The perceived result is the same. There’s a limit to visual acuity and if the reviewer’s limit is lower than yours, it in no way invalidates the approach.
Also, lowering the resolution doesn’t fuck the image, unless the image has greater resolution than the screen’s resolution. You’re not going to invent quality of nothing. It’s not how things work.
This thought process of “bigger number means better quality” is just straight up false. It’s why cameras with 100 megapixels can easily take pictures with worse quality than cameras with lower megapixels and optical zoom.
You really can’t see the irony of an article praising the “brilliant display” of the unit while simultaneously erasing what makes the display good in the first place? How is that a valid review?
What strawman? This entire discussion started because of resolution. You’re implying “higher resolution makes the display good” and seeing “irony” in the fact that the reviewer says it’s a brilliant display. I’m asking you’re sure about that, but it seems like you know it’s not true and thus changing the goalposts 🤷
Plus everyone responding to you ignoring the arguably more important part:
Out of the box, the laptop opted for the highest resolution possible, which made everything way too small for my aging eyes.
Macs, out of the box, “just work”. Granted that this is due to rigid monopolistic content of the hardware+software integration, but however it is achieved, it does work.
Meanwhile, people who enjoy using Arch btw Linux have to go in and tweak settings even be able to BEGIN using the machine.
And if you do manage, people call you a troll for doing it “wrong”.
All right then, I guess I’ll continue to prefer Macs then, especially if my work is paying.
One day it would be nice if Linux would start to choose to work a bit better, like Macs.
The issue here isn’t changing the settings, there is nothing wrong with that. The issue is that the review said the screen was good while lowering the resolution, resulting in a objectively worse image. So the question becomes: can you trust the reviewer on the image quality when the review is possibly based on a less then optimal image quality.
Im not sure where you get your info from but its wrong. If you set your resolution to something lower and you’re displaying on a higher resolution screen the image quality is going to suffer. Dont do things the wrong way, doing things the wrong way isint “unique” or “just the way I like doing things” its wrong and if its not immediately causing problems itll cause problems down the road.
The perceived result is the same. There’s a limit to visual acuity and if the reviewer’s limit is lower than yours, it in no way invalidates the approach.
Also, lowering the resolution doesn’t fuck the image, unless the image has greater resolution than the screen’s resolution. You’re not going to invent quality of nothing. It’s not how things work. This thought process of “bigger number means better quality” is just straight up false. It’s why cameras with 100 megapixels can easily take pictures with worse quality than cameras with lower megapixels and optical zoom.
Anti Commercial-AI license
You really can’t see the irony of an article praising the “brilliant display” of the unit while simultaneously erasing what makes the display good in the first place? How is that a valid review?
Is resolution the only attribute to judge a display by? Is it really that one-dimensional? “Hammer good if make bong louder”?
Anti Commercial-AI license
I didn’t say that, go strawman someone else. Shoo, troll, shoo!
What strawman? This entire discussion started because of resolution. You’re implying “higher resolution makes the display good” and seeing “irony” in the fact that the reviewer says it’s a brilliant display. I’m asking you’re sure about that, but it seems like you know it’s not true and thus changing the goalposts 🤷
I guess your name really is fitting.
Anti Commercial-AI license
Plus everyone responding to you ignoring the arguably more important part:
Macs, out of the box, “just work”. Granted that this is due to rigid monopolistic content of the hardware+software integration, but however it is achieved, it does work.
Meanwhile, people who enjoy using
Arch btwLinux have to go in and tweak settings even be able to BEGIN using the machine.And if you do manage, people call you a troll for doing it “wrong”.
All right then, I guess I’ll continue to prefer Macs then, especially if my work is paying.
One day it would be nice if Linux would start to choose to work a bit better, like Macs.
The issue here isn’t changing the settings, there is nothing wrong with that. The issue is that the review said the screen was good while lowering the resolution, resulting in a objectively worse image. So the question becomes: can you trust the reviewer on the image quality when the review is possibly based on a less then optimal image quality.
Im not sure where you get your info from but its wrong. If you set your resolution to something lower and you’re displaying on a higher resolution screen the image quality is going to suffer. Dont do things the wrong way, doing things the wrong way isint “unique” or “just the way I like doing things” its wrong and if its not immediately causing problems itll cause problems down the road.
i think what they meant is that you end up with 1080p output this way, whereas scaling would give you “real” 4k