7 ms·

4K on a 14".. what is the use case for that? unless you have some hybrid long-short sightedness (d)efficiency, use your laptop as a chesttop, or want quadruple

4K on a 14".. what is the use case for that? unless you have some hybrid long-short sightedness (d)efficiency, use your laptop as a chesttop, or want quadruple the pixels for half the battery life I really can't see any benefit

varispeed 6y ago
I currently have XPS 15 with 4k screen and I can easily see pixels, so 14 should be a little better. There is also the feeling that it is 2021 and should I still be seeing pixels? I think crisp high resolution view is much better for the eyes and feels more natural. I am also almost always within reach of a mains socket, so I don't particularly care about battery life, just that I can move the machine from one place to another easily.
- abreis 6y ago
  4K at 15" is 294 dpi. I'm very surprised to hear that you can see pixels at that density at a normal laptop screen viewing distance. My laptop is 'only' at 226dpi (16") and I can't see pixels unless I bring my nose to the screen.
  - adrusi 6y ago
    I think different people mean different things by "see the pixels." I can't imagine being able to see individual pixels on a 15" 4k display at laptop distances, but I can imagine being able to notice minor distortions in the outlines of text, or more discomfort than necessary when reading small text, as a result of lower pixel densities. That could be reasonably described as seeing the pixels.
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    My iPhone has ~320dpi and I can't see pixels at non-ridculous viewing distances. I don't know what GP's viewing distance habits or eyes are like but for me, considering laptop viewing distance is probably like twice that of smartphones, I can't imagine a 15" 4K laptop being anything but overkill.
- postalrat 6y ago
  Do you use any sort of desktop scaling? I'd hope not if you can "easily" see pixels. I'd imagine anyone who can "easily" see 4k pixels on a 15" screen would have text characters around 1mm tall.
- Koshkin 6y ago
  I love pixels. Seeing them reminds me that I am in front of a computer and not a TV. Same as a car that smells a bit of oil/gasoline. Feels like a real car.
  - ddingus 6y ago
    Same. I enjoy the much higher resolution displays, but rarely get more out of them.
- staticelf 6y ago
  > I currently have XPS 15 with 4k screen and I can easily see pixels Bullshit. Unless you literally push your face close to the monitor and view it from a normal viewing distance, you won't be able to see the pixels.
acdha 6y ago
Use a Mac with a Retina display for a week and see whether you don't notice a difference — and it's certainly nowhere near half the battery life. Everyone I know who's done this has never wanted to go back.
- gtf21 6y ago
  As someone who went from a mac (for the last 15 years including several retina MBPs) to a 1920x1080 13" screen on a lemur pro, I really don't find that it makes a huge difference to me. I thought it would really irritate me but it doesn't.
  - blumomo 6y ago
    Isn’t lemur pro 14”? As I’m mostly working on the terminal, reading/writing text, I’m also not seeing the lower DPI as a downgrade, having done the same switch as you.
    - gtf21 6y ago
      Whoops yes, 14"
  - BigJ1211 6y ago
    It's really noticable when reading/writing text. I personally do dev work for a living and when I have to use a FHD screen instead of a UHD screen it's really noticable. It's kind of like going from 144Hz back to 60Hz when playing FPS games.
    - rpdillon 6y ago
      Based on lots of previous comments (and yours!) that describe a day/night difference, I've concluded this is highly personal. Work issued me a 2018 Mac with a 2880x1800 15.4" display (220 dpi), and I work at home with it plugged into a 1920x1080 23.5" display (93 dpi) from Sceptre. They are side by side, all day long, and I vastly prefer writing and coding on the FHD display, to the point that I thought I was being trolled when I read comments about "never going back". So, I'm guessing people just like different things!
Sayrus 6y ago
Text rendering is way smoother, you can also read smaller font because they are more detailed instead of being pixelated. While QHD is enough for me, 4K is great because it is a factor 2 compared to 1080p.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  > 4K is great because it is a factor 2 compared to 1080p. I strongly disagree. QHD is perfect for me, because everything renders natively and looks beautiful. 4K without scaling is unusable, and 4K scaled up is just 1080p - You lose all the screen real estate you paid for.
  - sitzkrieg 6y ago
    4k scaled up like that is incredibly sharp fonts tho, it looks really nice. but yea total waste of space otherwise. i was surprised to see big sur default to 200% scale on a 4k attached to m1 mac mini but obviously screen real estate is the least of concerns with that garbage padded ui
  - hvis 6y ago
    You get 4K for rendering detail, not for screen estate.
  - akvadrako 6y ago
    You're missing the whole point of 4K at 14". Everyone uses it scaled but there is more detail, most importantly with fonts. You don't need any stupid sub-pixel rendering stuff.
    - dahfizz 6y ago
      Or, you can have a 1440p and get more detail and more screen real estate :)
      - akvadrako 6y ago
        UI elements at 1440p/1x/14" is too small for my taste.
turbinerneiter 6y ago
I really try to avoid looking at higher res screens too much. I like the lower price and better battery life of the HD screens and they look fine to me, but I think once you really try the higher res it will ruin the lower res for you.
- sitzkrieg 6y ago
  its true, i made the mistake of seeing small text on 4k and 1080p side by side and it can be hard to go back
KptMarchewa 6y ago
I lost the Thinkpad display lottery with 1080p at 14' and it's one thing I'd want from macbook any moment.
ekianjo 6y ago
> what is the use case for that? Marketing specs?
pkulak 6y ago
4K at 14" is probably not a great idea because you'd need fractional scaling. I'm holding out for 13" 1440p, which is a perfect 2x.
- akvadrako 6y ago
  I use 4K on 14". Windows defaults to 300% scaling so clearly the defaults agree with you. But 200% scaling is usable; things are a little small but the extra real estate is worth it.
  - pkulak 6y ago
    I guess if my math is right, that's 104 ppi after 3x scaling? Bit large, but not bad. Take a couple fonts down in size a tad and you're probably golden. I've been writing off 4k laptops, but this brings them back into consideration for me.
Phrodo_00 6y ago
To get full 2x HIDPI character rendering at the same size as 1x on a 1080p monitor.

