It's been 4 years, why isn't this universal?
>>54560825
Children don't understand PPI
>>54560825
Bad support, either from the OS or the applications
That's why high dpi works so good on Android, the OS and apps natively supported it from the beginning.
>>54560842
OS X supports it very well.
Reported. Fuck off
>>54560825
top and bottom are same, the bottom is just using a much, much larger font
>>54560848
Yes, and that's about the only desktop OS.
>>54560855
The top was taken with the lens much closer to the screen and UI scaling set to 1:1.
The bottom was taken further from the screen, with the UI scaling set 4:1.
>>54560842
Android has a lot of issues if you use a non-standard DPI. A lot of vendors just lock the DPI into something ridiculous, making everything large and killing any real estate gains.
>>54560878
>The bottom was taken further from the screen, with the UI scaling set 4:1.
So what you're asking is
>Why are you still sitting so close to your screen?
>>54560878
>Android has a lot of issues if you use a non-standard DPI. A lot of vendors just lock the DPI into something ridiculous, making everything large and killing any real estate gains.
Hmm I've never had any real problem with this. I can change the global dpi fine without any side effects, apps scale like they should.
What issues did you experience?
Because Wintendo application developers can't get their shit right. They're used to infinite backwards compatibility and don't bother with change. Windows developers are the Republicans of software.
>>54560825
144hz > high pixel density
Im not a content creator thus I don't need to jerk off to pretty fonts, 1080p is more than enough for media viewing and general desktop usage.
>>54560911
>confusing resolution and font size
>>54560883
Load a page on your phone and your computer.
Put your phone up to your monitor.
Zoom the text on the phone to be roughly the same size as the text on your screen.
If you can't see a clear difference between the two then you honestly need vision correction.
>>54560892
Like I said, it's only when you use non-standard PPIs. Things like keyboard buttons having their labels off center, a few material buttons being wonky, etc.
I forgot what the "standard" PPIs are, but things like CM stopped letting you select an arbitrary PPI because of it, at least if I remember right.
>>54560900
144hz is a meme though.
>>54560911
High PPI makes everything look better though.
The human eye can't really detect more than 1080p
Ask any pro gamer
>>54560915
>If you can't see a clear difference between the two then you honestly need vision correction.
I'm beginning to think you don't truly understand this stuff.
Since I'm not a mongoloid monkey on crack, I'm not sitting with my face squished up against my display. Instead, I have my display at the distance where I can no longer see the pixels.
That's the way you're SUPPOSED to do it.
>>54560914
u wut m8?
>>54560915
>High PPI makes everything look better though.
Yeah, but like I said, I dont need to jerk off to pretty fonts, everything looking better doesn't make my pc usage better when all the content I watch or make is 1080p.
There's no need.
>>54560927
You're probably a user of Microsoft Windows which defaults to heavily hinted fonts. Turn off hinting and it will look like shit even at normal viewing distance.
>>54560915
>144hz is a meme though.
>I've never used it
Because a close up macro shot exaggerates what really is a minor difference at normal viewing distances. The reality is no one gives a shit outside of autists.
>>54560959
>I don't understand font hinting either
>>54560928
>u wut m8?
Pixel size is assumed to be normed in all relevant standards. (e.g. the ITU-R BT.1845 norms 1 pixel per arcminute)
Assuming constant pixel size, resolution is just a function of how big your display is. So 1080p vs 2160p is just 4x the screen area (real estate).
What you're referring to as “font clarity” has nothing to do with the resolution, instead it has to do with how big your fonts are (relative to the pixel size) and nothing else.
Also, if anybody is complaining about fonts being low quality: That's a clear sign that you're too close to your display. Move your display further back.
>>54560954
Wrong, I use Gentoo Linux with unhinted pixel fonts. Pic related.
>>54560978
>Wrong, I use Gentoo Linux with unhinted pixel fonts. Pic related.
Do you also used fixed-width fonts in your browser? I'm so sorry.
