Microsoft details Windows 8 graphics acceleration features
Applications in Windows 8 will enjoy a frame rate boost of up to 500 per cent thanks to new acceleration features, claims Microsoft.
In a post to the Building Windows 8 blog by graphics group programme manager Rob Copeland, claiming that graphics performance has been a big focus for Microsoft's next-generation operating system.
'In the past we've used many different benchmarks and apps to measure the performance of DirectX. These have been largely focused on 3D games,' Copeland explains. 'While games are still very important, we knew that many of these existing ways to measure graphics performance did not tell us everything we needed to know for graphics-intensive, 2D, mainstream apps. So, we created new scenario-focused tests and metrics to track our progress.'
These metrics - which comprise frame rate, glitch count, time to first frame, memory utilisation and CPU utilisation - have, Copeland claims, allowed Microsoft to tailor Windows 8 to ensure that graphics performance for 2D applications is as efficient as possible. Based on work carried out on adding DirectX hardware acceleration to Microsoft apps including Internet Explorer 9, Windows Live Mail and Windows Live Messenger, Copeland's team was able to tweak DirectX and Windows 8 itself to improve general application performance.
The results are undeniably impressive. text-rendering performance is boosted up to 336 per cent over Windows 7, with titles and headings in Metro apps getting the most benefit. Other apps will feel snappier, too, with web pages and word processor documents formatted in paragraphs getting a 150 per cent frame rate boost, and general user interface text rendering jumping 131 per cent over Windows 7.
Geometry rending is also improved by work done for Windows 8: improved tessellation boost the framerate for drawing lines by 184 per cent, rounded rectangles by 220 per cent, ellipses by 369 per cent and rectangles by a whopping 438 per cent. Irregular geometry rendering is also boosted, using a DirectX 11.1 feature dubbed Target Independent Rasterisation (TIR.) On compatible hardware, that results in a boost of between 169 per cent and 523 per cent in the performance of SVG rendering.
'We worked closely with our graphics hardware partners to design TIR. Dramatic improvements were made possible because of that partnership,' Copeland claims of the TIR feature. 'DirectX 11.1 hardware is already on the market today and we're working with our partners to make sure more TIR-capable products will be broadly available.'
Previous Article
52 Comments
Discuss in the forums Replyuntil then though , most home users will look at it and go ` yeah wheres my touch screen monitor 2 feet away`
If you actually use Windows 8, you'll see that the Start Screen is better than the Start menu. Granted the default layout sucks, but once you add folders, make your groups, and pick a better color like dark gray as background instead of flashy green (PS: you do that at first run of the OS), then the Start screen is very enjoyable to use. Imagine seeing new bit-tech.net news right in front of you, without clicking or doing anything. Interested in the headline? Open it up, and read all about it. Same for other news, imagine Steam implementation as well, and perhaps even games.
I am using Windows 8 as we speak on my desktop with my 24inch screen, and I have no trouble using it. Is it all around better than the Start menu? No, it has it's weaknesses, but it's clearly adjustable over time. And so far, the strength surpass the weaknesses.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
I have to admit I still find metro awkward, its not really that bad but I feel that its missing something, maybe more lives tiles from third party apps, maybe an ability to somehow add more customization to its background (though I understand why the need for the static backgrounds).
but overall its not really that bad, I find the workflow almost the same when using the good ol start menu if not faster ( win + typing what you need select enter)
(sigh.. just realized how old i am now)
Word could show fonts that look like they are raised from the paper, when you type words like bOObs, the Os could imitate what they are describing.
Excel could have sound effects when your budget is not balanced, or when you have an excess of cash it could automatically launch your browser and direct you to the closest high-end escort service.
For Internet Explorer if could have quiet sobbing since no one use that browser anymore.
What a joke, maybe they can add features like not having to reboot to install something, Linux has the ability to CHANGE the core OS code on the fly and has since... well forever!
Or maybe we could have an OS that does not have to be reinstall every 9 to 12 months because it corrupts itself over time.
Microsoft has done more to HARM the PC platform and hold back its development than any other entity or factor.
Yours in anti-Microsloth Plasma,
Star*Dagger
However ...
I've used the consumer preview and I've been helping one of our techies get his laptop running with the latest preview version with a view to rolling it out company wide. Our VPN doesn't work with it, so its a no-go, and there's a couple other problems.
I actively dislike the Metro interface to the point that I'll fight to the last to use Linux as my desktop OS instead, despite the horrendous problems I know it'll give me.
