6 ms·

I don't understand why 1440p hasn't become the standard on laptops. Its always 1080p or 4K which is useless on such a small display.

by 91edec 5y ago

Kletiomdm 5y ago
It's not useless. Resolution is independent of size. Just because it doesn't work perfectly on Linux high DPI is much nicer and easier to read. The decapsulate on of resolution and size is btw already quite old. Games have this as well were they dynamically change the internal resolution but not the screen resolution. And you might not care about it but: - text is much smoother - images from DSLR have higher resolution than 4k for ages and you can see the difference The only arguments against 4k on smaller screens should be power consumption and not scaling issues. But for this we should focus on dynamic refrehsrates and similar power saving mechanism and again NOT complaining about 4k. MacOS is doing this flawless for years. Windows can do it and under Linux it starts to be usable based on comments of this article.
- Joeri 5y ago
  The problem of 4k is efficiency. 1440p is already 2x at 14 inches, which at normal viewing distances is about as sharp as people can see. Going up to 4k does not really improve visual quality, but it dramatically increases the pixel count that must be rendered, which burns through a lot more power. 4k laptops have worse battery life and worse display performance than 1440p laptops, but they offer no upside for those downsides. There is a reason macbooks, still the gold standard for hi dpi rendering, have never had 4k panels.
  - Kletiomdm 5y ago
    Just be because apple does something doesn't mean they are right. There have been plenty of counter examples. Anyway, my smartphone has 1000x2000 resolution on a 6" display. The text looks perfect. They can make very high resolution displays with very efficient energy consumption. Feel free not to need it but my DSLR and my smartphone both take 4k and higher resolution pictures for years. Yes I want such a display on my 14" laptop. I do like the MacBook pro screen and it's much better than 1080p. True.
  - sneak 5y ago
    > Going up to 4k does not really improve visual quality Speak for yourself. The 4k display in my XPS is my favorite output device I have ever owned. I wish my rMBP had that kind of pixel density.
- altcognito 5y ago
  MacOS doesn't scale. You can change font sizes, you can change resolution, but scaling via DPI isn't present. https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/193723/scaling-all-ui-elements-when-using-an-external-monitor https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/193723/scaling-all... If somebody understands the situation better on MacOS I'd be interested, but based on my experience, Windows is the only OS that gets this as close as possible to right. It's a single setting that affects all applications and I can set monitors independently and it will scale on the fly (even if it does look a little weird as you drag an app across and it dynamically shifts) Every now and then I'll come across a app that doesn't quite deal with high DPI scaling correctly, but it is the exception to the rule. Linux also works pretty well, but as with everything Linux, it's almost always "it depends and well, not quite" (not usually multi-monitor aware, lots of per app settings)
  - Kletiomdm 5y ago
    Huh? I'm not sure what you mean. My MacOS does the scaling and it looks good. How is MacOS scaling different?
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    I'm not really sure what you think 'scaling' means or what you think this Stack Exchange answer means, but macOS (not 'MacOS') does allow scaling the UI of both integral and external monitors, and independently. It renders a high-resolution image to a buffer, and then scales that when rendering to the actual screen buffer. The buffer image is at least as large as the actual screen buffer. You can see for yourself that it isn't changing the hardware resolution of external monitors when scaling by taking a look at the actual resolution on your monitors OSD if it has done. It'll always be the native resolution.
    - lostmsu 5y ago
      It does not do 1.5 or 1.33 or 1.25 scaling, or does it blurred. Windows can handle any ratio.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
chrisseaton 5y ago
> I don't understand why 1440p hasn't become the standard on laptops. Because that's really low. My 14 inch laptop is 1964 rows and I wouldn't really want anything lower than that.
kllrnohj 5y ago
1440p is hugely common on gaming laptops. Alienware M15, Razer Blade 14/15, Lenovo Legion 5, etc... all offer displays in the QHD or WQXGA range. The reason you typically see 1080p or 4k on ultrabooks is because 1080p is how you get the low entry price, and 4k is what sounds better on marketing and looks the best for text-related things (4k is not at all useless - the sharpness it provides to text is noticeable). The balance that QHD provides isn't very desirable in that market usually, although there are exceptions like the Framework laptop or the Surface Laptop 4. Usually those exceptions then also come with more unique aspect ratio displays like 3:2, though, so they aren't exactly 1440p/QHD. But they are in that density.

