4 ms·

I wish it had a 4k screen

ldoughty 6y ago
I think 4k is a stretch on a laptop screen. I think 2k would fit better, require less powerful graphics card, and conserve battery power.
- bo1024 6y ago
  What do you mean by 2k in a laptop context? (i.e. non-ultrawide)
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    I think he means 2560 x 1440 (QHD), which is 16:9. 2K is just another way of referring to this resolution.
    - erik 6y ago
      Yep, sometimes people use 2k to mean 1440p / QHD. But it's a particularly bad name for that resolution. 2K is an existing cinema spec that is much closer to 1920x1080 than anything else.
- 1_player 6y ago
  It's not a stretch. Reading or writing code at 1x resolution is making a huge disservice to your eyes. Minimum 160ppi, the more the better. In 2020 1080p only makes sense on higher frequencies for gaming, until someone finally releases an affordable 4k >=120hz displays which isn't a "gamer" atrocity.
tomtheelder 6y ago
On a 15"? You're probably going to lose meaningful battery life and increase price for barely noticeable gains.
- mdtusz 6y ago
  Fwiw, I have a 13" ThinkPad with a 4k display and get ~4 hours of real battery life or more while working with docker running a handful of containers, browser, vim, spotify, and a few dev tools running. Nothing amazing by any means, but it's plenty for real world usage and if I stop the docker daemon, I probably gain another hour or two. How often are you working somewhere for more than a few hours without a plug?
- mixmastamyk 6y ago
  Am almost never on battery but always looking at the screen. Won’t ever go back to sub 4k.
- chrismorgan 6y ago
  My Surface Book has a very nice 13″ 3000×2000 display (28% fewer pixels than 4K). Paired with an i7-6600U CPU and 8GB of RAM, it got 10–13 hours of real battery life when it was new a few years ago—at the time, I think that was not far off being a record for any type of laptop. I am never going back to 1920×1080. I’m sceptical even of 2560×1440 on a 13″ display. 15″, I’m certainly not going to accept anything meaningfully less than 4K.

I think 4k is a stretch on a laptop screen. I think 2k would fit better, require less powerful graphics card, and conserve battery power.

bo1024 6y ago
What do you mean by 2k in a laptop context? (i.e. non-ultrawide)
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  I think he means 2560 x 1440 (QHD), which is 16:9. 2K is just another way of referring to this resolution.
  - erik 6y ago
    Yep, sometimes people use 2k to mean 1440p / QHD. But it's a particularly bad name for that resolution. 2K is an existing cinema spec that is much closer to 1920x1080 than anything else.
1_player 6y ago
It's not a stretch. Reading or writing code at 1x resolution is making a huge disservice to your eyes. Minimum 160ppi, the more the better. In 2020 1080p only makes sense on higher frequencies for gaming, until someone finally releases an affordable 4k >=120hz displays which isn't a "gamer" atrocity.

tomtheelder 6y ago

On a 15"? You're probably going to lose meaningful battery life and increase price for barely noticeable gains.

mdtusz 6y ago
Fwiw, I have a 13" ThinkPad with a 4k display and get ~4 hours of real battery life or more while working with docker running a handful of containers, browser, vim, spotify, and a few dev tools running. Nothing amazing by any means, but it's plenty for real world usage and if I stop the docker daemon, I probably gain another hour or two. How often are you working somewhere for more than a few hours without a plug?
mixmastamyk 6y ago
Am almost never on battery but always looking at the screen. Won’t ever go back to sub 4k.
chrismorgan 6y ago
My Surface Book has a very nice 13″ 3000×2000 display (28% fewer pixels than 4K). Paired with an i7-6600U CPU and 8GB of RAM, it got 10–13 hours of real battery life when it was new a few years ago—at the time, I think that was not far off being a record for any type of laptop. I am never going back to 1920×1080. I’m sceptical even of 2560×1440 on a 13″ display. 15″, I’m certainly not going to accept anything meaningfully less than 4K.