Or hold off the upgrade until Stardock create a way to get rid of it.
Anyways back to the article, its nice Windows is finally getting these improvements, however, I personally feel things like graphics performance should be left up to userspace, not kernelspace.
I'm definitely looking forward to using the full finished version.
Or, I could still do that with the original start menu, so that point is somewhat invalid. Half the point of a GUI is to avoid using the keyboard. If I really wanted to type out the program, I'd crack open a command line, which I often do anyway.
Nothing wrong with improvements in general rendering, I admit it isn't really a killer feature but doesn't deserve the tirade of mocking.
Is it really such a huge inconvenience to reboot every once in a while? It isn't like every single package you install requires it.
Also, I'm not 100% sure but I'm pretty sure the kernel can't be altered on the fly. It can be upgraded and modules can be loaded, however.
I think you're maybe confusing "Changing the core OS code" with installing software, however.
PEBCAK, IMHO. I only do a reinstall after a major hardware change (board replacement, for example) and even that isn't always strictly necessary. This install has been going since the Sandy bridge launch, my Dad's XP machine has been running fine from the same install for ~9 years.
Everything post 9x has been pretty stable if you're diligent.
DOS and Windows in the 80s/early 90s made the IBM PC ubiquitous in the office and at home. I'd argue they've done more in the PC platforms favour than probably any other factor, bar maybe the clean room BIOS engineering that made clones possible.
What?
I'm not a Microsoft fanboy by any stretch of the imagination and celebrate the strengths and flexibility of *nix; but your frankly emotive inaccuracies give those of us who champion open source a bad name.
I couldn't find control panel instantly, it scared me. I will try again.
I think you've taken Microsoft's vague descriptions of their increases and added in some explanatory text... but resulted in accurate reporting.
At least that's how I read the figures...
A 100 per cent frame rate boost would mean your FPS was doubled, right? You've got your original 100% plus the 100% boost. A 50% bost is x1.5 the original, and a 150% boost is x2.5 the original? Still with me?
But even though MS say "Framerate increase over windows 7" I think what they mean is "Framerates compared to windows 7"
I think MS mean that a 150% 'increase' is 50% higher than before and not the original 100% and another 150%.
Statistical information is inaccurately presented like this all the time. An 'after' comparison to the original 'before' is presented as an increase. Why? Either through a misunderstanding of the differences or because presenting comparisons as increases is a good way of making things seem better than before.
100% faster means it's twice as fast. A 10% boost means you're 10% better than before not at 10% of the original level.
The reason I'm pretty convinced when MS says 150% they really mean new speed = 'old 100%' + 'new 50%' and not 'old 100%' + 'new 150%' is that if they had really made things x2.5 as fast they'd use these sorts of figures and not 150%.
How about a clarification in the article either detailing the actual increases? Or by not calling the before / after comparisons boosts and jumps.
1) because my Ubuntu server doesn't right now shows me "Restart to complete Updates...".
2) if your Windows 7 installation corrupts itself in 9-12 months, then there is something wrong with your computer or your usage scenario. I had to reinstall at motherboard change only..
@Windows8: I don't mind the Start screen, my only issue is that many times i push the Windows key by mistake, and there is a huge visual difference between Start menu showing up in Windows 7 versus whole desktop going away in Windows 8 :D.
Maybe some still won't like it, but props to you for actually using it and working with it rather than saying "it's different, change is bad" and never looking back.
Exactly. And some people wonder if I work for Microsoft. I don't.. I just give it a genuine try, and push myself to see what Microsoft (or whoever) was thinking, adapt, see what I can do improve my usage, THEN judge.
While I didn't say it at first, as I keep everything until I am comfortable and THEN comment, I didn't like the Start Screen on my laptop nor desktop. Despite using the dark gray color layout, to make it smoother to the eye (and nicer.. my opinion), I still got the shock of switch. Exactly like User Account Control dialog box. But like everyone here.. I got use to it, rather quickly actually.. Took me a week of actual using Windows 8 as if it was my main OS, and I got used to it. And now enjoy it more than the Start Screen. I have more items than on my start menu, I find things much faster as I don't have to go to sup-directory for 1x executable, or pass through a long list in that folder of "help", "readme", website link, and so on. So I find that I am more productive.
Games block it, and those who don't, just shows the desktop, like in Windows 7... just without the start menu. Now I haven't tried ALL games, but the ones I have, those are the behavior it does.
