Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by tlamponi 1116 days ago
Yes, which is plenty on 16" – after all one still gets 141 PPI resolution, that's more than one would get from 4k on a 32", which has 137.68 PPI.

ps. check out https://www.sven.de/dpi/ for a simple but nice DPI calculation app.
1 comments
tjoff 1116 days ago
It really isn't, coming from a 13" laptop with 1080p...

And how it is relevant to compare to a 32" screen I don't know, because you hardly use that display on your lap.

link
tlamponi 1115 days ago
> It really isn't, coming from a 13" laptop with 1080p...

For you maybe, but I know people that are happy with that and some even find 1080p on 13" too crammed, just different taste and applications... I actually had to help out on a 1366x768 15" laptop recently, that was borderline brutal even for me, I completely forgot how one could notice every pixel as such distinct unit back then.

So, if you're not one of them you simply don't scale 2x and get more screen estate, or naturally check if there's another model that provides 5k+.

> And how it is relevant to compare to a 32" screen I don't know, because you hardly use that display on your lap.

Yeah, I almost never use a laptop on my lap, literally that is, and I really didn't think we're constraint to discuss around that axiom ^^ But I think you're mostly looking after (virtual) pixels to be used, while I might favor a higher PPI even though scaling it would give me lower pixel amount to work with.

link
tjoff 1115 days ago
Point was that there is a massive difference between 13" and 16".

You don't have to have it in your lap. But most people, in most cases, where the laptop screen is actually used for anything. Is much closer than you'd have a 32" screen. Especially if you are going to use the laptop keyboard.

Comparing preferred PPI between different types of devices is always pointless, because you don't use them in the same way or from the same distance.

link