4 ms·

> removing support for non-hidpi displays from MacOS Did that really reduce sales? Consider that the wide availability of crappy low end hardware gave Windows

• masklinn 4y ago
  > Consider that the wide availability of crappy low end hardware gave Windows laptops a terrible reputation. Standard DPI displays are not "crappy low-end hardware"? I don't think there's a single widescreen display which qualifies as hiDPI out there, that more or less doesn't exist: a 5K 34" is around 160 DPI (to say nothing of the downright pedestrian 5K 49" like the G9 or the AOC Agon).
  • adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
    dpi isn't the right metric. you don't keep a phone the same distance as a 49" monitor.
    • Dylan16807 4y ago
      DPI works fine as long as the type of device is in the context. The context here is desktop/laptop.
    • masklinn 4y ago
      DPI is absolutely the right metric, the target goal just depends on the usage. A hidpi computer display is north of 200 (iMacs are a bit below 220, MacBooks a bit above). A phone is north of 300 (iPhones have ranged from 324 to 476).
  • NavinF 4y ago
    Ehh I had a 2013 MacBook pro back in 2013 with a 2560x1600 display. That's 227 dpi. A decade later, I think it's safe to say that anything smaller than that is extremely low-end in 2022. I agree it's kinda sad how few desktop monitors are high dpi. It gets even worse if you limit yourself to low latency monitors. Anyway I haven't used macos in a while so I'm not sure what you mean by Apple not supporting non-hidpi
    • bigDinosaur 4y ago
      The actual screen dimensions make a huge difference to whether or not a given DPI value is low or high end. My current monitor is 157 DPI and I can assure you it is not an extremely low end monitor at all. Unless your frame of reference is anything below $5k is low end or something.
      • NavinF 4y ago
        Right, what I meant to say is that anything under 1600p is low end because it was already widely available in 2013.