>2012 >Apple releases rMBP >2014 >Apple release

>dell xps 13
>276 ppi

>macbook pro retina
>227 ppi

Why can't apple into high ppi?

>>59126012
High dpi has improved loads in recent versions of windows 10. As for Linux well... who knows?

>>59126086
He's talking about OS

>>59126094
GNOME and Unity has perfect high dpi scaling

>>59126086
Windows looks like ass under ppi. None of the applications support it, apart from WMF which no one uses.

File: IMG_20170226_095225.jpg (254KB, 1080x1474px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 1080x1474px

>>59126086
>>dell xps 13
>>276 ppi

Have fun

>>59126146
>windows

File: retina.jpg (852KB, 1280x1706px) Image search: [Google]

852KB, 1280x1706px

>people still use low PPI in 2017
Why?

>>59126221
Because of cheap

>b-b-but the specs are higher on paper
>who cares if it'll be an inferior experience out of the box, painful to use in ~2 years, and in a landfill by year 3
>w-w-w-well it's cheaper...!
non-Macfags make me sick

>>59126109
Does Gnome finally support float scale factors and changes it automatically once I connect a hdpi screen?

>>59126221
There's just no real benefit to it. It just looks nicer. At 1x scaling where you'd actually get more workspace everything becomes too small.

>>59126265
But it is cheaper. Doesn't mean it's good.

Besides it all depends on the usage. For a computer, you're usually going to aim for better specs. If you're going to spend more than $1k you want something powerful, not a shitposting machine.

However on a laptop I can see how having the better screen would definitely be better. Still, when you can't pour a bucket full of water on your macbook pro and have it working nicely again after drying completely, it makes me wonder.

>>59126221
>implying you ever look close enough to even notice

File: Screenshot 2017-02-26 at 3.12.55 AM.png (122KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1366x768px

>using anything other than 1366x768
It's like you guys want to have 15 minutes of battery life.

>>59126284
Text isn't too small when it's twice as sharp, you can lower the size very far and still see things clearly

File: curry thunder.jpg (63KB, 636x448px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 636x448px

>Microsoft will never fix scaling in Windows 10 because they want everybody to move to UWP, which scales much better

>>59126284
You can scale higher resolutions down and it'll still be shaper than a normal display.

>>59126295
>being this retarded on /g/

>>59126318
Mate I've used 4k displays before. They're unusable at 1x scaling unless they're above 27".

>>59126012
What exactly is wrong with 2x scaling in Windows 10 Pro? It looks fine to me on my 2015 rMBP.

>>59126358
I'm saying compared to other displays
A 1-inch word will be much more usable at 4K than a 1-inch word at 1080p
That's where you get the screen real estate

Because normies won't install an OS that doesn't support it on a MBP when macOS is so available.

File: image.jpg (981KB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

981KB, 2448x3264px

>High resolution
>Low PPI
fuck wit me

I'm happy with Gentoo and a normal DPI, I won't buy a new hardware for a high DPI. I'd better buy an ultrabook with an nVidia video chip in order to use CUDA for programming and training neural networks faster.

Macs are for technically illiterate people and gays.

>>59126012
guess what, most people don't even bother changing DPI settings in windows

>>59126370
2880x1800 (on the 15") 2560x1600 (on the 13") is far from 4k. And even that pixel density causes problems in some applications. I used to have a late 2013 15" rMBP with Windows. Off the top of my head, I remember Fraps was really hard to use because scaling broke the interface, and you had to turn the scaling to 1x to get the Amnesia games to work because scaling broke the interface.

File: 57841131_p1_master1200.jpg (669KB, 1200x786px) Image search: [Google]

669KB, 1200x786px

>>59126398
So what about *technologically* literate faggots?

>>59126412
I was worried that Windows scaling would affect games but so far literally nothing fullscreened has been affected. It detects the system resolution properly and I have no issues

>>59126434
99% of games work, Amnesia was the only game I ran into problems with in terms of scaling.

>>59126284
>There's just no real benefit to it
any professional creative will disagree. for me it's essential for the work I do, the fact that it looks nicer becomes the cherry on top, not the main feature

>>59126464
I guess I can see it for image editing and the like, but for most people it's just gonna be blown up UI elements.

>>59126464
Once you go hi-dpi you never go back.

Example, 5k iMac after using it for a while non-high dpi looks like shit. Same goes for my Retina MacBook Pro.

>>59126284
>There's just no real benefit to it

>text is more legible
>can bump up the resolution temporarily if you need more space (still sharper than a normal display)
>can see all the details of a picture just by hovering
>thumbnails have far greater detail
>filters for emulators can actually look like phosphors on a CRT

File: image.png (181KB, 1753x907px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1753x907px

>>59126580
Agreed
Except I'm not a macfag
I never understood the Windows scaling meme, never had a problem when I used it

File: dpi.png (2MB, 3237x1363px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3237x1363px

>>59126221
High DPI is life!

