This is absolutely crazy why are we still putting screens into laptops that would be disappointing on a CRT from the year 2000? How can you work with just a thousand lines?
Not sure if this is sarcasm or not, but, I think 1080p is a totally reasonable resolution for a laptop. I have a 4k display on my laptop and it's way overkill. I've had it for a few years now and regret spending the extra money on it.
I'd rather spend less money getting the 1080p option and have longer battery life.
A 27 inch 1440p monitor has a PPI of ~108. These are what all high end consumer displays like the Apple Cinema displays, Dell U2711s, etc had before they all moved to 4K.
A 27 inch at 4k has a PPI of ~163. This is basically industry standard for high end consumer displays. Sure there are a few 5K screens, but they are not common. I've also seen a lot of folks use 32 inch 4k displays which would have even lower PPI.
A 15 inch 1080p screen has a PPI of ~146. So not as good as a 4K screen at 27 inches, but still MUCH higher than the 1440p monitors.
No. I specifically buy laptops with 1080p displays and avoid hidpi if possible due to compatibility with various apps, as well as power consumption/battery life issues. I have a hidpi MacBook for work and a 1080p System76 machine for personal use, and I vastly prefer the System76 machine.
I accept that others see it differently, but I have this lingering suspicion that the whole hidpi movement is mostly marketing. Most folks simply don't need it, or even really benefit from it, as far as I've been able to tell.
That's all nice but from my experience when you go outside the common 1080p 60fps stuff starts to break in funny ways even on windows. Heck, I have a 1080p 144hz display and while scrolling on most stuff is super smooth and 100% worth the premium( or the sacrifice from going with a TN panel), it's also really blocky in some apps.
I use a 13" 4k at native resolution (no upscaling/doubling) as my daily driver. I get that you don't see the use for more than 1080 at 15", but for some of us the choice to have more is needed.
I have no idea what makes chrisseaton so passionate and adamant that CRTs commonly had resolutions higher than common LCD panels today but I had basically this exact same argument several days ago. I actually remembered it because they wrote almost the same comment word for word. For some reason they are convinced that all old CRTs were commonly 2k and 4K resolutions and the existence of cheap 4k LCD panels doesn’t excuse the fact that it’s still possible to buy a 1080p screen (which is I guess a bad thing?)
At a given resolution, CRTs pixels made for much more readable text (provided the refresh rate was sufficient; I found 60Hz nigh unbearable, 90Hz tolerable, and 120Hz preferable). LCD pixels are much more precise, which means that they appear much less smooth, so that you want a much higher resolution. CRT pixels were fundamentally imprecise, and that was actually really good for text. It’s about a decade since I last used a CRT, but my feeling is that text would look better (be smoother and more legible) on your 1600×1200 20″ CRT (100dpi) than on a 1920×1080 15″ LCD (141dpi). I think that the last CRT I dealt with much felt fairly similar in legibility &c. to my first laptop, and those were 1280×1024 19″ at 120Hz (~86dpi) and 1680×1050 15.4″ (~128dpi).
I'd rather spend less money getting the 1080p option and have longer battery life.