>>54560992
>Do you also used fixed-width fonts in your browser? I'm so sorry.
I use terminus everywhere, yes. It's the most readable font.
>>54560927
Assuming you have a 24" screen with a 1080p resolution, that means you need to keep your display almost a meter away from your face. Most people tend to keep their display around half that distance apparently. I know I do.
http://isthisretina.com
Also if you want some science and maths.
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Can-you-see-the-difference-with-a-4K-monitor-729/
>At a viewing distance of 24 inches (which is about right for most desktop monitors) it is actually really surprising how soon you should be able to start making out individual pixels with a 1080p monitor. With 20/20 vision, if you want a monitor that is larger than just 15 inches you would ideally want a monitor with a 2K resolution instead of 1080p. Even with a 2K monitor, however, once you get above a 20 inch screen you should start to see a difference by using a 4K monitor. Between a 20 inch screen and a 30.5 inch screen there is no reason to go above 4K, but if you want a very large monitor you may consider using a 5K monitor once the technology matures a bit more.
>However, the average acuity for a healthy adult under the age of 60 or 70 is actually closer to between 20/13 and 20/17 (source 1 and 2). So if you are average and healthy, you should have a visual acuity of around 20/15 at which point the need for a higher resolution is even greater. At that visual acuity, for anything larger than a 15.5 inch screen you would ideally want to have a 4K screen. But even with just a 23 inch monitor, even 4K technically isn't good enough for your eyesight. 5K, which is still in its infancy, is really what you would ideally want for any monitor between 23 inches and 31 inches. For even larger screen sizes, you will have to wait for 6K or even higher resolutions to become available.
>>54561003
>Most people tend to keep their display around half that distance apparently. I know I do.
Most people are also bumbling retards who can't even tie their shoelaces properly.
>>54560975
Again, no one cares outside of autists. You think the average person cares about Quartz vs Cleartype?
>>54561011
You should really work on that attention span. My post isn't that long.
>>54561018
>You think the average person cares about Quartz vs Cleartype?
You think the average person cares if they have a Titan vs Iris Pro? Why are you arguing for things that are objectively inferior?
>>54561003
>Assuming you have a 24" screen with a 1080p resolution, that means you need to keep your display almost a meter away from your face.
Seems reasonable to me. I'm sitting at around 70cm distance from my 31.5" DCI-4K screen. If my PPI was much lower than that, I would naturally have to increase my viewing distance.
>>54560915
Nobody who calls higher refresh rates a meme should tell other people that they need eye correction.
>>54561033
>Why are you arguing for things that are objectively inferior?
To make a point that you seem to be too dense to grasp.
>>54561003
>Most people tend to keep their display around half that distance apparently. I know I do.
If you know you're doing it wrong then why are you complaining about fonts looking like shit?
Just increase your viewing distance to 1 meter and get high quality fonts for absolutely free! It's just like magic
in b4
>but then my work area will be tiny
yeah no shit, what did you expect from a 31° horizontal viewing area (1080p)?
>>54561003
"Most people" are on 1366x768 laptops. Are you proposing 4:1 scaling on those screens? What kind of retard logic is this?
>>54561003
>2K resolution instead of 1080p
>1080p instead of 1080p
"Science"
>>54561100
>22° horizontal viewing angle
pain and suffering
>>54561053
>I'm sitting at around 70cm distance from my 31.5" DCI-4K screen.
There's quite a huge difference in size between a 24" display and a 31.5" display.
>>54561054
Did I say you couldn't perceive 144hz? If so please quote me. I'll wait.
>>54561055
"Most people" use shitty TN panel screens that are probably 1366x768. What point were you trying to make by bringing up what "most people" use or want when they don't even have a clue how shitty their screens really are?
>>54561084
>If you know you're doing it wrong then why are you complaining about fonts looking like shit?
How is sitting around .6 meters doing it "wrong"?
What's the "correct" viewing distance? Remember to give some citations.