You should care about my enjoyability, it shouldn't be a mystery what I do with my computer to you guys, and my high standards. If something makes me loose productivity, or hard to use, then I don't enjoy it.
Start Menu:
-> Open > All Programs > Find and open folder of the program I want. Find in a long list of useless items that contains the following items or more: "uninstall", "readme", some web link, "help", and more. Find the program, click to run.
Results: 3 mouse clicks, lot more second to find... harder to see to high res screen resolution due to smaller text.
Start Screen.
-> Open > Have A LOT more programs... even on a 1440x900 screen resolution on my laptop > Click on program to run.
Results: 2 mouse clicks, few seconds to find.
Also, with the wonderful touch pads we have on our laptop. Large icons are god send. That is one of the big reasons why I LOVE Windows 7 task bar. Even if I use my mouse, larger icons are easier to click on than tiny items.
Also, I don't get what you are talking about "vertical space". It uses the vertical space just fine. Your complaining without real reason.. just to bash on something.
Anyway, You know what will be cool, and I can see... Desktop apps, with Metro icons. Click on them it runs the desktop app. All fine. But the title can inform you about an update for the program. Like puts a star or something on the live tile. Just an idea.
It's just to show how many possibility developer can take advantage off, and goes far further than news and e-mail notification.
XP, Vista and 7 run so stable you can replace every single part in the Pc without reinstalling. Been there done that multiple times on each of them.
Last time it caused trouble was back in the days of Via and Sis chipsets.
There can be some issues, like for example Java trying to use installed graphics drivers that are from a gpu not currently physically in the system, but that can't be blamed on windows.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Technology/Pix/pictures/2011/9/13/1315929218325/win8-start-460.jpg
Hell it's not just empty space; many of those icons are just so pointlessly huge.
I don't hate things for no reason. As I've said in my previous post, I don't prefer the GNOME interface, but I don't hate it - it's just not my preference. If Metro wants to be effective it should be more like the iOS or Android menus, which can do the same things as metro but look nicer, are more user friendly, and much much faster to use (even with a mouse). I don't even have a tablet and I know those interfaces are better.
Well said, I'm I'm really starting to get bored of bandwagon jumping Windows 8 bashers.
Metro on the desktop simply doesn't work for a lot of people. Microsoft's half-assed attempt at bolting on keyboard and mouse support certainly doesn't help. Why not simply give people the choice?
Another thing that many people apparently forget is that the way the desktop is treated now reeks of "legacy" status. How long will it be before it disappears completely? Hey, but that's OK. The good folk at Microsoft ALWAYS know what they're doing...
Sorry for the rant, but this is an issue that really pushes my buttons.
Of course, it doesn't really matter that much. It's one company's offering, we'll all live no matter how it turns out. You can always buy a Mac.
Lastly, comments like "I'm certain I can get used to it" irk me to no end. You shouldn't have to get used to it. It should come to you naturally. If it doesn't and if that is true for a lot of people it's probably not you at fault.
I really really really wish you were right. You SHOULD be right, but unfortunately you're not. Look at xbox 360 for example - the only reason it was popular is because it could play detailed games with a reliable online network for an affordable price, but the hardware setup was an utter failure. The fact that they even coded a RROD just shows how they really don't care. Or look at Vista for example - I know there are some people out there who really don't mind it, but that was probably the most disliked product MS ever made since windows ME, which is yet another example. AFAIK, people voiced their distaste for Vista before it was released, and MS clearly didn't listen.
The problem with MS today, and is my main gripe of the company, is the developers probably don't get much say in anything. There's someone from management telling them everything to do to a tee whether they find it agreeable or not. That being said, that removes the practical knowledge a developer may have as well as remove all motivation. With no motivation, they do sloppy work. Being a linux user for over 5 years, this becomes very apparent, but isn't so noticeable when Windows and Mac are the only OSes people are exposed to. The same thing applies to many games too. Companies like EA just tell their developers what to do from beginning to end, making games just barely good enough with just barely enough content to be sold for $60.
Good work comes from the insiration (and motivation for that matter) of the developers, not upper management.
Microsoft, since Vista release ('cause you know how that went), works in small'ish team of 3 groups working on parts of the program.
Team 1, is the Program Manager team. They are employees, software developers, who spend most of their energy on doing concepts, brain storming, deciding a product direction, new set of features, etc... They don't do much programing, but still participate in it.
Team 2, is the Software Developers. They do the massive programming, and realizing Team 1 image, and are free to be creative and suggest and implement their own features.