>>59126670
You can probably see the difference between the text in Speccy and the Windows UI font
If you cant you shouldn't be in this thread

>>59126669
All of this assumes that one sits so close to his display that pixels are visible on a normal screen.
I have perfect eyesight and can't make out pixels.

>>59126696
To his defense (while Windows is way behind on DPI scaling) that's Piriform's fault for not scaling.

>>59126708
>All of this assumes that one sits so close to his display that pixels are visible on a normal screen.
No, it assumes you sit a normal distance from the display like an average person. Why would you think otherwise?

>I have perfect eyesight and can't make out pixels.
Well since we know you have perfect eyesight you can easily see the difference yourself.

>Load font testing page on phone and computer
>Place phone up to monitor
>Zoom in/out on phone until the fonts are visually the same size
>Look from your normal viewing distance
If you can't see a difference then your vision probably isn't very good.

File: 1482943151373.png (456KB, 696x938px) Image search: [Google]

456KB, 696x938px

>>59126012
>1990's
>Windows and Linux can merge folders without deleting all your files

>2017
>applel still can't
>mactoddlers will defend this

Why?

>>59126728
This assumes you're some casual who has a phone with higher ppi than his monitor

>>59126696
>applel solution
>ban all applications and prevent any legacy applications from running because "m-m-m-muh shiny fruity toy experince!!!111"

>ms solution
>upscale legacy programs with no scaling support so people can actually get work done instead of jerking it to their fruity toddler toy

>>59126741
Some phones from 2012 have higher PPIs than all consumer desktop displays on the market. What are you trying to get at?

>>59126728
>it assumes you sit a normal distance from the display like an average person
Yes, and at that distance I get a clear picture on a normal display, no pixelization at all.

>>59126763
And on a high PPI display you get far more detail. You keep trying to act like people are saying you're seeing pixels when in reality it's "everything is shaper" and "there's more details".
What you're doing is a bit like saying "My TN panels shows all the colors just fine, why should I care about IPS?".

File: high ppi.png (3MB, 3200x1800px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3200x1800px

>>59126012
>>Winfags and Linfags still can't into high PPI
Excuse you. Please remove Linux from this list. Anything that uses GTK3 or Qt 5 has perfect support for high-PPI, since like Cocoa on macOS, those frameworks are scaled automatically.

>>59126086
This guy is right. None of the Apple laptops actually hit the PPI sweet-spot for me. The 13-inch rMBPs have a raw screen resolution of 2560x1600px, which is 1280x800dp at 2x scaling, and 1280x800 is too cramped for me. I've actually tried to use a 13-inch rMBP for a significant period of time and it was way too cramped. Don't suggest using a ratio other than 2x either. Non-integer ratios look like blurry garbage no matter what the operating system is.

On the other hand, most high-PPI 13.3-inch PC laptops have a 3200x1800px screen, which is 1600x900dp at 2x scaling and fairly usable.

>>59126780
Anon, yout retina has a certain resolution. If you can't see pixels your screens resolution matches it or is higher. Anything above that is useless.

>>59126788
>Anything that uses GTK3 or Qt 5
That's the problem. Lots of programs such as GIMP or anything xfce still haven't migrated.

@59126746
>>upscale legacy programs with no scaling support so people can actually get work done instead of jerking it to their fruity toddler toy
Or the interface breaks and you can't click on the buttons you need to click on.

I'm not Apple user, but you're clearly baiting for (you)s.

>>59126793
Are you even going to bother supporting that claim? Unlike you I actually have a high PPI display, you don't.

>>59126814
Actually I take that back, you probably do. Stick your phone up to your screen like I said in >>59126728
You'll see a difference. Don't even pretend you didn't if you do it.

>>59126814
What? The claim that your retina is made up of photosensitive cells that have a certain density?

>>59126826
Nice, trying to mince my words around. I'll just quote your moronic, baseless claim directly.

>If you can't see pixels your screens resolution matches it or is higher. Anything above that is useless.

You made a claim that is wrong and didn't back it up with anything. I gave you a simple way to prove my point as well. Notice I said prove, because I know for a fact that you can see a difference. It never stops looking sharper after all.

>>59126797
>GIMP
Hence Krita in my screenshot.

>anything xfce
Fuck Xfce. It's for faux-minimalists only. Either go full minimalist and use an app that scales with the Xft DPI, or embrace full DEs and use GNOME, Cinnamon or KDE.

