I see the following disadvantages:
- easily soiled case;
- no universal travel adapter with a detachable cable;
- sometimes I want to play, but the heating under WASD, high noise and bad integrated graphics will not let me do it;
But I will still buy it, because it has the largest screen on the market

I see the following disadvantages:
easily soiled case;
no universal travel adapter with a detachable cable;
sometimes I want to play, but the heating under WASD, high noise and bad integrated graphics will not let me do it;
But I will still buy it, because it has the largest screen on the market

and there are still no separate keys:
PageUp
PageDown
End
Home

Quote from: Hotz on April 05, 2025, 12:47:27Uhm ok... I can understand your point, but it's the first time I heard that. Generally, when I'm reading in tech forums, it seems like gamers who use 27" display with 4k also want to play in 4k, which means their desktop is probably also set to native resolution.

Check this video, there is more of them I'm sure of it but this was the first I found with two next to each other, so 27" 1440p and 32" 4K next to it, check how everything is very small and tiny on a 32", imagine how small would it be at 27" with 100%: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zveTEbXCpF0

And scaling is not the same as resolution, when you change scaling you don't change resolution. So when you buy a 27" 4K for gaming, and if you scale it to, say, 125% (so 3072x1728, which is about perfect for a 27"), you can still choose 3840x2160 in the in-game settings and you still play at that 4K resolution, it's just that everything in game is also scaled accordingly to your Windows scaling, but it's still as sharp as 4K - because it's being rendered at 4K.

Edit: Great video also, although it's about macOS scaling, but everything is nicely explained and demonstrated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W16xa0eU_8

Quote from: Worgarthe on April 05, 2025, 11:56:10The point of high resolutions is exactly scaling. No one sane buys a 4K 27" display to use it in native, so 100% scaling. Same as with laptops, especially 4K 14" ones. And exactly those 4K 14" are amazing to look at with 200% scaling where everything visually looks like 1920x1200 (or 1080 if it's 16:9) but it's just extremely sharp and clean.

Uhm ok... I can understand your point, but it's the first time I heard that. Generally, when I'm reading in tech forums, it seems like gamers who use 27" display with 4k also want to play in 4k, which means their desktop is probably also set to native resolution.

Quote from: Hotz on April 05, 2025, 10:05:44BUT then you have to ask where's the point in such high resolutions, if it basically forces you to use "scaling"? (because native resolution would be too small to read text). That's just contradictory.

The point of high resolutions is exactly scaling. No one sane buys a 4K 27" display to use it in native, so 100% scaling. Same as with laptops, especially 4K 14" ones. And exactly those 4K 14" are amazing to look at with 200% scaling where everything visually looks like 1920x1200 (or 1080 if it's 16:9) but it's just extremely sharp and clean.

Scaling also gives you more options for scalability and to find exactly what you want and desire in terms of a visible real estate; you can get anything you want and what you find comfortable when there is plenty of pixels.

I have two laptops, one 14" with 2560x1440, and the other is 16" 2560x1600. Everything is nicely sharp on both of them, a bit more on a 14" one as it's a smaller one, naturally. I wouldn't ever go back to 1080/1200p on a 14", let alone anything higher, as everything looks much nicer, and by much I mean it's a noticeable difference (I'm yet to see anything blurry though, not saying it doesn't happen, just that I haven't experienced it anywhere but just in the Event Viewer inside of Windows).

People who don't like more pixels and/or scaling are not wrong. No one is right or wrong here, that's my point and it's what I initially said in my previous comment - more pixels is not needed, but it's really wonderful and useful to have.

Quote from: Hotz on April 05, 2025, 10:05:44Besides, more pixels also mean more battery power required...

That was a case back then, not really anymore. Nowadays is more about the type of a panel, and its refresh rate. And even if I get 5, 7 or 10% less battery life for 50, 70 or 100% cleaner, sharper and better image - so be it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edit: I forgot to mention, see M-chip MacBooks for example, let's take a 16" Pro here, its display resolution is 3456x2234, and I doubt that anyone uses it at 100% so in that exact scaling unless they use a microscope to work on their laptop. But that same 16" Pro has a default scaling of 200%, so it looks like 1728x1117. I would say it's pretty clear that 1728x1117 native wouldn't look anywhere as good as 3456x2234 scaled to that exact same size.

If you choose "More space" it looks like 2056x1329, and other non-custom scaling presets are set to look like 1496x967, 1312x848, and 1168x755.

Quote from: user9323 on April 04, 2025, 19:12:21Does a laptop need a resolution higher than 1920:1200?

In my opinion - no, everything above is overkill.

Quote from: Worgarthe on April 04, 2025, 23:27:27Say there is 2880x1800, you scale that at 150% and you get the same real estate as 1920x1200 native, just 50% sharper image.

Uhm, I disagree. According to my experience every required scaling resulted in image/fonts getting slightly blurry.


You could argue that this won't be noticed if the pixel density is as high as... uhm 2880x1800 or 3840x2160 on a 18" display - by which I'd agree... BUT then you have to ask where's the point in such high resolutions, if it basically forces you to use "scaling"? (because native resolution would be too small to read text). That's just contradictory. Besides, more pixels also mean more battery power required... so there are more disadvantages than advantages to this higher resolution craze.

Quote from: user9323 on April 04, 2025, 19:12:21

Quotewe would have liked to see at least 2,560 x 1,600 pixels

Does a laptop need a resolution higher than 1920:1200?

Doesn't need to have it, but it's very, very nice to have; easier on the eyes too when looking at it for many hours a day. Say there is 2880x1800, you scale that at 150% and you get the same real estate as 1920x1200 native, just 50% sharper image. Especially useful for working with plenty of text, and particularly great here on a large 18-incher as a size of 1920x1200 looks about perfect to scale to. Ideally 3840x2400 panel would be excellent to have, so with 200% scaling you get 1920x1200 and great sharpness/clarity.

Also with laptops we tend to sit closer to their displays than we do with big(ger) external monitors, thus it's easier to spot pixels with naked eyes when there is not that many pixels to start with.

Quotewe would have liked to see at least 2,560 x 1,600 pixels

Does a laptop need a resolution higher than 1920:1200?

It's bad that there is heat under the wasd buttons. While the rarely used num pad remains cool