| |
| ▲ | ozgrakkurt 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It has an OLED screen so image quality isn’t even comparable. It is worse in terms of glare but not unusable and I don’t use it outside much | | |
| ▲ | alecthomas 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Which $600 model has an OLED screen? | | |
| ▲ | ozgrakkurt 3 days ago | parent [-] | | https://www.microcenter.com/product/678489/lenovo-ideapad-sl... This one is very similar. I bought mine from Thailand | | |
| ▲ | Copernicron 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > 16" WUXGA IPS Anti-Glare Display > $689.99 That computer has neither an OLED display nor a price of $600. | |
| ▲ | foldr 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | This has a WXUGA display, i.e. 1920x1200. It’s not comparable to the high DPI display on the MacBook Pro. | | |
| ▲ | WillAdams 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | One quite nice display is the 2880 x 1800 16" OLED on the Samsung Galaxy Book series --- I kind of miss it when using my MacBook Pro. | | |
| ▲ | foldr 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Sure, Apple doesn’t have a monopoly on nice displays, but they’ll sell you a laptop with a high DPI display for $1000. It’s hard to get a laptop with a comparable display for much less. And if you save any money you’ll pay for it in performance and build quality. |
| |
| ▲ | dmbche 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | What specifically isn't comparable? Comparable. Things you can't compare between two laptop screens. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | reactordev 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | He doesn’t have nano texture, I can guarantee that. His screen probably has fingerprints and glare and all sorts of issues like visible pixels. I’ve owned a hell of a lot of laptops and MacBooks are the best, not because of Mac, but because of the build quality. The touchpad is perfect, the aluminum body is rugged, the screen is amazing, and the audio truly is sorcery thanks to Apple acquiring Beat’s audionet. The worst laptop for build quality were those HP Chromebooks. ThinkPad’s are mid tier but still made of plastic. Yoga foldable or a MS Surface is better. MSI or Razor if you don’t feel like ever touching your laptop (:fire:) | | |
| ▲ | zozbot234 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | "Visible pixels" are a total non-issue already on a 1080p screen, and a near-non issue on 768p. There's just no ambiguity about this, it's a matter of simple physics. Maybe you'll need to go up to a 1200p screen or thereabouts to cope with crappy rendering on the software side (allowing for a 0.7x factor or so in image spatial bandwidth/resolution due to lack of proper anti-aliasing), but anything above that is just plain overkill. Unless you like to look at tiny portions of your screen with a frickin' magnifying glass, of course. | | |
| ▲ | foldr 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You can definitely see the resolution difference between a 1080p 13" display and a 13" 'retina' display. You may not care about it, but I think it's uncontroversial that it's a visible difference. | |
| ▲ | reactordev 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don’t wear glasses, I can see pixels on a 1080p screen just fine whereas on a Retina display or anything with 4k+ I can’t at a normal distance. Glad you know how my eyes work. You probably will say next that I can’t see the refresh. | | |
| ▲ | zozbot234 3 days ago | parent [-] | | You can see pixels up close on a 1080p screen if you have good eyesight, but that's not the way you're supposed to work with a screen as a matter of ergonomics. Even on a laptop, you're always looking at the screen as a whole, not just seeing a tiny portion of it in your field of view. | | |
| ▲ | reactordev 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I can see pixels at rest when sitting at my desk and a 1080p monitor 27” or more is on it. Thanks for letting me know how my eyes work. | | |
| ▲ | zozbot234 3 days ago | parent [-] | | That's exactly what I meant by "up close". A 27'' monitor should be 3 or 4 ft. away in order to comfortably look at the whole screen. Any other choice is terrible ergonomics. | | |
| ▲ | reactordev 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Ugh, it is 3-4 feet away when it’s on my desk. Jesus. Want to keep going? Keep telling me I’m looking at it wrong. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | _bent 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | you might want to check in with an ophthalmologist |
| |
| ▲ | ezst 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > He doesn’t have nano texture© […] His screen probably has fingerprints and glare and all sorts of issues like visible pixels. Thanks Tim, but I prefer my day without bullshit propaganda. | | | |
| ▲ | pxc 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Laptops only get fingerprints on the screen, unless they're touchscreens, when they try to be stupidly thin like MacBooks do, so that the screen routinely touches the keys. It's stupid design. | | |
| ▲ | sarlalian 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Or if you use your fingers to move the display… a fairly common action with a laptop. | | |
| ▲ | pxc 2 days ago | parent [-] | | This also a function of the same design trends tbh. One can have a reasonably sized laptop where it's not difficult to do this by the bezel rather than the display. |
|
|
|
|
