3 ms·
I'm curious: why do you care about aspect ratio vs. (effective) resolution? Seems like an odd thing to focus on, when it has nothing to do with how much stuff y
by folkrav 6y ago
I'm curious: why do you care about aspect ratio vs. (effective) resolution? Seems like an odd thing to focus on, when it has nothing to do with how much stuff you can display on screen. Do you mean at comparable sizes?
- walrus01 6y agoI care about both simultaneously - in my experience the common 1920x1080 laptop panels also have poor color rendition, poor brightness and overall image quality, in addition to not being a suitable dpi. I can see the blockiness and jagginess in fonts and GUI at 1920x1080 native. And scrolling vertically for anything is painful on a small 16:9 screen. The macbook happens to have both 16:10 aspect ratio and a higher quality LCD.
- diffeomorphism 6y agoBut lower resolution than a 4k 16:9 display (and no oled). So the question is why to prefer lower res 16:10 (lower in both directions) to 16:9? You just have strictly more screen, which seems better.
- walrus01 6y agoI was comparing laptops in the price range mentioned above, MacBook air vs 1080p laptops. If you go up to around $2000, then the windows 10 laptops start to have 4k screens.
- agloeregrets 6y ago4k gets you sharper text but the distance of the display away from you makes for diminishing returns in sharpness combined with horrific battery life and still 16:9. The macbook is very much a happy middle for normal use but I'm sure a Samsung Galaxy Book 4K is the best movie laptop ever