I don't understand why 1440p hasn't become the standard on laptops. Its always 1080p or 4K which is useless on such a small display.

by 91edec 5y ago

I don't understand why 1440p hasn't become the standard on laptops. Its always 1080p or 4K which is useless on such a small display.

Kletiomdm 5y ago

It's not useless. Resolution is independent of size. Just because it doesn't work perfectly on Linux high DPI is much nicer and easier to read. The decapsulate on of resolution and size is btw already quite old. Games have this as well were they dynamically change the internal resolution but not the screen resolution. And you might not care about it but: - text is much smoother - images from DSLR have higher resolution than 4k for ages and you can see the difference The only arguments against 4k on smaller screens should be power consumption and not scaling issues. But for this we should focus on dynamic refrehsrates and similar power saving mechanism and again NOT complaining about 4k. MacOS is doing this flawless for years. Windows can do it and under Linux it starts to be usable based on comments of this article.

Joeri 5y ago
The problem of 4k is efficiency. 1440p is already 2x at 14 inches, which at normal viewing distances is about as sharp as people can see. Going up to 4k does not really improve visual quality, but it dramatically increases the pixel count that must be rendered, which burns through a lot more power. 4k laptops have worse battery life and worse display performance than 1440p laptops, but they offer no upside for those downsides. There is a reason macbooks, still the gold standard for hi dpi rendering, have never had 4k panels.
- Kletiomdm 5y ago
  Just be because apple does something doesn't mean they are right. There have been plenty of counter examples. Anyway, my smartphone has 1000x2000 resolution on a 6" display. The text looks perfect. They can make very high resolution displays with very efficient energy consumption. Feel free not to need it but my DSLR and my smartphone both take 4k and higher resolution pictures for years. Yes I want such a display on my 14" laptop. I do like the MacBook pro screen and it's much better than 1080p. True.
- sneak 5y ago
  > Going up to 4k does not really improve visual quality Speak for yourself. The 4k display in my XPS is my favorite output device I have ever owned. I wish my rMBP had that kind of pixel density.
altcognito 5y ago
MacOS doesn't scale. You can change font sizes, you can change resolution, but scaling via DPI isn't present. https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/193723/scaling-all-ui-elements-when-using-an-external-monitor https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/193723/scaling-all... If somebody understands the situation better on MacOS I'd be interested, but based on my experience, Windows is the only OS that gets this as close as possible to right. It's a single setting that affects all applications and I can set monitors independently and it will scale on the fly (even if it does look a little weird as you drag an app across and it dynamically shifts) Every now and then I'll come across a app that doesn't quite deal with high DPI scaling correctly, but it is the exception to the rule. Linux also works pretty well, but as with everything Linux, it's almost always "it depends and well, not quite" (not usually multi-monitor aware, lots of per app settings)
- Kletiomdm 5y ago
  Huh? I'm not sure what you mean. My MacOS does the scaling and it looks good. How is MacOS scaling different?
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  I'm not really sure what you think 'scaling' means or what you think this Stack Exchange answer means, but macOS (not 'MacOS') does allow scaling the UI of both integral and external monitors, and independently. It renders a high-resolution image to a buffer, and then scales that when rendering to the actual screen buffer. The buffer image is at least as large as the actual screen buffer. You can see for yourself that it isn't changing the hardware resolution of external monitors when scaling by taking a look at the actual resolution on your monitors OSD if it has done. It'll always be the native resolution.
  - lostmsu 5y ago
    It does not do 1.5 or 1.33 or 1.25 scaling, or does it blurred. Windows can handle any ratio.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago

chrisseaton 5y ago

> I don't understand why 1440p hasn't become the standard on laptops. Because that's really low. My 14 inch laptop is 1964 rows and I wouldn't really want anything lower than that.

kllrnohj 5y ago

1440p is hugely common on gaming laptops. Alienware M15, Razer Blade 14/15, Lenovo Legion 5, etc... all offer displays in the QHD or WQXGA range. The reason you typically see 1080p or 4k on ultrabooks is because 1080p is how you get the low entry price, and 4k is what sounds better on marketing and looks the best for text-related things (4k is not at all useless - the sharpness it provides to text is noticeable). The balance that QHD provides isn't very desirable in that market usually, although there are exceptions like the Framework laptop or the Surface Laptop 4. Usually those exceptions then also come with more unique aspect ratio displays like 3:2, though, so they aren't exactly 1440p/QHD. But they are in that density.