4 ms·

For 13" screen isn't that more than enough? I barely see pixel grid on 1080p display.

• bitL 3y ago
  My 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 ago
  2256×1504 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 ago
  It's plenty. For comparison, Apple's M2 MacBook Air has a 13.6" 2560-by-1664 display.
  • bitL 3y ago
    M2 Air's retina resolution goes down to 1280x832 whereas Framework's to 1128x752 which is a notch worse in both dimensions.