufacturers and retailers, when that's been the basic entry level screen res since XP and is really, IMO, unacceptable this day in age except on small form-factor laptops (i.e. that's alright pixel density on a 12-13", but pretty darn bad on a 15.4")

I don't know about True HD, but 1366X768 has always been HD. That is the resolution that many PC manufacturers proposed for the HD standard but in the end TV manufacturers' 1280X720 won the battle. Actually even some TV's that are labeled HD are 768p instead of 720p.

Avatar image for xantufrog
xantufrog

17875

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

#14 xantufrog  Moderator
Member since 2013 • 17875 Posts

@glez13 said:

@xantufrog said:

I do find it amusing that laptops with x768 resolution are now being called "HD" or even "true HD" by manufacturers and retailers, when that's been the basic entry level screen res since XP and is really, IMO, unacceptable this day in age except on small form-factor laptops (i.e. that's alright pixel density on a 12-13", but pretty darn bad on a 15.4")

I don't know about True HD, but 1366X768 has always been HD. That is the resolution that many PC manufacturers proposed for the HD standard but in the end TV manufacturers' 1280X720 won the battle. Actually even some TV's that are labeled HD are 768p instead of 720p.

I think I came off on the wrong foot here. I never said x768 shouldn't be called "HD"

I'm just saying that

a) that's not a new resolution - I was just observing that it USED to be advertised as what is was "back in the day" whereas now they advertise it specifically as "HD" as rebranding to appeal to the new 720p/1080p-centric world. Just an observation. x768 has been the standard for a long long time (800x600 was Windows 98 era!). I'm just observing that the marketing lingo has changed to try to make it sound special in this new era. My laptop is only 1280x800, so I'm not bashing the resolution (but I have a 12.1 inch screen, too, so my PPI is still high).

b) the concern I do have with that resolution is that, IMO (meaning, MY opinion), 1366x768 is too low for a 15.6" screen. That's an old standard for vertical resolution for a screen that large. If others are fine with it, that's fine! I find it fuzzy and grainy on screens that large. That's just me.

Avatar image for mitu123
mitu123

155290

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

#15 mitu123
Member since 2006 • 155290 Posts

@JigglyWiggly_ said:

Because they're cheap.

One and done.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#16  Edited By deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

@xantufrog said:

I do find it amusing that laptops with x768 resolution are now being called "HD" or even "true HD" by manufacturers and retailers, when that's been the basic entry level screen res since XP and is really, IMO, unacceptable this day in age except on small form-factor laptops (i.e. that's alright pixel density on a 12-13", but pretty darn bad on a 15.4")

I would take 1366 x 768 or 1680 x 1050 any day over 1080p or higher that some of these gaming laptops are totting.. Sure it looks nice but resolution is one of the largest hits in performance.. And you can't lower resolution on these things inless you want absolute TERRIBLE pixel stretching.. Your then stuck with a laptop with 1440p screen laptop that struggles to play most games at a tolerable fps rate.. My Asus 46vw 14" laptop has a 1366 x768 and I would not have it any other way.. For the games it clearly outmuscles I can crank up AA.. While even on modern games like Dragon Age Inquistion at low to medium settings (a 660m mind you) I can get 35 to 55 fps at my native resolution.. You couldn't do that if the screen were 1080p..

Avatar image for deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab
deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab

17476

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#17 deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab
Member since 2008 • 17476 Posts

@sSubZerOo said:

@xantufrog said:

I do find it amusing that laptops with x768 resolution are now being called "HD" or even "true HD" by manufacturers and retailers, when that's been the basic entry level screen res since XP and is really, IMO, unacceptable this day in age except on small form-factor laptops (i.e. that's alright pixel density on a 12-13", but pretty darn bad on a 15.4")

I would take 1366 x 768 or 1680 x 1050 any day over 1080p or higher that some of these gaming laptops are totting.. Sure it looks nice but resolution is one of the largest hits in performance.. And you can't lower resolution on these things inless you want absolute TERRIBLE pixel stretching.. Your then stuck with a laptop with 1440p screen laptop that struggles to play most games at a tolerable fps rate.. My Asus 46vw 14" laptop has a 1366 x768 and I would not have it any other way.. For the games it clearly outmuscles I can crank up AA.. While even on modern games like Dragon Age Inquistion at low to medium settings (a 660m mind you) I can get 35 to 55 fps at my native resolution.. You couldn't do that if the screen were 1080p..

