5 ms·
I've seen the same. In fact my Arch Linux laptop seems way more dependable than my 2016 MBP, so much so I switched my work MBP for an Arch setup too. I'm actual
by AsyncAwait 6y ago
I've seen the same. In fact my Arch Linux laptop seems way more dependable than my 2016 MBP, so much so I switched my work MBP for an Arch setup too. I'm actually seriously thinking of replacing macOS with Windows on the MBP, which is not something I'd ever consider back in the Snow Leopard days.
- throwii 6y agoDoes the displays on Windows look as crispy as on MacOS? That's the fear I have of switching away. I love how crisp to the eye everything is.
- armada651 6y agoOn Windows you decide how crisp you want your display. There are plenty of hardware options with Retina-equivalent DPI.
- throwii 6y agoI was probably too much into their marketing. Is it the same for Linux/Archlinux?
- herbstein 6y agoTonsky, the creator of the popular 'Fira Code' monospace font, has a great blog post about monitor DPI and font rendering. A big section is on just how terrible font rendering and display scaling on a modern Mac really is. https://tonsky.me/blog/monitors/ https://tonsky.me/blog/monitors/
- AsyncAwait 6y agoI run Arch on a Surface Pro 7, (ironic, I know), which has a HiDPI display and the experience is good for me under GNOME, even fractional scaling is supported. One thing to keep in mind is that Windows/Mac/Linux do render fonts differently - they may not look identical to macOS out of the box, but there's a lot of configuration options (if you want to play with them) to get them to look the way you want.
- throwii 6y agoI will probably use Arch too. Only have to choose good displays then :)
- sgc 6y agoI don't use a mac but hop on other people's from time to time. I see nothing special there compared to my ~250 dpi ubuntu laptop.
- throwii 6y ago250 sounds nice, compared to 220 retina ppi for macs. If its only constrained by the display that would be good. I will love buying 3080/5950x as my new workstation. hmm