Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ambulancechaser 2273 days ago
I would purchase today except there doesn't seem to be any screen options higher than 1080. I can't go back to 1080 after years of 4k monitors and mbp retina for work and x1 carbon 2k screen on personal laptop.
9 comments

I wish someone else besides Apple would discover the 16:10 ratio. I love my MBP but every company I've worked at has been allergic to OS X. Right now I'm stuck working from home on a 1366x768 screen because it's "business-class".
The 2020 model of Dell XPS 13 has 16:10 @ 4K AFAIK. If you get the Developer Edition, it comes with Linux preinstalled.
4K on a 13.4" panel? https://www.sven.de/dpi/ says that comes out to a crazy 337 PPI. Current Macbook pro is 226.
I have one. It's pretty. But it provides no useful thing other than occasional touch screen use. But it has terrible battery life. 5 hours is good.

Supposedly the fhd (1080p approx) has much better battery life. I regret getting the 4k screen. For OP above, what's your battery life like? Mine is so bad I keep thinking something must be broken. I'm not doing compiling all day either, doing small things in bash, not killing the cpu, web pages.

That depends on use. For working on or reading papers, it's great: I've significantly cut down on the number of drafts and papers I print, as the screen's ppi is high enough that figures will appear at a similar resolution to what most researchers will have on their printers when adjusted to the correct size on the screen.
I used to own the XPS 9550 (15", 1080p non-touch) and the battery life was around 6-7 hours with the Nvidia GPU disabled. I bought it used so it might have been even better new too.
It should look fine in 3x mode although it's a waste of GPU.
Even Apple gave up on 16:10, for half of their computers. The iMac went 16:9 in 2009. The Cinema Display went 16:10 in 2010, and the recent XDR followed suit. The LG they sold in between was also 16:9. Only the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro remain 16:10.

I'm with you. I much prefer using my older non-Retina 16:10 displays than my newer 16:9 Retina display. Microscopic pixels are nice, but an extra 10% height is huge.

Microsoft Surface devices use 3:2 (15:10), I've bought one pretty much only because of that and it's nice.
Dell went 16:10 this year.
1080p at 14" really isn't bad though. The state of high-DPI in Ubuntu (on which Pop_OS is based) is _okay_ but you're not really missing out on much with the bigger pixels.

I really appreciate with System76 is doing and if I were in the market for a laptop I'd consider this. Their desktops are very cool too as they custom-build the cases themselves. They do seem to be in kind of a "no man's land" market-wise, where a lot of people who would want Linux are technically savvy enough to build their own computer or install it on an existing laptop. But I hope they keep it up and hit their stride!

It's not bad but it's also not great. Once you use higher DPI screens you don't want to go back. The 13" MBP with 2560x1600 is great.
There’s a lot of stuff that is aesthetically nicer about Apple machines. But a display is only one attribute of a machine. Many people would rather use software and hardware that protects their freedom, which is why a System76 machine would be a better choice for them.

I have a 2018 MacBook Air (Retina) I use for testing. The display is beautiful. I’m very familiar with running and tweaking MacOS. And honestly I don’t like it. I don’t like fighting with how Apple feels you should be allowed to use -their- hardware. I am way more productive in Linux now that I’m used to it.

> 1080p at 14" really isn't bad though. The state of high-DPI in Ubuntu (on which Pop_OS is based) is _okay_ but you're not really missing out on much with the bigger pixels.

I agree. 1080p on a 27" or even a 24" is pretty bad, but on a 14" is essentially "retina" at normal working distances.

Certainly a 4K would be somewhat smoother, but at the cost of battery life, the need to fiddle with display scaling, etc. I just don't see it being worth it. 2K at most for a display of that size.

Now, a 4K at 32" would be a nice external monitor, and would give plenty of screen real estate (and yet would have a lower PPI than a 1080p at 14").

I run 4K at 32" in Ubuntu and it's perfect. Gnome allows you to specify the scaling of individual apps (if you edit their launch shortcuts), so depending on the app I can run 1:1, 125% or 150%. Effectively a choice between comfort or density.

I've run 1080p at 14" on previous laptops and had no issues with 1:1 pixel scaling. Sure, things are a little squinty but I never felt the need to zoom the UI. I also never felt like things were too pixelated. So yeah, 1080p/14" really is the sweet spot.

> I run 4K at 32" in Ubuntu and it's perfect.

That's actually quite exciting to hear. I run Ubuntu on a 34" 3440 x 1440, and it's been a major step-up from dual 27" 1080p displays, but it has made me wonder what is the optimal display for programming.

4K at 32" seems to be pretty close to the most pixels you can fit into a display without either a) making the display so big it becomes unwieldy, or b) making the pixels so small that you have to use display scaling to see anything.

> Gnome allows you to specify the scaling of individual apps (if you edit their launch shortcuts), so depending on the app I can run 1:1, 125% or 150%

Oh, that's a useful trick.

> So yeah, 1080p/14" really is the sweet spot.

Yep, in general (i.e. typical home office use as well as programming) I would say that displays with a density between 120-150ppi are probably ideal for desktop use, whereas a density between 140-170 is right for laptops.

> I run 4K at 32" in Ubuntu and it's perfect

huh, I have 4K 27" and I still see a bit too much pixels to my taste

Interesting. Do you use 100% scaling?
Can’t upvote enough! It’s also my main beef with many chromebooks - decent specs and just unacceptable screens for productivity.

Even though Linux may not scale resolution as good as a Mac or Windows yet, being able to fit more text on the screen is huge for productivity.

When you factor in new gaming options like Stadia or Nvidia Now, where you can game high end stuff without the high end hardware locally, FHD is just disappointing.

Linux scales leaps and bounds better than mac and windows these days..
What DM do you use? I have endless problems with scaling in both Gnome 3 and Cinnamon, compared to Windows where I've really never had a problem except with some very legacy software. The underlying problem is that the scaling setting in the WM tends to only be observed by software built with the same toolkit, so you have to set scaling up in a different way for each GUI toolkit and there's a decent list of them in common use on Linux.
They sell one laptop with a high-resolution screen but it weighs 8.6 lbs (3.9 kg).

https://system76.com/laptops/serval

Adder WS also has a 15 inch 4k model. I have one and use it for work. Definitively not the ultimate portable machine but I use it mostly at home and the office plugged in.

I wouldn't say it's the best option for everyone but if you need a machine with discrete GPU and high resolution that you know for sure will run Linux (many gaming laptop have similar spec but non supported RAID setup) then I'd say go for it.

If you want a portable laptop then dell's developer edition got 4k and good specs.

They also sell another that weighs 5.51 lbs (2.5 kg). Still pretty hefty.

https://system76.com/laptops/adder

Also, 16:9.

Apple laptops are barely usable at 16:10, it's night and day compared to 3:2 on Surface Books (my favorite laptop of all time by far).

Similar boat. A 2k screen like the X1 Carbon would have been a good compromise on screen quality and battery life.
1080p is basically 2K, only 80 more pixels wide
(or 128 px - DCI 2K is 2048 * 1080)
The old Lemur Pro had a high-res screen available. This one probably will too, they must have just failed to put it on this web page.
Ah, at this screen size hires displays arent worth it (for me atleast) Linux is much more of a hassel on hidpi dipslays too.
You really don't want to run HiDPI on Linux, applications will look blurry and ugly. It's better to just stick 1x scaling.
If you scale 2x then things won't be blurry, will they?