Seriously, now that Linux desktop software is transitioning from GTK2 to GTK3+ and Qt 4 to Qt 5, its easy to tell which software is stagnant garbage, because those are the ones that don't update.

>>59126834
Please tell me how my screen having a higher resolution than what a human eye can pick up will benefit me.

>>59126857
There you go again making a baseless claim. You keep claiming just because you can't discern individual pixels that it MUST be the maximum amount of detail you can see. You don't have anything to back that up and I'm confident it doesn't exist either.
I have even A/B/X tested a high PPI screenshots compared to their low PPI counterparts scaled up 4x (using nearest neighbor) and it was very easy to pick out which was which.
You can see a difference and there's plenty of ways to verify this for yourself. There's no excuse to be arguing there isn't a difference.

>>59126759
That you're a casual

>>59126898
Okay, maybe 1080p at about 24" is slightly below what we can see from a normal viewing distance. But 4k would be way overkill.
Take a phone for example. Most phones nowadays are what 1080p? 1440p? But you hold them much closer to your face taking up similar area of your FoV as a monitor, yielding you about the same effective pixel density.

>>59126370
1.5 scaling makes it so explorer (and other programs) cant launch on a wide range of machines.

>>59126730
>Using outdated irrelevant to the topic arguments that aren't even correct as of this date

File: image.jpg (58KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1500x1500px

>>59126982
But not my machine :^)

>>59127031
Have you tried this?

>>59127038
I've been trying 150% scaling for 6 months

>>59127055
My laptop came stock at 225% scaling

>>59127055
There s a gigabyte GPU overclocking program, that's the only time I've ever had a problem, it makes a huge window border and then only loads up the program in upper corner of that window. The little temp monitor that normally pops up on the side of the window now pops up with a gap between the program
But that's shitty gigabyte nonsense and the only time I've ever had a problem at any scaling

>>59127001
why so trigd?

>>59126746
Are you dumb? macOS also supports the blurry scaling for non-supported apps.

>>59126092
>High dpi has improved loads in recent versions of windows 10.
Not true at all. It's pretty much the same as it ever was.

File: 1487941262590.gif (1MB, 400x245px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 400x245px

>>59126464
>I'm professional
>it's essential hurr
>looks nice durr

>>59126730
>Moving to another platform
>Expecting the same use patterns

File: Screen Shot 2017-02-26 at 13.21.58.png (17KB, 399x86px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 399x86px

>>59127001
>that aren't even correct as of this date

What do you mean? The latest version of macOS Sierra still does the exact same thing.

File: Screen Shot 2017-02-26 at 13.28.54.png (17KB, 399x86px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 399x86px

>>59127631
Same thing happens if it's newer btw.

>>59126835
Agreed, but fuck full DEs, the speed cant be compared to openbox,i3 etc..

File: IMG_0020.jpg (535KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 1000x750px

>>59126012
>high PPI
Sure faggot.

Pic related.
>267 PPI


>>59127698
>>59127631
Hold down Option key, if it still doesn't change then there's nothing to replace or merge in the first place

>>59126788
>completely dismisses the mere existence of 15" MBPs
>muh dis too heavy
>muh portabilitay
>muh backpack

File: windows 150 percent scaling.png (284KB, 2064x769px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 2064x769px

>>59126092
>>59127577
Not only has it not improved much with 10, in parts of the OS it has got even worse.

But usually it's up to 3rd party programs to fix scaling, not Windows.

>>59127732
Yeah mate. >14-inch is literally autistic.

File: Screen Shot 2017-02-26 at 13.32.42.png (24KB, 399x128px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 399x128px

>>59127721
>Hold down Option key
Well, that's really neat. But not really intuitive.
Why isn't this the default behavior? I mean it still offers Replace anyway, so it's not like you're missing anything.

File: 2017-02-26-143243_2560x1440_scrot.png (686KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

686KB, 2560x1440px

hidpi openbox faggets

>>59127750
We are talking Apple here
More than one option is too much for the simple Joe

>>59127770
You have a point. Oh well.
At least macOS clearly states what buttons do (for example Stop and Replace rather than Cancel and OK) like in Windows.

>>59127749
Enjoy your keyhole.

>>59126314

>talks about battery life
>uses chrome

please kys

>>59127612
Oh yeah all professionals just LOVE playing the Control or Command game when they're forced to troubleshoot business critical software deployments for their co-workers who got a Macbook just so they can masturbate to it. It's just the best use pattern!

> "Hahahaha! I just accidentally the terminal in two! That's so useful! How do you get rid of this? Drag it out of the way? Of course not, wrong user pattern. Go click on that 5×5 pixels large button hahaha my nipples explode with delight"

>>59127820
>I fell for Edge and/or Safari's advertising :(

>>59127837

>using edge, safari or chrome

File: 1487791943283.png (3MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x2160px

>>59126012
What?

