So laptops with 4K resolution are becoming more prominent, most

>>58635896
can i game on it you dumb techie?

>>58635896
It's a meme until Apple does it.

t. /fa/

>>58635896
15.6 is fine for 4k.

The biggest problem right now is pisspoor scaling with some applications

>>58635914
why would you use shit applications like that?

>Do you think that is too small a screen for 4K
Do you know what scaling is for ?
The point of 4K isn't to get more desktop real estate, its for the benefits of a high PPI display that will make things like text look crisp and sharp.


The screen size doesn't matter as much as the scaling.

For 98% of applications out there, scaling works fine, but a few are still lagging behind getting proper support for it.

4K is absolutely pointless for a laptop with 15.6" screen.
1440p is likely the sweet spot for that screen size

>>58635953
>For 98% of applications out there, scaling works fine
I have a 28" 4k Screen and you're full of shit m8
Most the applications that I use are fucking awful with scaling
Steam for instance is awful, same goes for Photoshop. Fuck even most browsers are shit with scaling

>>58636324
Just use Windows 10 DPI Fix

>>58635938
speccy for one does this
adobe reader splash screen
shitton of other apps

>>58636279
T.luddite

>>58637322
>mad because splash screen jpegs designed for 1080p don't scale up

>>58635896
>Do you think that is too small a screen for 4K
If you want to run with no scaling then yes, it will definitely be too small. Even at 27" 4K with no scaling will look very small to you if you've used ~96 DPI monitors all your life.

File: speccy.png (59KB, 806x678px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 806x678px

>>58637322
What's wrong with Speccy? Looks fine to me, this is 125% scaling.

>>58637590
>blame scaling for stretching pixels
>blame scaling for being too sharp to see normal pixels
Yeah, 4K is clearly not a good option for that kind of screen
Plus you know, battery, hardware, it's kinda stupid comparing it to a larger 4K screen (even at the same distance away)

>>58636279
Just scale to 1440p effective dots then

the only bad thing is 16:9 ration on a laptop is dumb

>>58637636
>60Hz
Pathetic

>>58637671
I'm waiting for monitors with those 4K 144Hz panels to come out. IPS, HDR, 4K, 144Hz with local dimming sound pretty nice, should be out this year.

I just want a 4k 13 inch.
No scaling either.

basically what >>58635953 said

unfortunately the current scaling implementations are imperfect

windows still has issues with UI consistency at scaled resolutions, and macOS has performance stutters at anything but a clean 2x

i prefer the macOS implementation as it is usually smooth though.

>>58635896
Is Toshiba any good? Which one is the best, Lenovo, Toshiba or Dell? I think Lenovo has some models with 4K screens and I know Dell has them at least.

I currently have a Thinkpad with 1600x900 and it's not enough when browsing internet and a vertical picture/video comes up. They won't fit in my browser. Maybe my next one will be a 4K laptop if I can find a decent one.

>>58637725
Thats already out you numb nuts
>>58637759
>Mac has performance issues and stuttering
>Windows menus are big
>I prefer the Mac implementation

>>58637765
I have a 1440x900 display on my thinkpad and I scale to ~90% and most images display fine.
Shit just werks

>>58636279
>1440p for 15.6"
Lmao too high, or rather, wasteful.

>>58637825
Don't you lose quality though when it doesn't match pixel to pixel?

>>58635896
4k on desktop if you have the money to waste is ok as you lose nothing. But in a laptop you lose battery life so it's not an advantage, is more like a trade off.

>>58637787
>Thats already out you numb nuts
What, really? What model is already out? Asus PG27UQ is supposed to come out in Q3, Acer XB272 isn't out either.

>>58635896
>windows toy UI
this looks so fucking awful, why do they promote their products with this shit?

>>58635896
I don't give a shit about screen size, resolution is the only important thing. Would love to see a 20" 4k desktop monitor, because 900p ain't cut it no more, and I'm worried the standard 24-27" will be too big.

actual 4k? 4096 × 2160? or you mean shitty uhd?

>>58638072
No he's means actual "4K UHD" as a patented cinema standard, which has absolutely nothing to do with 4 horizontal kilopixels

>>58635896
>forgets about 4k phones