In order for this to measure to be meaningfull, typical viewing distances need to be taken into account. A better measure would be pixels per degree (PPD).
I know for a fact that my near blind mother would not want a high PPI screen. It took me forever to upgrade her to an LCD because should just couldn't read the screen. Higher PPI is great, but we need resolution independence to make it work.
I'm not so sure you'll want ultra-high res monitors for your general purpose computer until resolution independence is more prevalent, otherwise everything will be tiny.
One person's eyestrain is not another person's eyestrain. I understand that some people have problems with small fonts.
Other people, perhaps with sharper vision, find it extremely tiring to stare at a rigid square grid. BTW, the unpleasantness of looking at a square grid is already mentioned in TAOCP, vol. 2, page 2.
The market does not cater to those people (anymore). The Thinkpad forums are full of people lamenting the fact that Lenovo stopped offering flexview (IPS) UXGA displays.
The list in the article is a hall of shame and notebook manufacturers should wake up to the fact that a significant amount of consumers would spend money if there were decent products to spend money on.
On a large screen, PPI is not as important as on a smaller screen. On a 15" notebook, a ~100 ppi screen is perfectly fine and a larger ppi actually causes a fair bit of eyestrain due to the size of fonts, UI controls etc. Until we get a truly resolution independent OS (Snow Leopard maybe?), highly dense large size screens are not going to be the holy grail.
I've been researching netbooks lately. Most netbooks have a native resolution of 1024x600. Not only are 10.2" screens less "obsolete," (yet have a lower PPI) they are generally preferred by consumers over the 8.9" screens (both at 1024x600). Hence, I feel that the conclusion of this article is on shaky ground ...
