A 4K resolution on a 13.5-inch monitor? That's almost as bad of a waste of GPU as mining bitcoin.
Just for fun I did some calculations, at 1080p a pixel is 0.1483 mm wide, at 4K it's 0.0742 mm. With the eye's angular resolution of 1 arcminute at say half a meter away, that's 500 mm * tan(1/60°) = 0.1455 mm. Even someone with perfect eyesight could hardly be able to tell. Do you intend to use it as a VR headset?
Most people use 2x scaling at that resolution and that helps predominantly the text quality as a single "superpixel" is made out of 4 pixels and many more subpixels.
...or maybe it's just market segmentation to give PC plebs inferior tech? You seem to be proud of being what some marketing exec views as an unimportant low-margin value segment only good for getting rid of old stuff.
It's probably an eye thing. I looked at higher resolution Macs carefully and I honestly cannot see the difference (despite not having known eyesight issues). I'm sure if I'd train my eyes enough I might end up seeing the difference, but I don't really see why I would want to train my eyes on that and then having to complain my whole life about standard screens not being good enough.
I think the actual market segmentation is Apple charging a 300-400% markup for storage. Framework's prices are far more honest and you can always bring your own M.2s as well.
Agreed, Apple practices are atrocious and Framework seems like a better deal. But it looks like they scavenged unsold displays made for Microsoft Surface and can't source other ones with the same aspect ratio/size but better anywhere.
Just for fun I did some calculations, at 1080p a pixel is 0.1483 mm wide, at 4K it's 0.0742 mm. With the eye's angular resolution of 1 arcminute at say half a meter away, that's 500 mm * tan(1/60°) = 0.1455 mm. Even someone with perfect eyesight could hardly be able to tell. Do you intend to use it as a VR headset?
reply