4 ms·
Why are they so allergic to >60hz displays though? There is zero chance that I'm buying a laptop with a slideshow display like that in current year.
by huddert 7mo ago
Why are they so allergic to >60hz displays though? There is zero chance that I'm buying a laptop with a slideshow display like that in current year.
- nine_k 7mo agoAre you a gamer? Otherwise it's really not easy to notice a "slideshow" at 60 Hz.
- iso-logi 7mo agoMoving the mouse around at anything below 90Hz is pretty rough.
- huddert 7mo agoNo. I guess everyone has different levels of sensitivity to refresh rates. It is immediately noticeable and very distracting to me when using a 60hz display. It's not acceptable on a high-end laptop nowadays (120hz minimum). Imagine the reduction in headaches, fatigue and nausea if we stopped tolerating this penny-pinching.
- hermanzegerman 7mo agoI think you are the outlier with Headaches, Fatigue and Nausea from using a 60hz Display
- tombert 7mo agoI've never had an issue with 60hz. 30hz is unusable but 60hz has always been good enough for me; the Sega Genesis and SNES had 60hz and that's always been good enough for me.
- huddert 7mo ago[flagged]
- tombert 7mo agoMy toilet seems to work fine, and I think it's 35 years old. But in general I agree, just with different variables. I'm ok with 60hz but I won't use a screen less than 4K. Part of the reason I bought the ThinkPad is because it was one of the few I could find at a reasonable price that had a 4K screen.
- nirava 7mo agoEven 50hz is fine. I'd go so far as to say, barring any medical or sensitivity issue, if any person prioritizes a 120hz screen they are a victim to habit or marketing. It adds zero value to the experience, and you're just looking for things to be annoyed by / brag about. Modern displays are already cutting edge. They have improved in every way that's meaningful in the last 35 years. Refresh rate is just not meaningful enough. "35 year old performance" it most certainly is not. You just seem hellbent on using this arbitrary (to most people) benchmark as a filter. FYI, I run my 17 pro almost exclusively on power saving mode to cap frame rates because the battery life extending by 30 mins is more infinitely more valuable than frame rate over 50. I've capped my fancy monitor's frame rate to 60 so it matches my macbook air. And it's all fine in this world, nothing here is "one notch above unusable".
- hulitu 7mo ago> Refresh rate is just not meaningful enough. Until the bloody compositor updates the screen based on it or worse based on half of it.
- nirava 7mo ago:single_tear_frowning_emoji:
- huddert 7mo ago"Even 4gb of memory is fine", "even 720p is fine", "even 2ghz CPU is fine", "even a membrane keyboard is fine", "even USB 2.0 is fine", "even 2 hours battery life is fine"... Yeah it's all "fine". If these were the specs of the only laptop available to me then yeah it would be "fine". I could get things done. One or more of those things are deal-breakers for an awful lot of people. For me, a rubbish display is a deal-breaker. I can't accept that they would compromise in this aspect, presumably to save a few bucks. It's likely as difficult for me to understand how you could possibly prefer battery life over refresh rates as it is for you to do the opposite. And I'm not even talking crazy refresh rates here, 120hz or even 90hz at a minimum. Would you buy a high-end laptop with 15 minute battery life? I'm not buying a new laptop with a 60hz display.