[thomashobohm]

Yeah, but almost nobody opts for the super high resolution display because the screen is so small that the difference is basically unnoticeable. A similar configuration to my laptop is several hundred dollars cheaper, and that's a not insignificant difference.

Edit: I owned both.

[ilikehurdles]

The high res screen is the reason I switched to macbooks after a lifetime of windows laptops in the first place. I still have and use my 2012 macbook pro retina which is about 6 more years of functional life than I've gotten out of any windows laptop, and it cost the same then as the base XPS 13 does now.

The prices between manufacturers aren't really all that different; but, if they happen to be important for you, Apple has a few features and components that others haven't been able to replicate at any price point, which is why paying the Apple tax is worth it to some.

[foldr]

The standard res screen on the XPS isn't high DPI at all. It's clearly inferior to a retina display for text and image rendering.

[thomashobohm]

I'm not going to engage in some arcane debate about the particularities of random windows laptops vs. apple ones. The fact is that there are comparable windows laptops at this point when it comes to "bezels and ports," in particular, but also when it comes to most things that make a laptop nice to use.

[foldr]

I was just responding to your claim that the difference between the standard res screen and the 4k screen is unnoticeable. There’s a very easily noticeable difference between them, and the retina display on the MacBook Pro is much closer in quality to the 4k display. So it doesn’t make sense to compare the price of an XPS with a standard res screen to the price of a MacBook Pro with a retina screen.

This is actually a paradigm example of Apple getting it right. Other manufacturers offer you a choice between a crappy low DPI display or an ultra high DPI display that drains your battery. Apple offer you a sensible compromise.

[jotm]

I'm so getting downvoted for this, but let me just say it: the iPhone IPS not-even-FullHD displays are sad. The exact same inferiority you mention, in reverse -_-

[read_if_gay_]

Why do you think "not-even-FullHD" is an issue if it passes the benchmark of not being able to see individual pixels? Higher resolutions than that aren't just pointless, they're counterproductive.

[Sangeppato]

The only important factor is Pixel density IMHO. And this is where Apple consistently get it right

[jotm]

I guess some people see better... I like 17 inch displays, and while 4K looks great, FullHD is better for actually working. Maybe my eyes are going bad...

[solarkraft]

> the screen is so small that the difference is basically unnoticeable

At the same scaling, maybe. But I use the high resolution display on my work-provided MacBook at 125%, which means a massive virtual screen estate gain.

[thomashobohm]

Presumably the vast majority of people are not going to want to scale their 13-inch display so that everything is significantly harder to read for the sake of increased screen real estate. But I'm glad that the MacBook works well for your specific use case.

I currently work on a MacBook Pro 13 and I switched from a XPS 13 with a 4k display. They're largely comparable, and the only difference I notice or care about is the OS. It seems that is how it is for most people.

[OJFord]

When I use other screens (including the iPhone SE I'm typing this on) the reason I struggle isn't lack of real estate, it's everything looking so massive and oddly hard to read because it's too big.

[thomashobohm]

Both iPhone SEs have retina displays?

[OJFord]

It's not just the pixel density, it's not allowing me to scale everything way down. The smallest font in settings is too big. UI elements are too big. With the keyboard open writing this there's about an inch high of the actual page visible, barely more than this textarea itself.

(It's the old SE, FWIW. Bought a refurb to try iOS when my Android phone broke. But the repair for that was arranged right around when lockdown started so I've been using this for longer than anticipated. Not the polished 'just works' experience I expected, the a priori known restrictions on changing default apps, browsers, etc. aside.)

[solarkraft]

From what I noticed Apple seems to relatively okay at this. On Android the typical app redesign has the key feature "we made the previews larger", which is always an infinitely stupid idea, because the main view of most apps is a list, meaning you want some overview over what's available. Soundcloud and Spotify (there are many more I can't think of right now) seem to think that a gigantic either very obstructed or totally generic cover is better than being able to see multiple titles at once (what the fuck - doubly so since Soundcloud removed the most awesome feature of showing a wave form preview - newer versions coincidentally only show you a portion of the wave form in full screen in playback mode).

Setting a custom DPI only helps a little - side elements like nav bars do get smaller, but all the layout is still completely the same, like everything is designed for a tiny phone (which absurdly nobody makes anymore).

What are designers thinking? Is it really just short-sighted "look, we like content" and "but pretty", or is it something that actually improves UX for most people and just leaves me bewildered?