Team 3, is the Software Developers in Test. These are not testers as you think. They verify, test and correct code made by team 1 and 2, for rigidity, and security. And at the end, they play as a first layer of testers of the overall product. Microsoft has it's own testing team., once the product comes to the needed stages.
Team 1, 2, and 3 are always intercommunicating between each other. One member can go the other team guy office and ask questions. Their is no barrier. The company also has multiple inter team meeting and meetings that regroup all teams.
Before any protect starts, you can switch between teams. Microsoft provide courses and workshops to help one pass from one team to the other, and their is an internal interview process. You can't really say "Well it's easy, lick the guys ass for his ideas and be Program Manager", well no, because that decision is well before any brain storming is made. So you can't do that.
No mater the team you take, you are paid the same for the same level of experience working at the company. So you pick what you like the most.
All team members uses the software that they develop. Microsoft calls it, internally, as "Dog Feeding". So they test the software as they develop it, and they see what works and doesn't, and perform changes or cancel a feature or concept based on that.
Each employee uses the computers that fit the project needs, and uses multiple monitor support, consisting of mostly Dell U2410 or other 24inch 16:10 previous Dell UltraSharp monitors, while they are some exception here and there. this is mostly the case.
How do I know all this? Well I applied for an internship at Microsoft, and went up to the final interview stages. So yes, I saw newer builds, at the time, of Windows 8 running on their system, and Office 2013. Sadly, I didn't make it, they found a better match for the software they were working for. It was on Excel, I am no master on it, perhaps they found people that know it better than me. The better news is that I got invited to try again next year, unlike others I know. Oh, for internships, you don't pick where you want to work ('cause let's face it, everyone will want to work on Windows, or the XBox team.. and no one on let's on Notepad ).
1- You know how much time I spend customizing the Start Menu? A lot. Cleaning all that crap, and I have 2 folders to take care off, and countless of User Account Control dialog boxes, and mouse clicks. On Metro, you just right-click on a bunch of icons, and in one shot: Unpin! You are done cleaning, just move the icons the way you like it and your done.
I don't see what I am being hypocritical about. And no I am not sucking up to Microsoft for a internship. I think they have better stuff to do then to read my Bit-tech.net forum comments. Plus, I am and did complain on the search that it doesn't have a "All" filter, no more DVD codec, harder to shutdown/restart the system, and dual separate Control Panel. But these are not things that blocks me from upgrading. I gain: higher performance, faster booting, longer battery life (1h) in the case of my laptop, native USB 3.0 support, new and more informative task manager (important for me for monitoring a software I work on for resources), new File History system, network improvement, auto-switch between wireless and wired or the reverse networking system, much faster wireless re-connect on wake up, improved multi-monitor support, cloud based account (for those who are interested), reduce restarts on updates, and much more.
Also, your setup sounds like a a big clean up project. Metro is just a few click away, and voila. Plus you have everything in front of you.
So you can do all that in Windows 8 with the Start Screen. If you used Windows 8 seriously, you would know.
Configure your touchpad properly.
NOTE: The point is not to bash o Linux. It's an awesome OS, but it was to show by example, the problem when design isn't put to any priority level beside absolute low.
Believe me, I work now for a software company.. if you let us loose, we will never ship a product. As it will be never done. Their is always improvements and new feature to add. You have to draw a line somewhere. While we do this. Managers roles is to make sure we follow our initial plan, that everyone works well together (and perform adjustment if that is not the case, like switch people within the team), and do all the needed paper work.
Vista failure is a bit of complicated one. Microsoft as a whole, was pressured due to the problem that XP was, and making a new OS, for the most part, done form the ground up, was really time consuming... too time consuming, that they shipped too early... I mean over 3 years of delays... ouch. The delay is so long, that they have to contentiously catch up to technology. Imagine Vista looking like Longhorn back in 2003. OUCH! While people were amazed back in 2002 with leaked Longhorn pictures.. now they look pathetic.
I mean look at this:
http://www.webtechgeek.com/NewYorkPics/Longh.jpg
So that caused more delays, and complications. I mean look at the final result.. the interfaces of each programs in Windows look different. You see a bit Longhorn in some, some more late Vista and the rest in between the two. As shown on this picture:
http://www.aerotaskforce.com/thumb/Capture5.JPG/x/560
Vista problem was bad execution, management, communications and possibly bad organizational skills.