>>54561100
Maybe you should read the OP again. It's not that complicated, it's literally shorter than this reply.
>>54561128
Are you saying optics isn't a science?
>>54561161
>Are you saying optics isn't a science?
He is mocking at you because 2k is literally the same as 1080p.
Also, you don't need to "counter post" everything anon, high ppi display "look" good, no one is arguing that, but having them isn't needed for everyday task.
Maybe you're more of a >>>/fa/ guy than a /g/ one.
>>54561161
>How is sitting around .6 meters doing it "wrong"?
Because the pixels are significantly larger than the value you need for optimum visual acuity, duh!
Visual acuity is a linear function of (Resolution * Distance) / Diagonal. These function should work out to the equivalent of around 1 pixel per arcminute.
When looking at this formula there's clearly no difference between “resolution is too low”, “diagonal is too high” and “distance is too low”.
Just work on the one of these three factors you can control for free: Viewing distance.
It's not exactly fucking rocket science.
>>54561161
>What point were you trying to make by bringing up what "most people" use or want when they don't even have a clue how shitty their screens really are?
OP asked a question. I answered it. Sorry it triggered your autism.
>>54561161
If you can't perceive 144hz your eyes are completely fucked
>>54561194
>He is mocking at you because 2k is literally the same as 1080p.
No, it “literally” isn't.
2K is 2048×1080
1080p is 1920×1080
Jesus /g/ is bad at technology
>>54561161
>There's quite a huge difference in size between a 24" display and a 31.5" display.
Yes? What is your point?
For a 24" display you would need something along the lines of ~3K horizontal to match.
If you want to preserve a 70cm viewing distance but use a 1080p display, you would need to have a display of around 16".
If you buy a larger display and then sit too close to it, you are pretty much just as dumb as people who use TVs as computer monitors and then complain about it looking like shit.
>>54560825
because the cat looks like shit.
>>54561237
??? 2k is 2560x1440 (or in 3:2 tablets it's 2160x1440)
>>54560825
Because it's a waste of pixels and battery life
>>54561311
Is this what they teach you in the american education system?
>>54561311
1920x1080p is about 2 million pixels, hence 2K
1440p is QHD because it's 720p*2
>>54561328
>2K
no, the 2K stands for 2K (base 2) horizontal resolution, 2048.
4K stands for 4096. You know, from the 4K resolution standard: 4096x2160.
>>54561341
Mine makes more sense
>>54560825
Why is this the only picture ever posted regarding this topic?
>>54561194
>He is mocking at you because 2k is literally the same as 1080p.
Then he's an idiot, because "2k" isn't a standardized term for consumer displays. Is it 1920 pixels wide? What about 2048x1152? You know that's a resolution that has been seen on displays every now and then. Heck, Apple 24" iMacs use the "retina" version of that resolution.
>Also, you don't need to "counter post" everything anon
But I can.
>high ppi display "look" good, no one is arguing that
Actually a few people are arguing that it doesn't look any better. See any post talking about your "face being up against the screen".
>but having them isn't needed for everyday task.
An i7 isn't needed for everyday tasks. A high end GPU also isn't needed for that. An IPS display isn't either. I can't believe people on /g/ of all places are suddenly arguing for objectively shittier hardware.
>>54561220
So what resolution and screen size is "optimal" then?
>>54561235
Again, I never said you couldn't perceive it.
>>54561280
Monitors come in standardized sizes. There's no point talking about a 16" 1080p desktop monitor when it doesn't exist. 24" 1080p is the "standard" resolution and size, and I'd like to believe most people don't place those screens a meter away from their face, but I can't really find evidence against that.
>>54561317
Even my ancient 2012 rMBP gets 7 hours of battery life with a battery that only has 79% capacity left.
>>54561286
Which is why high PPI needs to be standard. If everyone had a high PPI display then you wouldn't need to upscale low PPI content.