I would rather have poor performance or stretching for the very small amount of time i would be gaming on a laptop instead of having the laptop screen look like crap 100% of the time. I'm sorry but a decent quality 1080p screen is always preferable to a crappy 768 screen.

Avatar image for jedikevin2
jedikevin2

5263

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 26

User Lists: 0

#18  Edited By jedikevin2
Member since 2004 • 5263 Posts

@ferret-gamer said:

I would rather have poor performance or stretching for the very small amount of time i would be gaming on a laptop instead of having the laptop screen look like crap 100% of the time. I'm sorry but a decent quality 1080p screen is always preferable to a crappy 768 screen.

I would rather a 1366x768 resolution screen on my laptop as long as we not up in some hilarious 17-19 in laptop monitors. No need to go higher when you looking at a 13.3-15.6 inch screen. Why 1080p does make things a little bit sharper with the high pixel count, I prefer lower as a native. It looks great for resolution size/screen size, and allows me to play many modern PC games without much effort (1366x768 is almost 1/2 of the pixel count of 1080p). Its a difference of opinion.

"Im sorry, but a decent quality 1080p screen is NOT always preferable to a crappy 768 screen".

Avatar image for pimphand_gamer
PimpHand_Gamer

3048

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#19 PimpHand_Gamer
Member since 2014 • 3048 Posts

Go MacBook Pro bro.

Avatar image for nicecall
nicecall

528

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#20 nicecall
Member since 2013 • 528 Posts

worst thing with most laptops is the viewing angles are awful. probably best to go into a store and see the laptop you want when picking it out. even some expensive ones can have crap screens... i have a fairly expensive laptop i got back in 2007 or 2008, and its screen is 1080p but has crappy viewing angles, decent colors though.

but if you think about it, some laptops are like 500 bucks, and if you get a decent pc monitor, those are at least 200-300, so you can't expect a cheap laptop to have much of a screen. bottom line is, they put the cheapest crap they can into laptops to make their profits high and dont care if its garbage for the person using them.

Avatar image for deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab
deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab

17476

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#21 deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab
Member since 2008 • 17476 Posts

@jedikevin2 said:

@ferret-gamer said:

I would rather have poor performance or stretching for the very small amount of time i would be gaming on a laptop instead of having the laptop screen look like crap 100% of the time. I'm sorry but a decent quality 1080p screen is always preferable to a crappy 768 screen.

I would rather a 1366x768 resolution screen on my laptop as long as we not up in some hilarious 17-19 in laptop monitors. No need to go higher when you looking at a 13.3-15.6 inch screen. Why 1080p does make things a little bit sharper with the high pixel count, I prefer lower as a native. It looks great for resolution size/screen size, and allows me to play many modern PC games without much effort (1366x768 is almost 1/2 of the pixel count of 1080p). Its a difference of opinion.

"Im sorry, but a decent quality 1080p screen is NOT always preferable to a crappy 768 screen".

I have had 15.6inch laptops in both 1080p and 768, with otherwise similar specs. I would take the 1080p laptop every time.

You are right, it is a difference of opinion. Cause honestly, to me its hilarious that you think there is no need to go higher than 1366x768 on a 15.6inch screen.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#22 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

@ferret-gamer said:

@sSubZerOo said:

@xantufrog said:

I do find it amusing that laptops with x768 resolution are now being called "HD" or even "true HD" by manufacturers and retailers, when that's been the basic entry level screen res since XP and is really, IMO, unacceptable this day in age except on small form-factor laptops (i.e. that's alright pixel density on a 12-13", but pretty darn bad on a 15.4")

I would take 1366 x 768 or 1680 x 1050 any day over 1080p or higher that some of these gaming laptops are totting.. Sure it looks nice but resolution is one of the largest hits in performance.. And you can't lower resolution on these things inless you want absolute TERRIBLE pixel stretching.. Your then stuck with a laptop with 1440p screen laptop that struggles to play most games at a tolerable fps rate.. My Asus 46vw 14" laptop has a 1366 x768 and I would not have it any other way.. For the games it clearly outmuscles I can crank up AA.. While even on modern games like Dragon Age Inquistion at low to medium settings (a 660m mind you) I can get 35 to 55 fps at my native resolution.. You couldn't do that if the screen were 1080p..

