4 ms·
Non-retina is a thing of the past. It should be relegated to monitors that cost 200€.
by naoqj 5y ago
Non-retina is a thing of the past. It should be relegated to monitors that cost 200€.
- ubercow13 5y agoJust like non-VRR is a thing of the past, non-120+Hz is a thing of the past, etc.
- howinteresting 5y agoI can claim equally without evidence that non-120+Hz is a thing of the past.
- nick__m 5y agoNon-curved 60Hz monitors are a thing of the past they should be relegated to monitors that cost 200$. That was an easy comment to make! Do you realize that other peoples have different preferences than you do and they are equally valid.
- noahtallen 5y agoMaybe it should be, but it’s not actually a thing of the past. I would bet hard cash that a higher number of recently released expensive monitors ($1000+) don’t have retina than those that did. There is still a massive market for people willing to make the trade off in another direction (like higher refresh rate or going ultrawide) rather than retina. Obviously it’d be amazing if what you said is true, because both retina and HRR are very nice to have
- account42 5y agoThere are so many other dimensions that can be more important. 110 dpi is fine for me now - my next upgrade will focus on contrast and black level instead.