>>54561360
Because /g/ hates high PPI for whatever reason. See >>54560837
Then again this it the board that thinks ThinkPads have usable screens, when some of them literally have 6-bit TN panels with static dithering.
>>54561328
>>54561348
1920*1080 ≈ 2 million pixels
3840*2160 ≈ 8 million pixels
so by your “definition”, 2160p would be 8K and not 4K.
>>54561361
>So what resolution and screen size is "optimal" then?
I'm glad you asked, let me refer you to the ITU-R Recommendation BT.1845. Pic related
>Monitors come in standardized sizes.
They really don't. They come in whatever size the manufacturers choose, and you can find a display of virtually any diagonal if you look hard enough.
>>54561361
>If everyone had a high PPI display then you wouldn't need to upscale low PPI content.
This is the only undeniably correct thing: We need to educate people about how to properly tune their PPI to their viewing distance, otherwise they will continue making ridiculously undersized computer images.
TV figured this thing out 50+ years ago.
>>54561420
>H
>Image heights
>Viewing distance
??
>>54561237
>2k is 2048x1080
2k is 2556x1440 ya
Jesus /g/ is bad at technology
>>54561384
But wouldn't having more "proof" help /g/ stop hating high PPI? Posting the same picture over and over makes me think it was somehow.. doctored.
I dont know but that image is clear as fuck on this 1440p 5.7 inch screen
>>54561499
What seems to be the problem?
>>54561519
See >>54561324
it's nice but it would require better gpus
not everyone has got money for that
>>54561551
>But wouldn't having more "proof" help /g/ stop hating high PPI?
No. /g/ has an irrational hatred for anything Apple. It doesn't help that phones started going to absurd resolutions like 2560x1440 on a 5" screen. Both of these things combined makes /g/ hate high PPI.
>>54561519
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=2k+resolution&l=1
>>54561587
Go fuck yourself
>>54561568
>>54561587
in the last thread about this with the exact same picture everyone in the thread didn't hate high ppi
that guy was right, using the old picture over and over is telling that the times have changed
1280x800 on a 12.1" screen is quite comfy
>>54561707
X200?
>>54561384
People actually pay hundreds for those ancient pieces of cum encrusted shit because they think it's a good purchase! LOL
Currently using 4k and 1080
Some downsides are awful scaling and low res stuff actually look better in its native resoultion because 1 pixel gets translated to 4 which often leads to weird jagged edges and similar artifacts..
>>54561707
2560x1600 on a 13.3" screen is quite comfy too
>>54561324
>>54561575
>>54561589
All of you realize 2k and 4k are not set in stone defined resolutions? 2k changes based on the aspect ratio you're using.
>>54561237
>Jesus /g/ is bad at technology
/g/ is the only place on the internet that will argue against better resolutions, despite being able to read more code on the screen clearly being objectively s good thing, just because they associate it with Apple.
>>54561809
>2k changes based on the aspect ratio you're using.
Sure but 2560x1440 isn't in that standard. People just appropriated it because whatever fuck it sounds better than WQHD
>>54561848
because its 16:9
the same reason 3840 × 2160 is called 4k despite not having 4000 horizontal lines
>>54561880
Yeah but 1920x1080 is 2k. What does that leave 2560x1440 as? It's more like 2.5k
>>54560837
>>54560825
do you also have a Z5 and wank over the 4K screen for the 2 hous before the battery dies?
>>54561901
They are marketing terms and have never made sense, people often call 1080p 1k because its vertical lines are barely over 1000 and its 4 times smaller than 4k even though 3840x2160 gets the name 4k based on its horizontal lines
>>54560978
what font is that?
Bottom is what top looks like when you don't have your nose pressed to the screen.
>>54561821
>despite being able to read more code on the screen clearly being objectively s good thing
But then you also get a bigger screen and that makes sense. 800 ppi doesn't. Maybe it does to some who keep their screens 2 inches away from their face.
No one is debating higher resolutions on bigger screens.