I would rather have poor performance or stretching for the very small amount of time i would be gaming on a laptop instead of having the laptop screen look like crap 100% of the time. I'm sorry but a decent quality 1080p screen is always preferable to a crappy 768 screen.

Do you even know what pixel stretching looks like? Try it out because it makes the screen looks more awful than any kind of lower resolution could do.. You get color loss, strange distortions etc etc. And I see np with a 1366 x 768 display on a 14 inch screen.. The majority of resolutions for said displays are for smaller ones.. And yet again this being PC GAMING forum we are going to talk about it's gaming.. And the vast majority of the gaming laptops that have 1080p or higher resolutions get bad performance at said resolutions on the majority of modern games...

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#23 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

@ferret-gamer said:

@jedikevin2 said:

@ferret-gamer said:

I would rather have poor performance or stretching for the very small amount of time i would be gaming on a laptop instead of having the laptop screen look like crap 100% of the time. I'm sorry but a decent quality 1080p screen is always preferable to a crappy 768 screen.

I would rather a 1366x768 resolution screen on my laptop as long as we not up in some hilarious 17-19 in laptop monitors. No need to go higher when you looking at a 13.3-15.6 inch screen. Why 1080p does make things a little bit sharper with the high pixel count, I prefer lower as a native. It looks great for resolution size/screen size, and allows me to play many modern PC games without much effort (1366x768 is almost 1/2 of the pixel count of 1080p). Its a difference of opinion.

"Im sorry, but a decent quality 1080p screen is NOT always preferable to a crappy 768 screen".

I have had 15.6inch laptops in both 1080p and 768, with otherwise similar specs. I would take the 1080p laptop every time.

You are right, it is a difference of opinion. Cause honestly, to me its hilarious that you think there is no need to go higher than 1366x768 on a 15.6inch screen.

Until you try to boot up your modern pc game at 1080p noticing how awful the performance is.. You can't lower resolutions on these laptops, and the video cards can't be upgraded.. I honestly wish they made 1680 x 1050 resolution screens still because that would be the nicest compromise for something around the 15 inch display area with something like a 860m.

Avatar image for deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab
deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab

17476

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#24  Edited By deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab
Member since 2008 • 17476 Posts

@sSubZerOo said:

@ferret-gamer said:

@jedikevin2 said:

@ferret-gamer said:

I would rather have poor performance or stretching for the very small amount of time i would be gaming on a laptop instead of having the laptop screen look like crap 100% of the time. I'm sorry but a decent quality 1080p screen is always preferable to a crappy 768 screen.

I would rather a 1366x768 resolution screen on my laptop as long as we not up in some hilarious 17-19 in laptop monitors. No need to go higher when you looking at a 13.3-15.6 inch screen. Why 1080p does make things a little bit sharper with the high pixel count, I prefer lower as a native. It looks great for resolution size/screen size, and allows me to play many modern PC games without much effort (1366x768 is almost 1/2 of the pixel count of 1080p). Its a difference of opinion.

"Im sorry, but a decent quality 1080p screen is NOT always preferable to a crappy 768 screen".

I have had 15.6inch laptops in both 1080p and 768, with otherwise similar specs. I would take the 1080p laptop every time.

You are right, it is a difference of opinion. Cause honestly, to me its hilarious that you think there is no need to go higher than 1366x768 on a 15.6inch screen.

Until you try to boot up your modern pc game at 1080p noticing how awful the performance is.. You can't lower resolutions on these laptops, and the video cards can't be upgraded.. I honestly wish they made 1680 x 1050 resolution screens still because that would be the nicest compromise for something around the 15 inch display area with something like a 860m.

Did you not read where I said I've had laptops in both resolutions on 15.6inch screens? I have played games on the 1080p laptop and lowered resolutions on it. And guess what? I still would take it over the 1366x768 laptop. Pixel stretching on a decent modern screen isn't that massive of a deal. It looks a bit worse than a native screen, but not anywhere near as horrible as you make out. The benefit however is that your screen looks way better doing everything else.