varispeed 6y ago

I currently have XPS 15 with 4k screen and I can easily see pixels, so 14 should be a little better. There is also the feeling that it is 2021 and should I still be seeing pixels? I think crisp high resolution view is much better for the eyes and feels more natural. I am also almost always within reach of a mains socket, so I don't particularly care about battery life, just that I can move the machine from one place to another easily.

abreis 6y ago
4K at 15" is 294 dpi. I'm very surprised to hear that you can see pixels at that density at a normal laptop screen viewing distance. My laptop is 'only' at 226dpi (16") and I can't see pixels unless I bring my nose to the screen.
- adrusi 6y ago
  I think different people mean different things by "see the pixels." I can't imagine being able to see individual pixels on a 15" 4k display at laptop distances, but I can imagine being able to notice minor distortions in the outlines of text, or more discomfort than necessary when reading small text, as a result of lower pixel densities. That could be reasonably described as seeing the pixels.
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  My iPhone has ~320dpi and I can't see pixels at non-ridculous viewing distances. I don't know what GP's viewing distance habits or eyes are like but for me, considering laptop viewing distance is probably like twice that of smartphones, I can't imagine a 15" 4K laptop being anything but overkill.
postalrat 6y ago
Do you use any sort of desktop scaling? I'd hope not if you can "easily" see pixels. I'd imagine anyone who can "easily" see 4k pixels on a 15" screen would have text characters around 1mm tall.
Koshkin 6y ago
I love pixels. Seeing them reminds me that I am in front of a computer and not a TV. Same as a car that smells a bit of oil/gasoline. Feels like a real car.
- ddingus 6y ago
  Same. I enjoy the much higher resolution displays, but rarely get more out of them.
staticelf 6y ago
> I currently have XPS 15 with 4k screen and I can easily see pixels Bullshit. Unless you literally push your face close to the monitor and view it from a normal viewing distance, you won't be able to see the pixels.