>>54561809
>All of you realize 2k and 4k are not set in stone defined resolutions? 2k changes based on the aspect ratio you're using.
Yes they fucking are.
>2K changes based on the aspect ratio
2K has a well-defined aspect ratio of 256:135. I'm sorry your brain is too retarded to understand that.
>>54561798
I agree
t. 32" Macbook Pro
>>54562358
13" ***
>>54562278
>256:135
>Digital Cinema Initiatives defines resolutions for computer monitors
>>54561721
>X200?
HP EliteBook 2730p
>>54562399
DCI defines the term “2K”.
2K/4K is used in the context of computer monitors when designing, for example, reference monitors for use with cinema mastering.
You'd probably know that if you were rich enough to afford a real monitor, not some plastic consumer garbage.
>>54562305
Why are tripfags always so insufferable
>>54562448
No they define DCI 2K
thats why everyone that uses their definitions puts the fucking DCI in front of it.
2k alone is just generic because the aspect ratio of your image, monitor, video, or whatever will change what a "2k" resolution is defined as.
if 4k was monitors were designed referencing DCI resoultions you would be buying 4096 x 2160 monitors when you filter by 4k not 3840 x 2160
>>54562059
>"being able to read more code clearly"
>is objectively a good thing
Not
>"being able to read more code"
>"clearly is a good thing"
>>54562502
Funny, because 4096x2160 is what I get when I think of “4K monitors” (e.g. LG 31MU97, Sony PVM-X300, etc.).
What you are referring to has a well-defined name: 2160p.
>>54562543
talking shit bruh. go to any fucking shopping website, hell even youtube thinks 3840 x 2160 is 4k because that IS 4k when you're using 16:9
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=4k+monitor&N=-1&isNodeId=1
>>54562569
>shopping websites and youtube are a reliable resource on digital standards
Why not quote a relevant ITU-R, DCI, SMPTE, EBU etc. document?
Oh right, because you're full of shit.
>>54562655
Its called a counterexample. You pushed the idea that DCI is the one true, if DCI was actually the one true then my examples wouldn't even exist. because they would all conform to the DCI standards
MY CLAIM was that they aren't set in stone and are variable
>>54562684
>It's called a counterexample
What you are doing is the equivalent is quoting a flat earth truther's insane rambling as “proof” the earth isn't round.
>>54562717
A counterexample isn't proof.
I'm not trying to prove i'm right, the counter example was to disprove your example because DCI resolutions aren't the only ones available.
All you proved is that DCI defines a set of DCI standards, by me disproving that as the one true we are back on equal footing, he said she said etc etc.
>>54561384
>10 years ago 1920x1200 was a common resolution on thinkpads
>now it's mostly 1336x768
>>54562762
You are quoting misinformed, misguided clueless idiots. They have about as much relevance when it comes to digital resolution standards as flat earthers do when it comes to calculating the precession of the equinoxes.
>>54562944
>Thats like your opinion man
Welcome to life.
People misused the word weaboo from its original definition on this site all the time, I had just as hard of a time about it as you are now with websites misunderstanding "2K" and "4K" from your precious alfather DCI
>>54562457
He's right, tho.
Not the tripfag, Imean the artist who drew the comic the tripfag posted.
>>54560917
You could have stated it in a less reddity way, you fucking 12yo.
>>54560825
Let's say I have a 23" 4k display, and also assume it's at 2x scaling (4 actual pixels for each logical pixel). Now everything is lovely and sharp, but I only have 1080p's worth of working space.
27" 1440p is in my opinion the [current year] minimum for productivity. If I want 1440p working space at retina PPI, I need a 5k monitor. That's what the retina iMac does, and a few ultra-expensive standalone monitors.
I guess the situation is a bit different on laptops, but who gives a shit about those? Laptops are for consumption and some light typing, desktops are for production.
>>54563225
I have a 4K 27" monitor and use it at 125% scaling. Things are smaller than 2560x1440 at the same size but it's perfectly usable. Getting 2560x1440 area/size would be 150% scaling.
