If your New Years resolution is less than 2560x1440 @ 13"

more like what's your new years pixel density

>>57949039
>13"
>laughing whores.jpeg

>>57949056
13" is the only place where 2560x1440 is acceptable. If you have a 24" inch monitor you should be using 4k. 27" should be 5k.

>>57949045
/g/ is too retarded to understand pixel density still.

File: P2415Q-front-on.jpg (210KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1024x768px

>tfw only 180 PPI on desktop


feels badman

>>57949039
I've always used 1080p @ 23"~ inches and never had a problem with it, but I recently purchased a new laptop which has a 1080p panel but @ 13.3" which is about the same PPI as 4k @ 27" and it's incredible.

File: suchinsight.png (97KB, 1440x851px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1440x851px

>>57949066
nothing ever seems to change.

>>57949082
I have the same monitor! it's fine. the goal is to double the pixel density versus whatever you would call "conventional" for that screen size. if you had a 220 pixel per inch display at 24", it would be like... 4608x2592. which would scale really poorly.

or rather, it would scale just fine to whatever you want, but it would force the computer to interpolate to make sense of grids of pixels that don't match up with a lower density display.

2880x1800 is the ONLY good resolution. Everything else is a meme/trash/both.

>>57949039
But muh 144hz

>>57949296
let's not get salty about other resolutions. what matters is that people recognize the appeal of higher pixel densities at all (e.g. >>57949082, >>57949278, >>57949267, >>57949066)

>>57949309
144Hz is more useful for gaming and other stuff where movement is really fast and you can't tolerate ghosting. but that's mostly gaming.

"retina" displays render text much more sharply, much much more pleasingly on the eyes. you don't rub your eyes or feel a need to take a break from staring at a screen quite as often (you still should, mostly because you're staring at an intense light source, but it's less fatiguing).

there are honest to god going to be people arguing about this so i'm gonna get started changing my car's tires.

>>57949296
If Apple had matte screens, I would be using a MacBook right now

File: Screen Shot 2016-12-11 at 9.12.34 AM.png (809KB, 1506x2556px) Image search: [Google]

809KB, 1506x2556px

>>57949337
You could build a Hackintosh for *really* cheap (probably on the order of $600 if you really wanted for a pretty barebones system) and get a P2415Q or P2715Q for ~$370 (I'm actually seeing a little less in the used market). I have a P2415Q and an UP2414Q, and my officemate has a P2715Q. The P series monitors are excellent — all are matte, really good brightness, etc... but the UP2414Q is stupidly expensive, consumes more electricity and 60Hz support is a bit trickier because it came out way early on among 4k monitors. I think it's more accurate for colors, but that's about it.

>>57949431
I don't want OS X
I want a 14" 16:10 laptop with 2880x1800, matte screen

>>57949039
You almost had something funny but then you ruined it

>>57949457
Okay, but my experience with Windows 10 recently (and Linux about 6 months ago) was that high pixel density support is poor. Mostly it's because Microsoft was way too determined to support legacy software, so now you have shit that nobody's worked on in 15 years that will definitely never scale well.

If Linux support for high pixel density displays was better I would be running Debian on this desktop. I initially built this computer to drive 4k monitors when my laptop couldn't handle it at 60Hz (and even at 30Hz it would be struggling to drive several).

>>57949335
>you don't rub your eyes or feel a need to take a break from staring at a screen quite as often

I will still have to rub my eyes from looking at a blurry slideshow.

>tfw 2560x1440 @ 25'

At least I'm better than the 1080p fags.

>>57949560
Well if you enjoy your 60fps slideshow

>>57949503
>>57949568
>60Hz
>slideshow
you have a problem if you're perceiving 60 frames per second as a slideshow, buddy. and we're not even talking about flickering — that's a CRT trait. if you're just staring at a static page of text the difference between 144Hz and 1Hz is nil.

>>57949608
If I wanted to look at static images I would not get any computer.

File: 1472400468181.png (869KB, 753x706px) Image search: [Google]

869KB, 753x706px

>>57949039
1360x768 @ 32"

come at me bitch tits

File: hqdefault.jpg (14KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 480x360px

>>57949882
do you still have eyes

>>57949337
Here you go, familia

https://www.amazon.com/Moshi-iVisor-Anti-Glare-Protector-MacBook/dp/B009J90R4W

>>57950567
>t. mactoddler

File: 1479923852077.png (38KB, 499x338px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 499x338px

>they aren't using multiple 4k monitors in surround

File: hahaRADAR2_big1.gif (245KB, 774x900px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 774x900px

>>57949039
13,9" 3840x2160

14" 1366x768
get fukt

File: image.jpg (276KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1280x720px

>he bought a more than 1080p laptop