3 ms·
Better display please! 2256x1504 is so 2010!
by bitL 3y ago
Better display please! 2256x1504 is so 2010!
- codedokode 3y agoFor 13" screen isn't that more than enough? I barely see pixel grid on 1080p display.
- bitL 3y agoMy ASUS ZenBook has 3300x2200 at 13" and it's the best display I've ever had. Can't downgrade once I got used to it, at 2x pixel density it's basically 1650x1100 but with much nicer pixels. Looks stunning in Linux.
- chrismorgan 3y ago2256×1504 at 13.5″ is 200ppi, which is awkward, clearly designed for a scaling factor of 1.5×. You’ll get drastically better results by going up to 2× scaling with 3000×2000 display like the Surface Book’s (267ppi), partly from the increased resolution and partly just from avoiding the difficulties or quality loss (depending on approach) of fractional scaling. (As a matter of fact, environments that use integral scaling plus downsampling will produce better results on a lower-resolution 1× screen for a lot of types of content.) I now use a laptop with a 188ppi display (which I use at 1.5×), because that was where I found the best compromise at the time. I really miss the resolution of my Surface Book. > I barely see pixel grid on 1080p display. Honestly, if you can see it at all, it’s not high enough.
- kayodelycaon 3y agoIt's plenty. For comparison, Apple's M2 MacBook Air has a 13.6" 2560-by-1664 display.
- bitL 3y agoM2 Air's retina resolution goes down to 1280x832 whereas Framework's to 1128x752 which is a notch worse in both dimensions.
- yoyohello13 3y ago4K is a large battery drain for very little benefit over 1440.
- bitL 3y agoThe screen is not 1440p, it's a 3:2 panel so at 16:9 it would be 1269p.
- segasaturn 3y agoHelllllllllll no. This machine is on x86, I need all the battery life I can get.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- unethical_ban 3y agoHa, I got a 1440p display on desktop in 2019.
- bitL 3y agoI bet your desktop display is not 2160x1440 though...