>>54563225
>Let's say I have a 23" 4k display, and also assume it's at 2x scaling (4 actual pixels for each logical pixel). Now everything is lovely and sharp, but I only have 1080p's worth of working space.
This is a flawed calculation. For a 2160p display you should always have a horizontal viewing area of 58°. See >>54561420
If you leave the diagonal unchanged and change the resolution, you have to change your viewing distance to compensate.
>>54564612
I don't want to sit closer to my screens than I have to. I have to stare at them all day, and having them closer will only progress my myopia faster.
>>54564748
Then buy screens with a lower DPI
>>54562940
>Tfw my w700 has 1920x1200
Everyone gives me shit for carrying around a device that looks like a portable military radar, but when they see that real estate they want that size.
For the first time I just can't see the pixels in my new phone while my desktop still has that 1080p shit
>>54565571
>while my desktop still has that 1080p shit
You have nobody to blame but yourself for this
>buy overpriced phone with expensive screen
>cheap out on your gimp display
>>54565589
My computer can't handle that for gaymen.
>>54565609
1. Get a better GPU (or a job, assuming you can't afford it)
2. Lower your graphical settings
3. Game at a lower resolution
4. Play older games
Pick one
>>54565682
1070?
Currently using a r9 290.
>not having at ~500 ppi
>>54560837
basically this. and /g/ is a board for people who at least claim to be tech savvy and interested in technology. imagine how hard it is to sell this feature to non-tech users.
>>54565694
Currently using a GTX 970 and a 4K monitor and I have no problems. But I don't play the latest AAA cawwaabooty on maximum settings and expect it to run at 60fps, either.
>>54565752
I want to play games like squad and total war with good performance, I just like playing that sort of "war" game and they are always demanding/unoptimized.
>>54560825
because people are cheap and also highly retarded.
>>54560848
and so does Android
>>54561384
>Because /g/ hates high PPI for whatever reason.
It's because like 90% of the board is poorfags and Brazilians. They "hate" high resolution displays because they can't afford them, or because they saved up their money for four years to buy a phone and don't like the fact that it's obsolete the next year. So they try to put down all forms of technological progress as unnecessary.
>>54563225
>minimum for productivity
What in the fuck are you people doing that requires a 27 inch monitor?
That doesn't even sound pleasant to use either. I have a 24 inch monitor and the only time I use my second monitor is for coding projects. (Yet again I am 16:10 master race)
You fucks need to git gud at window management
>>54560825
because windows is shit at scaling, and it's an extra cost that's not really worth it
>>54560848
and that's the only OS that does
Why did Microsoft decide to implement shit scaling instead of good scaling?
>>54565708
Anything less than 600 PPI is garbage. 1200 PPI is close to perfect. Its been that way in the print industry forever, and they even have bleeding to blend shit together. It's even worse on digital displays.
>>54566160
At work I use three monitors because I multitask like crazy. Obviously you don't need a large monitor or a second monitor if your computer is a Facebook machine.
>>54565589
>Overpriced
LG G4 is like $300 is you buy it at full retail price. If you're still using a 300 DPI smartphone you're delusional.
>>54566296
and the g4 is a shit phone pretty much because of it's screen (and the shit SOC they put in it)
>>54566738
I like my G4
>>54566738
I disagree. The screen looks magnificent and the battery life is fantastic as well. The biggest issue is that the custom Android they put on there is shit, but that's not an issue since it has official Cyanogenmod builds.
What exactly is bad about it, besides you being angry that the screen is better than the one on your phone?
>>54560825
>It's been 4 years
Seriously, S3 pls.
>>54561930
>bringing up irrelevant arguments because you can't afford a worthwhile monitor
>>54566185
>and that's the only OS that does
Xorg supports it as well.
>>54560900
For gaming. For web browsing or watching videos, 60fps is plenty. The retina macbooks are not designed for gaming, going with a high resolution was a good idea for them.
