What's THE resolution of 2016?
People aren't still using 2560x1440 and lower are they?
>>54828096
Which app is that on the menu bar?
>>54828434
rdm or Retina Display Manager
>>54828096
>not using DPI scaling
>>54828482
Could you kindly fuck off back to whichever festering, putrid shit pit you crawled out of you pathetic piece of shit. Cheers.
>>54828472
Still looots of room
>>54828482
This isn't a desktop thread?
>>54828590
8k isn't Apple, it's a resolution.
>>54828646
You might have autism.
>implying screen resolution matters in the world of VR
>>54828657
Screen resolution is one of the biggest downsides of VR.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/09/virtual-perfection-why-8k-resolution-per-eye-isnt-enough-for-perfect-vr/
>>54828096
Miles, no one gives a fuck that you bought a larger-than-normal monitor 3 fucking months ago. Quit being such a fucking attention whore.
Sage.
>>54828695
I'm posting high technology devices in a technology board. Webm related.
>>54828712
Yes.
>>54828712
>Frogposting tripfag
>Complaining abou anything
Dank :^)
Resolution does not really matter. Portrait is the best for programming though.
>>54828482
sol pls
You've already posted that image in another thread. Here, have this custom and modern one for more originality.
>>54828096
Muh bitmapped fonts would become unreadable at >150 DPI, doe.
>>54828096
Any resolution post FHD is a meme
>>54828847
Get bigger ones. Terminus and Monaco both have larger glyphs.
>>54828855
Any resolution under 4k is archaic
tfw using 2560x1600
daily reminder to not respond to tripfags
>>54829052
>computers aren't necessary
jej
>>54828923
But what would the point of having higher resolution be if the letters take up as much real area anyway? That doesn't make more fit on the screen.
Am I the only one who still uses 1080p for everything and feels absolutely no need for anything bigger?
>>54829151
Using the scaled modes still give you a much sharper image than you'd get on a normal PPI display.
>>54829157
>1080p
Pleb tier. 1600x1200 is where it's at.
>>54828096
This looks highly unusable. In order to have the text readable comfortably I would have to have a gigantic screen and need to look around to see the whole thing. I would understand this if it was scaled up so it's just really fine but smaller area.
>>54829162
>sharper
Wat. This ain't a CRT, you know.
>>54828482
>>54828535
>>54828590
>>54828646
>>54828673
>>54828712
>>54828742
>>54828783
>>54828862
>>54829052
Holy fucking shit, you are the worse asshole that /g/ has ever seen. Gtfo you stupid shit, nobody on the board likes you, NOT ONE PERSON. Stop posting under an alias, you do nothing with your life but shit post.
I hope that they ban you for life.
>my desktops still run 1366x768 on BAAAAD TN screens from the mid 2000s
>I don't own a laptop
>Use NTSC CRT for /vr/
>Phone is iPhone SE
This house is where resolutions come to die
>>54829157
1080p is perfect for me. Anything higher is tiny.
>>54829223
I like him
>>54829206
Doesn't matter. You're still showing more detail because your monitor still has more pixels than the normal-PPI equivalent.
4k downscaled to a 15" rMBP display will look sharper than a 15" 1920x1200 screen because the normal PPI screen only has 1920x1200 pixels. The rMBP screen is 2880x1880, so while it can't show the full detail of the scaled desktop, it still shows more detail than is possible on the 1920x1200 screen.
>>54828096
What's the minimum monitor size required for 2560x1440?
>>54829255
12".
I use a 43" UHDTV for a monitor and it's amazing.
>>54829243
But the point of >>54829162 was upscaling, not downscaling.
>>54828096
I bought a Dell 4k summer 2014 for $800 (IPS panel)
>>54829274
What is even the point of having a high resolution on a small screen I mean 1080p on a 20" monitor looks exactly the same as a 1440p on the same 20" monitor
>>54829285
When I said "scaled modes" I meant how OS X can render your desktop at higher resolutions than your screen can physically show.
>>54829307
Because with a scaled UI it would give you a 1280x720 workarea, meaning it's the minimum resolution you should use on any device running a desktop OS. The devices that would have the lowest screen resolutions would probably be smaller display laptops.
>>54829311
But how is that a relevant reply to >>54829151 in that case?
>>54829356
Because there's so many pixels that you can sacrifice a bit of clarity for larger workareas while still having an image way sharper than normal PPI displays.
>>54829376
>sharper
WTF does that have with anything to do? The point is that if I could see any text smaller than I currently use, then I could use that on my current display.
>2016
>not using 144hz moniter
>>54829400
The point of pixel dense displays is to be able to render a sharper image. Using them unscaled leaves everything too small to use.
The point is you can downscale higher resolutions to your screen and it will still look good. This gives you more room than what you could get on a normal 27" monitor as well, since as far as I know there aren't any 3200x1800 27" displays for sale.
Even Windows 10 has non-interger scaling.
>>54828096
I still use 1080p but I upscale most of my games to 2880p.
>>54829433
Scaling won't make my bitmapped fonts any sharper. They are literally as sharp as can be.
>>54829467
Now imagine if they had 4 times the detail.
>>54829496
That still wouldn't make an A any more of an A.
>>54829241
Sure you do, you probably removed your trip for one second to say that.
>>54829496
Autism, ladies and gentlmen.