Avatar image for Kh1ndjal
Kh1ndjal

2788

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 Kh1ndjal
Member since 2003 • 2788 Posts

@ferret-gamer said:

@sSubZerOo said:

@xantufrog said:

I do find it amusing that laptops with x768 resolution are now being called "HD" or even "true HD" by manufacturers and retailers, when that's been the basic entry level screen res since XP and is really, IMO, unacceptable this day in age except on small form-factor laptops (i.e. that's alright pixel density on a 12-13", but pretty darn bad on a 15.4")

I would take 1366 x 768 or 1680 x 1050 any day over 1080p or higher that some of these gaming laptops are totting.. Sure it looks nice but resolution is one of the largest hits in performance.. And you can't lower resolution on these things inless you want absolute TERRIBLE pixel stretching.. Your then stuck with a laptop with 1440p screen laptop that struggles to play most games at a tolerable fps rate.. My Asus 46vw 14" laptop has a 1366 x768 and I would not have it any other way.. For the games it clearly outmuscles I can crank up AA.. While even on modern games like Dragon Age Inquistion at low to medium settings (a 660m mind you) I can get 35 to 55 fps at my native resolution.. You couldn't do that if the screen were 1080p..

I would rather have poor performance or stretching for the very small amount of time i would be gaming on a laptop instead of having the laptop screen look like crap 100% of the time. I'm sorry but a decent quality 1080p screen is always preferable to a crappy 768 screen.

you can connect your laptop to an external display.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#26  Edited By deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

@ferret-gamer said:

@sSubZerOo said:

@ferret-gamer said:

@jedikevin2 said:

@ferret-gamer said:

I would rather have poor performance or stretching for the very small amount of time i would be gaming on a laptop instead of having the laptop screen look like crap 100% of the time. I'm sorry but a decent quality 1080p screen is always preferable to a crappy 768 screen.

I would rather a 1366x768 resolution screen on my laptop as long as we not up in some hilarious 17-19 in laptop monitors. No need to go higher when you looking at a 13.3-15.6 inch screen. Why 1080p does make things a little bit sharper with the high pixel count, I prefer lower as a native. It looks great for resolution size/screen size, and allows me to play many modern PC games without much effort (1366x768 is almost 1/2 of the pixel count of 1080p). Its a difference of opinion.

"Im sorry, but a decent quality 1080p screen is NOT always preferable to a crappy 768 screen".

I have had 15.6inch laptops in both 1080p and 768, with otherwise similar specs. I would take the 1080p laptop every time.

You are right, it is a difference of opinion. Cause honestly, to me its hilarious that you think there is no need to go higher than 1366x768 on a 15.6inch screen.

Until you try to boot up your modern pc game at 1080p noticing how awful the performance is.. You can't lower resolutions on these laptops, and the video cards can't be upgraded.. I honestly wish they made 1680 x 1050 resolution screens still because that would be the nicest compromise for something around the 15 inch display area with something like a 860m.

Did you not read where I said I've had laptops in both resolutions on 15.6inch screens? I have played games on the 1080p laptop and lowered resolutions on it. And guess what? I still would take it over the 1366x768 laptop. Pixel stretching on a decent modern screen isn't that massive of a deal. It looks a bit worse than a native screen, but not anywhere near as horrible as you make out. The benefit however is that your screen looks way better doing everything else.

A bit worse? Are you serious? You make the entire screen fuzzy with weird distortions not to mention many displays give adverse color changes that don't look good.. If you seriously think that still doesn't make the display look worse than having a native lower resolution screen, then we are done here.. How can you even make that claim about wanting better screens on laptop yet are ok with pixel stretching? Wth kind of logic is that?

Avatar image for kraken2109
kraken2109

13271

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 kraken2109
Member since 2009 • 13271 Posts

There is more to screen quality than resolution.

Avatar image for xantufrog
xantufrog

17875

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

#29 xantufrog  Moderator
Member since 2013 • 17875 Posts

It sounds like we're using a lot of different sized laptops as our reference point - there is a huge difference between a 14" and a 15.6" - x768 will look much less low-res on a 14" or below. At any rate - I definitely take the point that gaming at the native res is a lot smoother when the native res is lower. I think it's all just a matter of opinion when a certain resolution starts to be rough on the eyes on screen of ___ size. Doesn't seem like an argument anyone can win.

As far as screen quality goes in other dimensions - yeah, you get these low-contrast, reflective glossy, bad viewing angle displays on low-end laptops. And it's rough - can't use the darn thing outside. You definitely need to "pay to play" if you want to get away from flimsy keyboards and low-quality screens