>>54566977
but it usually does it terribly
>>54566991
>The retina macbooks are not designed for gaming
Translation: They are too slow for gaming.
>>54560978
you use underscore too much
>>54567234
Because that's not what they were designed for. They're practically just high end ultrabooks with an OS that handles higher pixel densities better. If you want to use a macbook for gaming, you're an idiot and bought the wrong computer.
>>54567463
camelCase can go fuck itself
>>54567489
>high end ultrabooks
Except they are clocked far lower and come with AMD graphics.
Will 2016 be the year of the retina Linux desktop?
>>54567583
Retina Linux ARM laptop
>>54567561
Clock speed is not everything, and only the most expensive 15" rMBP has more than the Intel Iris Pro graphics. Apple also changes the GPU supplier often, they used to use Nvidia for the refresh before this one. Apple knows their target demographic isn't looking to being on the bleeding edge of speed. If that's what you're looking for in a laptop, don't buy a macbook. It's as simple as that.
>>54567829
That is total dogshit and you know it.
Before Steve Jobs died Macbook Pro always had the fastest latest chips. The last few generations have been a joke.
>>54567829
>Apple knows their target demographic isn't looking to being on the bleeding edge of speed. If that's what you're looking for in a laptop, don't buy a macbook.
so why would anyone pay MORE for a SLOWER laptop?
assuming all else equal, and ignoring the fact that you'd also be stuck with mac OS.
>>54565708
Those are some pretty clean looking kanji.
I have a problem with the bottom one though, it clearly isn't the same font or being rendered in the same way as the other two. At least the 244ppi one is trying to render the same as the 498.
>>54560900
>144hz > high pixel density
Why not both? Imagine that flawless mouse cursor smoothly gliding across the screen, like a leaf falling from a tree.
>>54567892
>so why would anyone pay MORE for a SLOWER laptop?
because it has glowing apple logo on the back?
>>54567892
>so why would anyone pay MORE for a SLOWER laptop?
Important properties of a laptop:
Screen quality
Keyboard quality
Battery life
Durability
Irrelevant properties:
Gaming performance
That's why the ThinkPad T460s is the best laptop.
>>54567865
I don't why /g/ is suddenly romanticizing Apple when Jobs was still around, most of this board still hated Apple while he was around. And older macbook pros also had a reputation for burning your lap. I have a late 2013 15" rMBP model I got as a gift. Besides gaming, I can't think of a reason why I'd need a faster GPU. Making sacrifices to gain portability is inherent of laptops, macbooks aren't perfect (the magsafe power adapter is still dogshit, etc etc) but they are well designed for what they are intended to do. Which is not gaming.
>>54567892
OS X just works™ better than Windows for normies. Look at the radical shift in interface from Windows 7 to 8 to 10. Grandma doesn't want to have to deal with that. She wants something with a good screen, decent keyboard, good build quality, is easy to use, etc etc.
will 2017 be the year that all operating systems and applications support high pixel densities?
Will 2035 be the year that raster graphics UIs are finally abandoned?
>>54568060
>I don't why /g/ is suddenly romanticizing Apple when Jobs was still around, most of this board still hated Apple while he was around.
Because now all that stuff is old enough that they can finally afford it. Same reason people here romanticize Thinkpads.
>>54568060
>>54568104
>Look at the radical shift in interface from Windows 7 to 8 to 10.
>radical shift
>literally only the start menu changes
>>54568281
7 to 8 was a big change, definitely enough to confuse your tech illiterate grandparents. 10 made the interface more familiar to people who were used to 7, but it's still a big change. I've had to do way less tech support ever since I started telling my family members to just stay in Apple's ecosystem.
>make your computer and laptop screens have ridiculously high resolutions that slow down the UI
>stay with ancient 320 ppi on your phones where it would make a much bigger difference
>>54566160
>What in the fuck are you people doing that requires a 27 inch monitor?
