I just wish that some of the ultrabooks actually gave you an option of higher resolution display. The 1366x768 resolution is a little too low for some items and I would be willing to pay $100-$200 more just for the OPTION to upgrade, but alas...

 

@inventix1136: Yeah I agree. Personally I don't think laptops of any kind should ship with anything lower than 1920×1080 (although I really prefer 1920x1200). At the very least, people should be given the option of upgrading to a better screen.

 

Laptop resolutions suck now. They're worse than they were 10 years ago.

 

I suspect the 1330x768 is dictated by some existing CPU/GPU combo chip they are all using. To do anything different would add hardware which would then make it impossible to cram into a MacBook Air case. Whoever made the 1330x768 decision basically killed the first generation of these things, and probably sent hoards of people fleeing to Apple. I really really hope the next crop, introduced next week, doesn't make the same mistake. If they screw up this generation... even I will jump to Apple.

 

There will be 4.5" cell phones this year with 1280 x 720 displays. If the PC guys keep trying to cram 14" and bigger laptops with 1366 x 768 displays down people's throats, I hope no one buys any. Otherwise they will never change.

 

Sure they are.

 

I would be more concerned about screen quality (viewing angles, color reproduction, etc.) than resolution, but that's just me. Here's my take on the first-gen ultrabooks as published a few weeks ago:

Building the perfect ultrabook ? and where PC makers are wrong
https://www.techspot.com/guides/471-ultrabooks-where-pc-makers-are-wrong/

 

No, the only hardware-based resolution limitation on these Ultrabooks (or any laptop for that matter) are the LCDs themselves.

If you remove the LED LCD panel in one of these Ultrabooks and plug the cable into a higher resolution LED LCD panel, it'll show the new screen in all of its high-res glory.

For older laptops with CCFL-based LCDs (as opposed to LED), the FL inverter (a relatively inexpensive component) is the other hardware concern. Virtually all GPUs and display cables found in modern laptops are capable of resolutions far greater than any sane person would want on portable screen (ie. greater than 1920x1200)

 

guys, don't forget about the new 4k x 4k (aka "Natural" rez) video resolution that intel will be supporting in their ivy bridge processors; and obviously, to take full advantage of that, you'd need a monitor that can display 4,000 x 4,000.

basically, there's a lot of growth opportunity!! \o/

 

It does not matter if your graphics card supports (∞ - 1) x (∞ - 1) if your display will only handle 1024x768 or 1366x768 for that matter...

 

It is more likely the limitation is due to limitations set by Intel. Just like they limit what PC manufacturers can use to create a netbook (screen size was one of the limitations and why I never bought a netbook).

As for things changing, that will not happen because the average person doesn't care about resolution. Sounds crazy to me but people still buy now and there are very few high res displays.

 

To those commenting about the resolution.
Why would you need a 1080p+ screen?
It doesn't have blu-ray player, it doesn't have a dedicated graphics card and so there is no need?
I have a high end portable laptop with a 1366x768 resolution screen and comparing that to my 1920x1080 monitor, I see no immediate differences other than the aspect ratio.
It's a good way of saving money and unless you either have a huge screen, or are watching things like Blu-Rays... Then it would pay off to have a higher res screen.

 

You see no difference? really? Ok on both machines open up a few programs, maybe word, excel, power point, Firefox (or your preferred browser) and iTunes or what ever else you have, now bring up 4 of them onto the screen at the same time, one in each corner, how much more information can the 1080p screen view at the same time? If you still see no difference your other screen isn't 1080p.

 

The biggest turn off with the ultraBook brand for me is by far the screen resolution. I've seen 13" (and 13.3") screens with 1600x900, I've seen 15" (and 15.4") screens with 1920x1080. Of course, but I didn't like the keyboard (layout or otherwise) or the other specifications did not appeal to me, which is why I didn't get one of them. Then we have something like the Thinkpad X220, which while not technically an ultrabook, but other than price it fits in the ultrabook category rather well. Except for that blasted "HD" screen resolution curse, the X220 appeals to me in almost every way, and generally does not have many of the issues Julio brought up (especially the issue of panel quality). 1440x900 would have been easily doable and has been done before (between 12" and 14" in the past).

I desperately want to get a new laptop. My Thinkpad T43p is very long in the tooth. At this point however, I might as well wait until Ivy bridge releases and Lenovo (eventually) updating the Thinkpad line again. Or, pick up a sandybridge X220 then duing the transition if they have a sale about it.

Damn my insistence of having the Trackpoint and Dell sucking at the moment. =p

 

Agreed madboyv1.

I'm still using my Thinkpad T60 with 1400 x 1050 display. Cannot upgrade while we have so little vertical space at such low resolution.

Would have moved to an Thinkpad X220 except for the resolution factor...

When are they going to listen??

 

Modern laptop resolutions are ridiculous unless you're just interested in watching movies on them. Even the MacBooks 1280x800 is just barely tolerable from a productivity or websurfing standpoint. I've been developing web pages for years on 1280x1024 or 1400x1050, and 1366x768 is a total downgrade and makes my job more difficult both on the coding side and the testing side. I would spend several hundred dollars more to get modern laptop hardware with a standard screen.