Groups

    Why do almost all sub £500 laptops have crap screens?

    I have a £170 Acer Chromebook with a rlly nice 1080p display

    Meanwhile £200-500 Windows laptops almost all have 1366x728, which to me is an absolute joke
    They can afford an Intel Core CPU, 8GB+ RAM, an SSD and sometimes a GTX, but not Full HD?

    I was legitimately wondering why, because I just can't get my head round how in 2017 you can pick up cheap 1080p tablets for sub 100, 1080p chromebooks for sub 200, but as soon as it gets to Windows laptops, you have to sacrifice alot of spec or pay over 500 quid to get a decent screen?

    It's a disgrace, unless there's a very valid reason for it

    15 Comments

    Because laptops are so overpriced, but people are still willing to pay such ridiculous prices for poor specs so why would they change it?

    westy125

    Because laptops are so overpriced, but people are still willing to pay … Because laptops are so overpriced, but people are still willing to pay such ridiculous prices for poor specs so why would they change it?



    Because the first one that does will start gaining market share hand over fist?

    the laptop deal I posted had a good screen and quite high specs

    Screens are a joke on laptops. I grabbed a new chromebook with a fhd screen and obviously it makes such a difference.

    When I use my 720p laptop for torrents I don't know how I put up with it for so long.

    brendanhickey

    the laptop deal I posted had a good screen and quite high specs



    This one?: hotukdeals.com/dea…583

    If it's the same screen as the model notebookcheck tested the screen's not abysmal but nowhere near as good as it could be:
    notebookcheck.net/Len…tml

    EndlessWaves

    Because the first one that does will start gaining market share hand over … Because the first one that does will start gaining market share hand over fist?



    ​Yup, crazy

    I am sure you meant 1366 x 768 and not 728 and to a point I agree but it's not just the amount of pixels that makes for a crap screen. I have a Lenovo Yoga 300 11.6" screen with 1366 x 768 pixels and the screen is awful due to Lenovo using a TN panel and not IPS. Using an IPS panel makes a huge difference. My wife's Acer has an IPS panel and it's miles better than the Lenovo. Not all sub £500 laptops have a naff screen. I had a Lenovo Miix with 1920 x 1200 pixels, IPS screen and the image was amazing. That resolution at 10.1" was just lovely. Cost £149.99. I also have a Asus T300 Chi which has 1920 x 1080 at 12.5". Cost £249.95. There are others around with higher resolution but possibly not very many at 15.6" though. Maybe the clever people who do the buying at laptop manufacturers think most people only use laptops for work and use tablets for watching movies etc. Or perhaps the production of 15.6" panels was well over produced and they want to use up stock, a bit like they did with the old CRT's for tv's . Flat screens had been out for some time before those big tubes either got used up or thrown away.


    Edited by: "Smartguy1" 31st Dec 2016

    Original Poster

    Smartguy1

    I am sure you meant 1366 x 768 and not 728 and to a point I agree but … I am sure you meant 1366 x 768 and not 728 and to a point I agree but it's not just the amount of pixels that makes for a crap screen. I have a Lenovo Yoga 300 11.6" screen with 1366 x 768 pixels and the screen is awful due to Lenovo using a TN panel and not IPS. Using an IPS panel makes a huge difference. My wife's Acer has an IPS panel and it's miles better than the Lenovo. Not all sub £500 laptops have a naff screen. I had a Lenovo Miix with 1920 x 1200 pixels, IPS screen and the image was amazing. That resolution at 10.1" was just lovely. Cost £149.99. I also have a Asus T300 Chi which has 1920 x 1080 at 12.5". Cost £249.95. There are others around with higher resolution but possibly not very many at 15.6" though. Maybe the clever people who do the buying at laptop manufacturers think most people only use laptops for work and use tablets for watching movies etc. Or perhaps the production of 15.6" panels was well over produced and they want to use up stock, a bit like they did with the old CRT's for tv's . Flat screens had been out for some time before those big tubes either got used up or thrown away.



    Apologies 768 yes, I understand from my knowledge of smartphones, that the same extends to laptop screens, IPS, TN, LCD, blah blah, makes a huge difference in terms of bleeding, colour reproduction, etc.... however resolution is resolution and the vast, vast majority of 1080p screens will beat 768 screens hands down.

    If its not a question of affordability for PC companies, which it clearly isnt if Chromebooks and tabs can afford Full HD, is it the fault of Windows for overpricing their laptops?

    I just dont understand how you can buy a 1366x768 laptop for nearly half a grand and be satisfied

    Happy New Year all btw

    I'm guessing your chromebook has a celeron CPU, 4Gb ram and 16 or 32Gb of storage yes?

    A Windows laptop with those lower spec components could have a FHD screen and fall into the lower price bracket.
    Add an i5 CPU, 8Gb Ram and a 256gb SSD to your chromebook and it would be price the same as a £350 Windows laptop.

    Fortunately Chrome OS is a lightweight OS so can get away with a less CPU/Ram, however sacrificing CPU/Ram on a Windows laptop would make it run like a dog on anything higher than WinXP x86
    Edited by: "Uridium" 1st Jan

    because the laptops are crap.