I do webdev. 2560x gives me two effective 1280x screens side-by-side, and combined with a 1080p secondary and 1024x768 tertiary, that's a whole lot of screen real estate for text editors, browsers, terminals, docs, notes, and so on.
You can get away with much less if you single-task and religiously follow 80-column line rules and so on. But it turns out that you can be much more productive if you throw out such concepts and just buy larger monitors.
>That doesn't even sound pleasant to use either.
Everyone's tastes are different, but I assure you, I find it extremely pleasant to use.
>You fucks need to git gud at window management
I'm perfectly happy with my window management and do not believe it hinders my productivity in any way.
>>54561930
Well no because Android phones are bad and because my rMBP screen gets like 10 hours of battery on a full charge.
>>54568060
magsafe is still better than the alternatives.
>>54567941
i think it's generally clear that we're talking about mutually exclusive features given the technology and products available today.
your response is akin to saying "why not have both better batteries and thinner devices? imagine the best of both worlds!"
like of course we would rather have both. but we can't right now.
>>54560848
It would be nice if I could scale things a little more finely. Everything is FAR too big on my 13" rMBP. I'm 24 years old and my eyes work just fine. I don't need huge senior citizen tier text and buttons everywhere
>>54570684
you've tried changing display settings?
there are some apps that give finer grained control. i'm sure you could fuck with it in the command line as well
>>54570749
You can't use any of the other default resolutions without a performance hit, so that's a no go. My current fix is turning off scaling altogether (so everything is REAAAAAAAALLY fucking tiny), but I don't think my eyes are gonna be able to handle that 10 years from now.
>>54560837
I "hate" PPI because it has too many downsides for general computing.
Increased screen real-estate is a shit benefit compared to the loss of ergonomics that result from working with tiny UI/fonts. Small text is hard to read, and hard to edit. Small UI elements are much harder to interact with, especially factoring in that you need to have a higher mouse sensitivity to be able to comfortably traverse large screens. The framerate issues associated with high-resolution gaming are a serious issue.
If all PPI did was increase visual fidelity / reduce aliasing, I would be all over it, but that is far from the case. Most OS/software simply doesn't play well with high PPI in this respect.
>>54571005
>tiny UI/fonts. Small text is hard to read, and hard to edit. Small UI elements are much harder to interact with,
Software problems. Non-issue on good operating systems such as OS X.
>>54571005
>Most OS/software simply doesn't play well with high PPI in this respect.
Works fine for me (Linux)
>>54571005
OS X handles scaling really well, and Apple was right to implement higher density displays by scaling to 2x. A lot of laptops (up until the rMBP came out) would offer 1920x1080 at 15" or something along those lines, and scaling to that (let's say you assumed 1440x900 as the "base") would mean doing all sorts of fucked up interpolating to make it look "right".
Doubling along each axis costs more on basically every dimension you can imagine (it's not just dramatically more expensive, but also computationally way more challenging to render 2880x1800 vs 1920x1080), but for the sake of the upgrade path and avoiding a pretty gruesome transition period, it was absolutely the right move.
if you want to see an example of a failed pixel scaling effort, look at early android apps. being pixel density-agnostic is really challenging, so it helps if the hardware manufacturers give you as few targets to aim for as possible (Apple basically said you need to satisfy 1x and 2x). Google, meanwhile, basically said that OEMs could use whatever pixel density you wanted, which is why UI is *still* so fucked up sometimes.
>>54570286
But the magsafe 2 (the one that came with the late 2013 rMBPs at least) is really shitty. It constantly breaks and isn't as good as the other magsafes. On mine, the little "wings" used to wrap the cord around fell off after a few months of just carrying it around in my backpack. The thing has 1.5 out of 5 stars on the Apple store website lel.
>>54571097
>Works fine for me (Linux)
details please.
>>54571452
I increased my font size
Since I only use terminals and other text mode applications and force the same font in every single application, it just works out.