People jump and buy without question EA games. FPS shooter are virtually identical since Call Of Duty became crazy popular. Not because EA has no imagination, but because people buy this virtually unchanged game. They don't want change. If they wanted, they would would not buy them, and EA would allow creativity.
Windows 8 in the other hand is ground breaking. Whether it's good or bad, that is not the point. The point is how much drastic the changes are. Microsoft could have easily (and possibly be cheaper), to just make Windows 8 look like Windows 7, and forget ARM and tablet support. But no. They decided to scrap everything, and do it all over again. That takes balls, and huge amount of creativity. Ballmer, said it, waaaayyy before we know anything about Windows 8... that Windows 8 will be riskiest Windows they ever done. Well no kidding! No manager, top or low, would ever except to pull Vista sales again. Microsoft is a huge company and makes billions, yes.. but it also cost Billions to operate. Microsoft ranged the red alert with Vista.. as Microsoft saw, that if they pull another Vista.. they would be in serious trouble. Beside, didn't they already fire a bunch of people (mostly managers and administration)? We saw how they changed internally and brought Windows 7.
The reason why Microsoft doesn't listen to people, is that it was a mess with Windows 7. People complained about the new task bar like no tomorrow. I was following this very carefully. People called it "the end of Microsoft". Now look. Everyone loves it. How, as a company, or even yourself, can base decision on that. If you follow what people want, you have 2 possible scenarios.
1- The same product
2- http://startupblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/homermobile.jpg
Also, I explicitly don't want everything in front of me - that's one of my complaints about Metro. While you can group things together, you still need to scroll through all of it. If you add folders, well, then you're still not going any faster than the classic menu.
[QUOTE]Everytime I try to go fast with the Start Menu, I tend to click on the wrong item. While on the Start Screen, having bigger icons, makes it easier to click on. So at the end of the day, it takes about the same time, as I with the Start menu, I spend about half a second making sure the mouse is on the item I want to click on. When you start Visual Studio by mistake... it's a pain, especially when it's set to load the last project at startup... oh boy you are going to wait, even with an SSD.[/QUOTE
Again, slow down your mouse pointer, or play some UT to exercise your finger-twitching skills. As another option, increase the font size. Menus these days don't need font sizes under 12 point anymore. Bigger fonts = bigger buttons.
People complaining about the new taskbar were the naysayers who hate change just because they hate change. I personally liked every single change MS ever made to Win7 - I think its the best product they ever made and I think they proved themselves well with it. That says a lot considering I hate the company. I think 7 still has room for improvement and there are still a few things that it should have had by now but everything about Win7 was an improvement. Metro isn't an improvement, its just simply different. It is undoubtedly a better interface for touch screens vs the start menu - there is no denying that. But MS can't afford to release something and THEN improve it, they need it done right the first time and Metro as of right now is not that. I'm not against the concept of Metro, I'm against the execution of it.
You have to stop somewhere. I think they stop at the great place with Windows 7. If Microsoft was greedy, they would not even have an OEM nor Upgrade version available.You want Windows? Cash out the full price. Windows 8 PRO Upgrade is 40$.
Also, you can say what you say with ANY software.. and for free software, change "greedy" with "lazy".
Wait I'm confused, what's this thing regarding uninstalling?
I was talking about the mess of items a program ads on the Start menu.
Software developers are supposed to use the space in those icons and not just put the name of the application in it, failure to do so can't be blamed on MS.
Prime example would be a RSS reader, won't even need to open it to get the info you want.
Just like Apple have done...who have taken market share away from Microsoft by doing exactly the same thing. Microsoft want to recover that market share and are taking the same approach. Most end users don't know diddly about what's actually good/bad for them and "want" whatever they're told they want by whoever has the shinest computers and funniest advertising.
Putting the above debate aside for a moment (which has been thoroughly interesting - thank you guyyys!)....From a business perspective, Microsoft are doing the right thing with Metro and Windows 8.
For years they've hung onto the start-menu/desktop way of working and, despite countless improvements, are constantly being told they're failing to innovate. They're forced to cling onto legacy workflows and GUis because they've been terrified of moving forward and alienating their user-base.
Apple, on the other hand, receives near-endless praise for it's innovation and developed a user-base of people who actually welcome the change. Apple has grown. Microsoft has stayed standing still. In business terms, standing still is moving backwards. If Microsoft simply made Windows 8 in the style of Windows 7+someniceimprovements they'd be standing still for other 3 years.