acdha 6y ago

Use a Mac with a Retina display for a week and see whether you don't notice a difference — and it's certainly nowhere near half the battery life. Everyone I know who's done this has never wanted to go back.

gtf21 6y ago
As someone who went from a mac (for the last 15 years including several retina MBPs) to a 1920x1080 13" screen on a lemur pro, I really don't find that it makes a huge difference to me. I thought it would really irritate me but it doesn't.
- blumomo 6y ago
  Isn’t lemur pro 14”? As I’m mostly working on the terminal, reading/writing text, I’m also not seeing the lower DPI as a downgrade, having done the same switch as you.
  - gtf21 6y ago
    Whoops yes, 14"
- BigJ1211 6y ago
  It's really noticable when reading/writing text. I personally do dev work for a living and when I have to use a FHD screen instead of a UHD screen it's really noticable. It's kind of like going from 144Hz back to 60Hz when playing FPS games.
  - rpdillon 6y ago
    Based on lots of previous comments (and yours!) that describe a day/night difference, I've concluded this is highly personal. Work issued me a 2018 Mac with a 2880x1800 15.4" display (220 dpi), and I work at home with it plugged into a 1920x1080 23.5" display (93 dpi) from Sceptre. They are side by side, all day long, and I vastly prefer writing and coding on the FHD display, to the point that I thought I was being trolled when I read comments about "never going back". So, I'm guessing people just like different things!

Sayrus 6y ago

Text rendering is way smoother, you can also read smaller font because they are more detailed instead of being pixelated. While QHD is enough for me, 4K is great because it is a factor 2 compared to 1080p.

dahfizz 6y ago
> 4K is great because it is a factor 2 compared to 1080p. I strongly disagree. QHD is perfect for me, because everything renders natively and looks beautiful. 4K without scaling is unusable, and 4K scaled up is just 1080p - You lose all the screen real estate you paid for.
- sitzkrieg 6y ago
  4k scaled up like that is incredibly sharp fonts tho, it looks really nice. but yea total waste of space otherwise. i was surprised to see big sur default to 200% scale on a 4k attached to m1 mac mini but obviously screen real estate is the least of concerns with that garbage padded ui
- hvis 6y ago
  You get 4K for rendering detail, not for screen estate.
- akvadrako 6y ago
  You're missing the whole point of 4K at 14". Everyone uses it scaled but there is more detail, most importantly with fonts. You don't need any stupid sub-pixel rendering stuff.
  - dahfizz 6y ago
    Or, you can have a 1440p and get more detail and more screen real estate :)
    - akvadrako 6y ago
      UI elements at 1440p/1x/14" is too small for my taste.

turbinerneiter 6y ago

I really try to avoid looking at higher res screens too much. I like the lower price and better battery life of the HD screens and they look fine to me, but I think once you really try the higher res it will ruin the lower res for you.

sitzkrieg 6y ago
its true, i made the mistake of seeing small text on 4k and 1080p side by side and it can be hard to go back

KptMarchewa 6y ago

I lost the Thinkpad display lottery with 1080p at 14' and it's one thing I'd want from macbook any moment.

ekianjo 6y ago

> what is the use case for that? Marketing specs?

pkulak 6y ago

4K at 14" is probably not a great idea because you'd need fractional scaling. I'm holding out for 13" 1440p, which is a perfect 2x.

akvadrako 6y ago
I use 4K on 14". Windows defaults to 300% scaling so clearly the defaults agree with you. But 200% scaling is usable; things are a little small but the extra real estate is worth it.
- pkulak 6y ago
  I guess if my math is right, that's 104 ppi after 3x scaling? Bit large, but not bad. Take a couple fonts down in size a tad and you're probably golden. I've been writing off 4k laptops, but this brings them back into consideration for me.

Phrodo_00 6y ago

To get full 2x HIDPI character rendering at the same size as 1x on a 1080p monitor.