    Original Poster

    Uridium

    I'm guessing your chromebook has a celeron CPU, 4Gb ram and 16 or 32Gb of … I'm guessing your chromebook has a celeron CPU, 4Gb ram and 16 or 32Gb of storage yes?A Windows laptop with those lower spec components could have a FHD screen and fall into the lower price bracket.Add an i5 CPU, 8Gb Ram and a 256gb SSD to your chromebook and it would be price the same as a £350 Windows laptop.Fortunately Chrome OS is a lightweight OS so can get away with a less CPU/Ram, however sacrificing CPU/Ram on a Windows laptop would make it run like a dog on anything higher than WinXP x86



    It does indeed, N3160, 4GB RAM, 32GB eMMC, with 128GB 3.0 storage added on by yours truly

    Due to Chrome OS (I added Linux onto it) it runs smooth as hell and despite only those specs I literally never stutter with light-medium usage

    Yes but if I was to buy that Windows laptop, i5, SSD, 6-8GB RAM, for around 300-350, it would most likely come with a 768p screen, the FullHD windows ones seem to drop down to low i3, 4GB RAM, for the same price

    Seems like Windows are just seriously overpricing the Full HD factor, what a sham
    Perhaps if Windows was better optimised they wouldnt need 8GB RAM, I certainly dont need 80-90% of the updates Windows force upon my desktop, I prefer the Chrome OS experience
    Edited by: "DatAlbino" 1st Jan

    DatAlbino

    It does indeed, N3160, 4GB RAM, 32GB eMMC, with 128GB 3.0 storage added … It does indeed, N3160, 4GB RAM, 32GB eMMC, with 128GB 3.0 storage added on by yours trulyDue to Chrome OS (I added Linux onto it) it runs smooth as hell and despite only those specs I literally never stutter with light-medium usageYes but if I was to buy that Windows laptop, i5, SSD, 6-8GB RAM, for around 300-350, it would most likely come with a 768p screen, the FullHD windows ones seem to drop down to low i3, 4GB RAM, for the same priceSeems like Windows are just seriously overpricing the Full HD factor, what a shamPerhaps if Windows was better optimised they wouldnt need 8GB RAM, I certainly dont need 80-90% of the updates Windows force upon my desktop, I prefer the Chrome OS experience



    I know that Chrome books run well with limited resources, I've hacked around and upgraded SSD's in several over the years. The point I was trying to make is that the reason a sub £200 chromebook can come with a FHD display is that the CPU/Ram/SSD (and the system board and battery as well in fact) cost a lot less than those needed to run a windows laptop at a reasonable pace. sadly Windows does need more CPU/Ram/Storage to run than a Chromebook...thats just the way it is.
    If Windows would run on a chromebook spec machine reasonably well then you would see them with FHD displays at the same price point as the Chromebook's.
    Chromebooks are great little machines but won't ever replace Windows laptops, each has their place.
    Personally I use neither...I use a Mac...but that's a different much longer story

    I developed very low vision in the last year or so.

    I have been a linux user for many years. Only linux gives me sufficient "tweaks" to make my laptop display exactly as I need it. Brightness for me is the key factor as it is something which I find is less configurable other than turning it up and down and I prefer maximum brightness.

    I have never bought a new laptop - my current favoured second hand ones are Lenovos and I am running a T410 currently. I have it set as 1280 x 800 (its maxium). I have been known to go down to 800 x 640 in order to see better, sacrificing quality for visibility. I find the ability to set DPI easily and setting the scaling plus getting the best colour/icon/etc theme very important.

    tardytortoise

    I developed very low vision in the last year or so.I have been a linux … I developed very low vision in the last year or so.I have been a linux user for many years. Only linux gives me sufficient "tweaks" to make my laptop display exactly as I need it. Brightness for me is the key factor as it is something which I find is less configurable other than turning it up and down and I prefer maximum brightness.I have never bought a new laptop - my current favoured second hand ones are Lenovos and I am running a T410 currently. I have it set as 1280 x 800 (its maxium). I have been known to go down to 800 x 640 in order to see better, sacrificing quality for visibility. I find the ability to set DPI easily and setting the scaling plus getting the best colour/icon/etc theme very important.



    Well yours is an extreme case.

    I personally have my screens always on fairly low brightness levels and a resolution of 800 x 640 is like 20 years old or thereabouts and looks like utter **** and this is a fact.
    I understand you have problems with your sight but that's an extreme case like I said.
    With 4K so readily available now, full HD should be standard on budget configurations.

    Original Poster

    Uridium

    I know that Chrome books run well with limited resources, I've hacked … I know that Chrome books run well with limited resources, I've hacked around and upgraded SSD's in several over the years. The point I was trying to make is that the reason a sub £200 chromebook can come with a FHD display is that the CPU/Ram/SSD (and the system board and battery as well in fact) cost a lot less than those needed to run a windows laptop at a reasonable pace. sadly Windows does need more CPU/Ram/Storage to run than a Chromebook...thats just the way it is. If Windows would run on a chromebook spec machine reasonably well then you would see them with FHD displays at the same price point as the Chromebook's.Chromebooks are great little machines but won't ever replace Windows laptops, each has their place.Personally I use neither...I use a Mac...but that's a different much longer story



    ​This is partially untrue as if you look at 200 uish windows laptops, running perhaps a celeron or old Pentium, 4GB RAM, etc.. you still get the crap screen

    In cheap laptops people say 'well what do you expect for x pounds?'

    In more expensive ones people say 'oh the specs are worth it'

    but yet 70 quid import Chinese phones and unbranded tablets can afford 1080p screens? its a crime
    Post a comment
    Avatar
    @
      Text
      Top Discussions
      1. Tv choice magazine Issue 3944
      2. Win 1 of 3 x £1000 Selfridges vouchers with Virgin Trains66
      3. Magazine competitions - Issue 37 @ tvchoicemagazine.co.uk2020
      4. Magazine competitions - Issue 38 @ tvchoicemagazine.co.uk1313

      See more discussions