Microsoft HAD to do something radically different. They did it with Windows Phone (and it worked), they're about to do it with tablets, and - in my opinion - they're about to do it with desktops. I'm prepared to bet it'll be very successful in the long term. Not because people here approve of it, but because joe-public suddenly finds that he understands how to use it straight away.
In 10 years' time we'll look back at Windows 7 and wonder how we ever managed - with a desktop that didn't really do anything other than show an image of your favourite game/car/woman/movie/whatever and house a few icons that did nothing other than launch an application. We'll wonder why we had to have a start menu at all. We'll probably wonder how the hell we managed all that time using a mouse for something as simple as selecting what music we wanted to listen to instead of using our fingers.
Have a little vision people..and try to see the bigger picture. The world out there is bigger than all of us.
I wouldn't say that most people don't know diddly about what's good or bad for them; rather, I would argue that most people don't particularly care about kernels and network packets and pixel pipelines. i.e. Most people don't really care about the low-level details of how a computer works. Most people (me included) know very well what we want: we just want a computer that works, works well, and lets us use our programs efficiently. I really don't care how the kernel works. I don't particularly care about how all the bits and IP packets are being processed and shuffled around in the core of my machine. When I click an icon to open Photoshop, I'd like to get on with image editing in an efficient manner. When I upload my photos to Flickr, I want the network interfaces to work without much hassle. If a company can improve my user experience when I'm performing my daily computing tasks, then all the better.
I was a bit put off based on early reviews, but the more I read the more I'm inclined to adopt Windows 8 when it is released.
Microsoft mainly had desktops, laptops and small servers. Those are still Microsoft dominated.
Where Apple has grown was in phones and tablets, a previous small market that Microsoft neglected for years.
If I didn't do so much heavy media creation I would seriously consider ditching my desktop and getting a laptop. Considering how powerful and compact hardware is getting, I suspect it won't be much longer before I can do just that.
Plus "affordable" Laptops still come with cr*p screens and bargain basement touchpads and lets face it, when you use the screen, keyboard and touchpad for 8+ hours straight each day the quality of those is very important, which means most cheap Laptops would be torture devices for actual work unless you get a separate screen, keyboard and mouse.
Ok that's funny, but even a 2000$ laptop (except a Mac), doesn't have any of those, unless you buy these 17+inch laptop that weights, somehow more than a desktop and 24inch monitor (exaggeration).
Laptops don't come with a screen where you live?
He meant even the highend laptops have "bad" screens. For example good luck finding a laptop with 13" display from anyone else but AOC and LG.
Sony do them too :) One of my (several) Vaios has a 13" display :)
Jesus christ, read before you write :). We don't talk about laptop manufacturers with 13" display laptops, we (me nad GoodBytes) talk about laptop display manufacturers. Not the whole laptop, just the LCD screen. Good luck finding LCD manufactured by Sony (hint: there are none, Sony does not manufacture LCD screens).
Actually, you missed a brand... Sharp. But they only do it for Sony and Apple to my knowledge. However, Sony uses the low end Sharp LCD screen, mostly to maximize profit, while Apple uses the high end Sharp. As for LG, all manufactures uses LG low end laptop panels. They are SOME absolute rare exception, where I see a OEM use a higher end LG panel... but usually those on are the 17inch laptops, or the rest of the laptop is a huge disappointment, so it doesn't attract attention.
As for AOC... Well it's in the name: Acute Overly Crap.
I remember when I want my laptop back 4 years ago.. Dell used 2 panel manufacture for the same resolution for teh very same laptop to meet demand. AOC or, if you are lucky, low end LG. Those, like me, that was lucky enough to get the LG screen, got a nice screen (By nice, I mean for laptop standards. The view angle and contrast are awful and has a slow response time.)
If you got AOC.. hehehe weeeeelll... people just returned the laptop, to try again, and hope it's an LG, let's put it that way. As for all review sites that got the system from Dell: Dell made sure that they have the LG panel.
Hehe yep, that was a bit of a misunderstanding there. Yep, unfortunately Screens are rubbish even in a lot of expensive Laptops, I would certainly not want to use one for a extended period like required by work, 8+ hours would be hell, which is why I was shooting down the idea of using Laptop as desktop replacements at work as you would still need a external (this time I'll add in that word to avoid confusion xD) Screen, Keyboard and Mouse in order to be able to work comfortably.
Cause lets face it, you can have all the shiny new ivy bridge mobile cpus in the world in your laptop, but if the screen is crap you are still not going to enjoy using it.