| |
| ▲ | stephenr a day ago | parent [-] | | > if you were to make an analogy you should target for a few devices that represent the "average" For Macs, 220DPI absolutely is the average. | | |
| ▲ | toast0 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sure, but Macs are around 10% of general desktop computing. To a first approximation, they don't count. User communities vary widely. If you target macs, then a high DPI screen is a must for testing. Otherwise, I dunno; ~ 100 DPI screens are way less expensive than ~ 200 DPI screens, so I'd expect that installed base is significantly higher for standard DPI. But there's probably enough high DPI users that it's worth giving it a look. To address a question elsewhere, personally, I don't see the benefit to pushing 4x the pixels when ~ 100 DPI works fine for me. My eyes aren't what they were 20 years ago, and it's just extra expense at every level. | |
| ▲ | swiftcoder a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm honestly not sure where all these hackernews commenters with low-dpi displays are coming from - my former employers equipped all the software engineers with dual-4K displays nearly a decade ago. One is hard-put to buy a developer-power laptop with a sub-2K display these days, even in the Windows world, and >2K displays have been cheap on desktop for a really long time. | | |
| ▲ | gr4vityWall a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I believe there are a lot of people using 1080p monitors because they bought it a while ago and they're still working fine. There's also a lot of lower-end 1080p monitors still being sold today. > One is hard-put to buy a developer-power laptop with a sub-2K display these days, even in the Windows world I personally see a lot of 1080p screens on new gaming laptops too. Lots of people get those for work from what I see with my peers. When I sold my RTX 3060 laptop with a 1080p screen, most buyers wanted it for professional work, according to them. > I'm honestly not sure where all these hackernews commenters with low-dpi displays are coming from If anything, this is exactly the place where I'd expect a bunch of people to be rocking an older Thinkpad. :) | | |
| ▲ | leguminous a day ago | parent | next [-] | | If you look at the Steam hardware survey, most users (as in, > 50%) are still using 1080p or below. https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Softw... | | |
| ▲ | noir_lord 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | In part though that's not because all those users can't afford >1080p because some of them can it's that insanely high refresh rate monitors and esports players often use 1080p at >300Hz - even the ones without still use 1080p because driving up the frame rate drives down the input latency. Whether it matters is a bigger issue, 30 to 60Hz I notice a huge difference, 60 to 144Hz@4K I can't tell but I'm old and don't play esports games. | |
| ▲ | swiftcoder a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't think this is contra to my original point. Nearly 50% of all users are running at greater-than 1080p resolutions, and presumably power users are overrepresented in the latter category (and certainly, it's not just the ~2.5% of Mac users pushing the average up) | | |
| ▲ | gr4vityWall 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | FWIW, I didn't mean to reply to you in an argumentative way. Just proposing an answer to this: > I'm honestly not sure where all these hackernews commenters with low-dpi displays are coming from I still see 1080p fairly often on new setups/laptops, basically, although 1440p and 4K are becoming more common on higher-end desktops. Then again, 1440p at 27" or 32" isn't really high dpi. |
|
| |
| ▲ | wlesieutre a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Writing this on 1280x1024 because it still works fine The 5:4 aspect ratio is weird, especially in this era of everything 16:9, but it's a second monitor so usually only has one thing open |
| |
| ▲ | eertami 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If you have 20/20 vision, a 27" display at 1440p (~110 DPI) has a visual acuity distance of 79cm - ie, if you are sat 79cm or further away from the screen, humans are not capable of resolving any extra detail from a higher resolution. High refresh rate 1440p IPS screens are very widely available at good prices, so it isn't that crazy that people choose them. Phone and laptop have higher DPI screens of course, but I'm not close enough to my desktop monitor for a higher DPI to matter. | | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's a common misconception. That acuity calculation is based on knowing nothing about the image; imagine applying it to arbitrary noise. When you have things like lines and edges your eyes can pick out differences an order of magnitude finer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperacuity | |
| ▲ | swiftcoder 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm running a 32" display at 4k, which works out to about the same at 79cm. Apparently a bunch of people sit really close to their monitors :) | |
| ▲ | carlosjobim 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Have you tested it in practice? High-DPI monitors make a very noticeable difference for text and user interface. That's the truth, even if the theory doesn't agree. |
| |
| ▲ | MBCook 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Absolutely everyone in my company uses 1080p monitors unless they got their own. That’s just “normal“. It’s horrible. | |
| ▲ | wmf 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Retina still isn't available for large monitors like 38" and above. |
|
|
|