>>59127750
Um... Because it is more logical?

>What is "Replace"?
It does exactly what it says. The fact that you have a Windows deformation because of pajeets doesn't mean everyone else should stick to your habits.

>>59127750
I assume that according to Apple, you wouldn't want to have the folder you're trying to 'merge' by moving it with the 'full' one gone, but rather moved and replaced. If you copy the folder (by holding down option), you'll save the newest folder, while still adding to the one with all the items.

>>59127875
>>59127893
this was already explained, stop shilling faggots

>>59126788
>No shadows or obvious window focus state

>>59127827
>calls himself a professional
>plays Control or Command game

>>59127837
>Safari's advertising
What advertising?

File: dolph.png (353KB, 2066x1321px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 2066x1321px

>>59127927
Those windows have shadows. You're not looking hard enough. They might be a bit hard to see against the background.

Chrome doesn't have an obvious focus state because it doesn't really play well with Linux DEs. Normal windows look like this when focused.

>>59127967
Are the shadows meant to be so small or have they been drawn un-scaled?

>>59127967
>vmlinuz
>DOS/Windows executable
what a trainwreck

>>59126421
_ ____ __ ____ ____ _____

>>59127820
I get at least 8 hours on my Chromebook.

File: file.png (64KB, 948x673px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 948x673px

>>59128002
It's configurable.

Whether they're scaled or not, I don't actually know. Plasma and KWin scale differently to the rest of the desktop. I think they use the font DPI rather than Qt's scale factor. In practice it works because I have my fonts DPI set correctly, but I don't know if the window decorations have exactly the same metrics as a low-ppi system or not.

>>59127721
post pape

>>59128061
Is this supposed to be some kind of puzzle?

>>59128224
>>59128061
"I want to suck your penis"?

>>59126012
>its another "apple reinvents the gui so it takes X times more space and resources and gives the same functionality" episode
but i can agree it looks nice.

>>59128093
MACTODDLERS BTFO BY CUSTOMIZABILITY

>>59126284
>There's just no real benefit to it. It just looks nicer.
You have never seen a high-dpi screen besides your phone, have you?

>>59126788
Looks really nice. Which distro?

>>59126746
>implying quality control is a problem
if there is one problem with windows applications, and windows itself is the fact that everything is build upon 20+ year old code. apple did in fact support outdated (blurry) applications (adobe software looked like shit for a good while) but it took no more than a few months before developers caught up.

the fact of the matter is that this discussion goes beyond your average /g/ needs like muh games and pajeet softpedia software.

>>59126012
Part of it is that Microsoft doesn't give a shit.
Part of it is that Apple control their software with an iron fist, and mandate every one of their programs to follow specific standards, and that allows them to do things like make adjustable DPI without shitty scaling artifacts.
But on the other hand, it means there aren't nearly as many programs written for the Mac OS.

>>59130011
>But on the other hand, it means there aren't nearly as many programs written for the Mac OS.
It's 2017, their APIs take care of it all, 99% of the software isn't even in the Apple shop, it's 3rd party off other sources

>>59126284
it reduces eye strain

t. 4k monitor user @ 150% scaling

>>59126012
No care im still using 10 year monitor

>>59131874
Also the english skills of a 10 year old

>>59126012
Only excuse for not always using hi ppi is gayming.

>>59132212
That's not an excuse, 4k gayming is a thing

>>59132303
Too expensive.

>>59132356
/tpg/ called, they want their poorfag back

>>59131747
font smoothing on window causes eye cancer no matter what

I gotta say, it has been way easier to deal with work involving text with macOS due to that exact fucking problem.

>>59126012
>LE I BOUGHT A MAC XD LE I AM THE SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE
fuck off

>>59127761
What panel is that Anon?

File: Screen Shot 2017-02-26 at 2.09.11 PM.png (52KB, 698x526px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 698x526px

who /low ppi/ here?

File: squidpedopanties.jpg (2MB, 5120x2880px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5120x2880px

>>59132852
Are you upset at this resolution?

>>59133453
All those pixels, just to display lolis.
That's the meaning of failure at life.

File: desktop-4M.jpg (2MB, 5120x2880px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5120x2880px

>>59133491
It's so I can do this

>>59133453
>10.12.1

The only thing I see wrong with that picture. You better update that shit now

What's the best value for your book mac laptop you can get these days? I just need something that can type documents and run webapps.

>>59126314
i have 1366x768 and i gotta say its shit man, i wish i had a FHD screen