6 ms·

Such an inexpensive machine and reviewer complains about lack of 4K... :) 1080p is pretty decent in a little laptop like this.

TylerE 6y ago
I mean, a $35 RaspPI does 4k...
- bronco21016 6y ago
  4K display not included... I mean that’s not even a fair comparison.
- cushychicken 6y ago
  It also doesn't include a monitor.
  - hestefisk 6y ago
    Yeah and no scsi controller. Lame.
  - ferzul 6y ago
    but it would be nice to pay a bit more and get 4k.
    - zamadatix 6y ago
      I don't think it makes much sense to "pay a bit more and get 4k" on a device which costs $199. If people are looking to "pay a bit more" to get 4k then they should probably look at a device which can actually handle 4k decently not expect it as an upgrade option on one of the cheapest laptops available.
- andrepd 6y ago
  That's completely not the point. They're talking about the display, not video-out capabilities.
- stefan_ 6y ago
  Careful what you wish for. The GPUs in the Pinebook Pro or RasPi 4 can drive a 4k display. But they don't have the pixel throughput to composite a real 4k graphics scene or even desktop. It would be misery. The application for those resolutions in mobile chips is to take a picture from the hardware video decoder and display it.
chrisseaton 6y ago
> 1080p is pretty decent in a little laptop like this. When did 1080 become regarded as acceptable, let alone decent? I remember running CRTs as high as 1440 about 20 years ago. What happened? Why hasn't resolution doubled a few times since then?
- narrationbox 6y ago
  Because the display industry perpetuated the lie that resolution is more important and not pixel density. Apple's metric for retina displays is a lot more honest. Beyond a certain point at a particular distance your eyes would not be able to physically resolve the pixels. 1080p, 1440p, 4k, are all meaningless if you do not include pixel density. A 4k display 3 meters tall has a very different pixel density compared to a 3 inch 1080p device.
  - Arbalest 6y ago
    I personally am still fine with the ~100 ppi density. Being fine with it means using a UHD TV of slightly more than double the diagonal length of the 1080p 23-24" monitors is actually a cool way to get more real estate without multiple monitors. I think this really is a personal preference thing.
  - the_pwner224 6y ago
    Pixel density isn't what matters either. It's the angular size of the pixels as you see them (not sure what the actual term for that is). My phone has around 550 PPI but my computer monitor at 160 PPI looks damn near as sharp. Meanwhile I can clearly notice when the phone's resolution is reduced to get around 400 PPI, but I highly doubt I would be able to tell the difference between 200 and 250 on a computer monitor.
  - everdrive 6y ago
    Why does anyone think seeing pixels is bad. Past a certain point, you gain literally nothing.
- sukilot 6y ago
  1440p CRTs were never common. 2160p and 2880p LCDs are common today. 1080p in a laptop is decent because of subpixel aliasing and how human eyes work.
hedora 6y ago
Low powered arms (and intel atoms) are more than enough for most use cases. The only reason they’re not in my daily driver laptop is that I can’t get one with a decent display and a power efficient CPU. There’s surely pent up demand for such machines. Hopefully someone will build one eventually.
- nextos 6y ago
  Xiaomi Notebook Air 12.5 fits this bill. An excellent all-Intel machine with really good build quality. Sadly, really hard to buy outside China in its latest iterations. In Linux, everything works out of the box.

TylerE 6y ago

I mean, a $35 RaspPI does 4k...

bronco21016 6y ago
4K display not included... I mean that’s not even a fair comparison.
cushychicken 6y ago
It also doesn't include a monitor.
- hestefisk 6y ago
  Yeah and no scsi controller. Lame.
- ferzul 6y ago
  but it would be nice to pay a bit more and get 4k.
  - zamadatix 6y ago
    I don't think it makes much sense to "pay a bit more and get 4k" on a device which costs $199. If people are looking to "pay a bit more" to get 4k then they should probably look at a device which can actually handle 4k decently not expect it as an upgrade option on one of the cheapest laptops available.
andrepd 6y ago
That's completely not the point. They're talking about the display, not video-out capabilities.
stefan_ 6y ago
Careful what you wish for. The GPUs in the Pinebook Pro or RasPi 4 can drive a 4k display. But they don't have the pixel throughput to composite a real 4k graphics scene or even desktop. It would be misery. The application for those resolutions in mobile chips is to take a picture from the hardware video decoder and display it.

chrisseaton 6y ago

> 1080p is pretty decent in a little laptop like this. When did 1080 become regarded as acceptable, let alone decent? I remember running CRTs as high as 1440 about 20 years ago. What happened? Why hasn't resolution doubled a few times since then?

narrationbox 6y ago
Because the display industry perpetuated the lie that resolution is more important and not pixel density. Apple's metric for retina displays is a lot more honest. Beyond a certain point at a particular distance your eyes would not be able to physically resolve the pixels. 1080p, 1440p, 4k, are all meaningless if you do not include pixel density. A 4k display 3 meters tall has a very different pixel density compared to a 3 inch 1080p device.
- Arbalest 6y ago
  I personally am still fine with the ~100 ppi density. Being fine with it means using a UHD TV of slightly more than double the diagonal length of the 1080p 23-24" monitors is actually a cool way to get more real estate without multiple monitors. I think this really is a personal preference thing.
- the_pwner224 6y ago
  Pixel density isn't what matters either. It's the angular size of the pixels as you see them (not sure what the actual term for that is). My phone has around 550 PPI but my computer monitor at 160 PPI looks damn near as sharp. Meanwhile I can clearly notice when the phone's resolution is reduced to get around 400 PPI, but I highly doubt I would be able to tell the difference between 200 and 250 on a computer monitor.
- everdrive 6y ago
  Why does anyone think seeing pixels is bad. Past a certain point, you gain literally nothing.
sukilot 6y ago
1440p CRTs were never common. 2160p and 2880p LCDs are common today. 1080p in a laptop is decent because of subpixel aliasing and how human eyes work.

hedora 6y ago

Low powered arms (and intel atoms) are more than enough for most use cases. The only reason they’re not in my daily driver laptop is that I can’t get one with a decent display and a power efficient CPU. There’s surely pent up demand for such machines. Hopefully someone will build one eventually.

nextos 6y ago
Xiaomi Notebook Air 12.5 fits this bill. An excellent all-Intel machine with really good build quality. Sadly, really hard to buy outside China in its latest iterations. In Linux, everything works out of the box.