3 ms·

QHD+ (3200x1800) is, IMHO, absolute overkill on 13" screen and have only one purpose - to show "mine is better than yours" numbers in the spec list. As a compa

QHD+ (3200x1800) is, IMHO, absolute overkill on 13" screen and have only one purpose - to show "mine is better than yours" numbers in the spec list. As a comparison, MacBook Pro, the laptop that invented "retina" laptop display, have 2560x1600 on 13". I dare you to spot the difference between 13" MacBook Pro and any current Windows laptop with crazy high resolutions when the fonts are the same size. BTW, 15" MacBook Pro have 2880x1800 (still below QHD+), and 12" Macbook have "strange" resolution of 2304x1400 - Apple cares about the battery life and packs reasonable number of pixels on the screen. Other manufacturers probably don't have so much weight and confidence in their products, and packs any available high-res display into laptops. But let's don't confuse bad logistic and sloppy manufacturing with economical use of display and battery.

elcct 10y ago
I think it is down to ones ability to see. My travel-work laptop has QHD+ screen and I can easily see pixels from normal working distance. 1080p screen could definitely give me "90s experience"
- yread 10y ago
  So you had a laptop in 90s with 1080p? Tell us more please!
  - elcct 10y ago
    I think you take things too literally. But in the 90s I had a computer connected to analogue TV which was pretty blurry, that means you couldn't see pixels at all ;)
bluedino 10y ago
>> As a comparison, MacBook Pro, the laptop that invented "retina" laptop display, have 2560x1600 on 13" It's an effective 1280x800 from the factory, and elements on screen are too big to be effective. Adjusting the slider over to an approximated 1440x900 is a must. 2880x1800 (what the 15" comes with) would be perfect for the 13" model, which would give a higher effective resolution with not artifacts.