So last night I was talking screen resolutions and device usage with someone, and I had complained how 1366x768 was small, but they disagreed.. so then I told that I've adjusted to working with a 1920x1080 resolution and that whenever I go to work on my laptop I feel "confined" to the small resolution of my laptop since I use my desktop way more.
As for my tablet, though, it's 1920x1200.
Hehe, to me, the screen resolution means
absolutely nothing. I'm more interested in
available screen area,
aspect ratio,
PPI, and
relative item size.
Really, I can't live with anything
narrower than 15:9 these days - I feel 15:9 is a better "compromise" than 16:10 or 3:2 with regard to 4:3 and 16:9. 16:10 already feels unusually narrow and cramped and sometimes give me an uneasy feeling.
If I'm working on a laptop or desktop, I would expect a screen size of at least 14" for it to be useful and not too straining. If it is a 16:9 screen and 1366x768, it would be a display of about 110 pixels per inch. In the world of desktop computing, the PPI is perfectly usable with items a 100% scaling, so you have zero compatibility issues. I
can work with 133 PPI 10" 1366x768 screens at 1:1 in a pinch, but usually I have a bit of a harder time working for longer periods.
If the PPI goes anything above about 135, I'd want scaling, but in Windows they don't work too well - I don't like non-integer scaling, so I'd end up needing at least 192 PPI
and a minimum effective screen resolution of 1280x720 (which would make the display 2560x1440 if we're doing 2:1 pixel scaling). Any PPI lower than 96 PPI looks grainy to me; anything higher than about 135 at my usual viewing distance (usually 1.25x the long side of the display) needs scaling.
It's a bit complex. I certainly find a 15" 1366x768 display significantly more useful than a 7" 1920x1200 display, if only because you have more physical area to work with. :)