The new and upgraded Framework Laptop

besides the fact that "retina display" is a marketing term invented by Apple, I don't really see what the big deal is. I have pretty good vision and I don't notice individual pixels on my 1080p screen. More pixels means more load on the GPU.

It is different from person to person. I notice pixels on 13-inch 1080p screens. I can't imagine using a display that is not 200% scaling. Even 300% scaling has display artifacts.

1080p !?! Wow I didn’t know that there are professionals out there using such a shitty resolution. You are definitely not the target audience for high quality hardware then I guess.

Same. I have an old school 2013 MBA and a fresh MBP for work and I don’t really notice the difference.

Of course I can _see_ the difference. The MBP looks really nice. But when I sit down to code or watch a movie on the MBA, I have pretty much the same experience as I do on my work machine.

> I have pretty good vision and I don't notice individual pixels on my 1080p screen.

1080p doesn't mean much if you leave out the screen's pixel density. There's a world of difference between a smartphone with a 5' 1080p screen and a 24' monitor with a 1080p screen.

That's pointless gatekeeping. Having the most expensive pencil doesn't make you draw better. For most professionals in most fields, more than 1080p is a waste of energy.

For some people, High-DPI displays are the type of upgrade that you don't notice until you've been using it for a while and have to switch back to the old technology.

I was also fine with lower resolutions for years because that was the only option. After using high-DPI displays for a couple years, I can't stand working on old low-DPI monitors for long periods of time. It's similar to how we were all happy with our mechanical HDD computers for years, but after using an SSD-based machine for a few months you can never go back to slow HDD-based machines.

It's not about seeing individual pixels. It's about the text clarity and reduced fatigue after reading text all day.

>I have pretty good vision and I don't notice individual pixels on my 1080p screen.

For a 24" 1080p monitor in typical desktop configuration I get screen-door-effect. I can clearly see the black grid lines between pixels.

Also, if you can see aliasing/stair-stepping on this test then your eyes could benefit from higher resolution:

https://www.testufo.com/aliasing-visibility#foreground=fffff...

Wait until you see what hardware the OpenBSD developers use... are you going to claim that they aren't professionals?

https://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20120425065148

https://www.undeadly.org/features/2012/r2k12/P1020598.JPG

While I prefer my personal machines to have 1440p or 4k resolutions, I'm perfectly happy with my work PC's 1080p screen for development and email. I'm hardly watching videos or gaming on that machine, and I don't find that fonts are noticeably sharper at the size that I prefer them on a 15" laptop display.

I hear some people call themselves professionals and don't even use gold-plated HDMI cables.

I have a 4k 14" ThinkPad X1 Carbon and I happily use it at 100% scaling.

I use a bitmap font such as Unifont If I want the text to look sharper on a 1080p screen. it is useful for programming, not so much documents.

As for hard drives vs SSDs, I can hardly notice the difference in read/write speeds day-to-day. I merely use an SSD because it is more durable in the situation that I drop my laptop.

I am not a professional, I am just a student.

Edit: If I was an artist or something I might care about resolution or color accuracy.

And distance to it

That's a good point. But distance also plays a factor. Perhaps we should be measuring in pixels per degree at the viewing distance.

I use a setup with multiple screens, some of them Retina, some of them not (the lack of high resolution external displays is a pity...).

The difference in resolution is immediately obvious, but once I start working I forget that the displays have a different resolution.

Things like aspect ratio are much more important, and I think that 3:2 is the best aspect ratio for work. 16:9 and even 16:10 has always felt a bit cramped in the vertical, 3:2 feels perfect.

When I use a machine with a spinning rust drive, my brain keeps interrupting me: "Why is this computer clicking?"

I've been on an LG Ultrafine 5k for a year and I consider anything less to be borderline unusable.

> I have pretty good vision

My vision is terrible. Maybe the relationship works the other way around?

These images are from 2012... That was 10 years ago. lol

That's actually what the term "retina" means (in Apple marketing lingo). It's the required pixel density, at different viewing distances, where you no longer see the pixels. Retina PPI for Macbooks is different compared to iPhones.

Finish your studies and then you will get the chance to use better hardware :)

Color accuracy is super important to me whenever I need to design something on the frontend side of things. High resolution is important too because I'm working with my screens. That means that I stare many hours per day in the display. Life is too short for shitty hardware and most professionals in our industry or their companies can definitely afford it.

Why use HDMI when there is USB-C or Thunderbolt? As far as I know 4k@60hz is max on HDMI. You are optimising the wrong thing here.

You find the screen real estate sufficient? I hate developing on a small screen (especially for the web).

Good tooling improves the artists workflow and results in most cases.

Yeah, this is my biggest gripe about System76 right now. They _used_ to have HiDPI options, but they all seem to have disappeared. :(

Sure, but the threshold between "Retina" vs Non-"Retina" is somewhat arbitrarily decided by Apple, and it's also a registered trademark that only Apple owns.

It's like arguing whether or not macbooks are "ultrabooks". Choosing to discuss using these terms is ultimately just allowing these companies to arbitrarily control discussions. I think we should try to resist corporate capture of language when possible.

Consider the context of the parent comment. If I can barely notice individual pixels on my 1080p monitor with good vision at a normal viewing distance, then surely the difference between a 4K screen and a 2K screen can't be that noticeable, even to a professional artist (who probably has more ideal viewing conditions, a more trained eye, and lower viewing distance).

Looking at apple's website, their MacBook Air (which I assume is their main model?) has a "retina" resolution of 2560x1600 with a 13.3' display, whereas the framework has a resolution of 2256x1504 with a 13.5' display. So they are about the same, except that one is marketed as "Retina" and one is not.

> Looking at apple's website, their MacBook Air (which I assume is their main model?) has a "retina" resolution of 2560x1600 with a 13.3' display, whereas the framework has a resolution of 2256x1504 with a 13.5' display. So they are about the same, except that one is marketed as "Retina" and one is not.

From your claim, the MacBook Air has simultaneously a smaller display and a significanly higher pixel count: over 20% more pixels than Framework's display in a smaller area.

You might try to argue that the difference is not meaningful or important to you personaly, but they are far from "being the same".