NotebookCHECK - Notebook Forum

Typo: In 3DMark, the "2560x1440 Time Spy Graphics" headline is double (again!).

The keyboard layout is pretty good but a full size numpad would have been better. Of course, a notebook with good keyboard layout always has the most serious other disadvantages because, of course, why not? ;)

- ultra-greedy price
- very loud
- 16:9
- weak hinges
- no German mechanical keyboard
- display not bright enough outdoors
- unclear: Can the fans be removed despite the air flow guidance walls?

Divide the price by 2, eliminate these drawbacks and I can buy the notebook. With its drawbacks, I would not even pay 1/4 the price.

I agree with everything else but I will never understand why is this a problem, Robert:

Quote from: RobertJasiek on May 19, 2023, 07:55:02- 16:9

Here we have 2560x1440, 16:9; would it be better to have 256 less pixels in width to make it 16:10 at 2304:1440?

Or let's bump the vertical to standard 16:10 of 2560x1600... Would 2844x1600 make it so much worse and less usable just because it's 16:9?

I know that such custom panels don't exist but I'm putting numbers here for example and perspective. I definitely agree that 16:10 (or 3:2 ideally) is superior to 16:9 with small screens but once you go 16"+ I legit can't see the benefit; otherwise what's the point of (ultra)wide external monitors (24:10, 32:9, 21:9)?

Monitors are a different topic, just short: some view several windows next to each other.

16:9 is unusable for everything I use. 16:10 is the bare maximum for which notebook displays become usable. For me, it does not matter in which direction you change numbers of pixels as long as the ratio is at most 16:10.

In the old ages, 4:3 notebook displays were great and at that time nobody complained about bezels. Now that bezels must be thin by alleged popular demand, 4:3 notebook displays have become a bit unrealistic due to chassis stability (except maybe for some convertibles). So with thin bezels and ordinary chassis construction, 3:2 is sort of ideal indeed.

Quote from: RobertJasiek on May 19, 2023, 14:18:3916:9 is unusable for everything I use. 16:10 is the bare maximum for which notebook displays become usable. For me, it does not matter in which direction you change numbers of pixels as long as the ratio is at most 16:10.

But it's a matter of screen resolution and pixel density more than aspect ratio, no? I understand your points but I still fail to see how would 2560x1440 16:9 be unusable for you but 2304:1440 16:10 wouldn't 😐 

Quote from: RobertJasiek on May 19, 2023, 14:18:39In the old ages, 4:3 notebook displays were great and at that time nobody complained about bezels. Now that bezels must be thin by alleged popular demand, 4:3 notebook displays have become a bit unrealistic due to chassis stability (except maybe for some convertibles). So with thin bezels and ordinary chassis construction, 3:2 is sort of ideal indeed.

That's true and I'm yet to find the true purpose of thin bezels except "omg, omg, it looks nice"; sure, looks nice, but usability (and repairability) on the other hand... yeah. I wouldn't mind having some nice 4:3 with 4096x3,072 resolution, it would be a dream to work with. But 4:3 with 1280x1024, thanks but no.

Quote from: Neenyah on May 19, 2023, 14:41:18But 4:3 with 1280x1024, thanks but no.

I mean, 1920x1080 is 16:9 and is far more usable than 1280x1024, despite only 56 pixels more vertically.

If the resolution is at least ca. 70 ~ 80 ppi, it is good enough for me. Sure, 200+ ppi would be nicer but does not affect my rejection of 16:9 or larger.

No matter what the pixel numbers are, I cannot use 16:9 because all my contents demands smaller ratios. In particular, I have frequent 1:1 contents and viewing it on 16:9 is unusable. As are text, webpages and images in portrait orientation.

My desktop monitor is 4:5 (portrait position) 99.5+% of the time. There you see that I never accept 16:9. If I win a 16:9 gaming notebook, I sell it and buy a 16:10 or 3:2 notebook...

16:10 is advantageous for text processing, spreadsheets, portrait art,

Quote from: LL on May 19, 2023, 22:13:1216:10 is advantageous for text processing, spreadsheets, portrait art,

Yes if different resolutions where 16:9 has less vertical pixels. So 1920x1200 is clearly much better than 1920x1080.

Then again, here with this laptop, we have 1440 vertically; is 1440 enough vertical pixels for a 17.3" gaming laptop? I'm pretty sure it is because 100% scaling at that resolution is tiny but readable where 1600 is borderline unreadable unless one is a literal hawk or an owl. So the laptop would be better for text processing, spreadsheets and portrait art with 256 less in width but the same height, so with 2304:1440, just because that is 16:10? And what if it was a 2560x1600 panel inside? Would there be anything wrong with having that same 1600 height but +284 pixels in width for a 2844x1600 16:9?

I understand Robert's point of view and usage so I respect that (but 16:9 can still be used as literally 1:1), but for 99.99% other people I can't understand how is more usable workspace bad just because it's 16:9 and not 16:10.

I work as a graphic designer and video editor, with some animation (After Effects and a bit of Blender, eGPU ofc. for those) and I'll use my X1 Carbon's 14" screen with 2560x1440 16:9 any day over 1920x1200 16:10, because 1440 is more than 1200 despite "sh*t aspect ratio".

Same as I would always take 2560x1600 16:10 laptop over 2400x1600 3:2 laptop - same vertical, more horizontal. No one can tell me that 2400x1600 is better here because that makes no sense at all. But of course that 2400x1600 16:10 is better than 2560x1440 16:9.

Then again, 2880x1620 laptop with its "sh*t 16:9" is by clear logic better than a 3:2 2400x1600 laptop - it has more vertical and horizontal pixels.

Btw, I'm talking here strictly about aspect ratios and resolutions if everything else is the same or equal (so panel quality, colour accuracy and so on).

What is the minimum physical size you can read an A4 document comfortably in a screen regardless of resolution?
I don't want to do it in either in 16:9 or 16:10 in a 17.3 screen - i am about 45cm distant from screen- but 16:10 is better.
The point is unless you can put a whole A4 document in portrait mode that you can read comfortably without scrolling it always be advantageous to have more real estate vertically. 
For a 24" screen it already can be tolerable but there are no 24" laptops yet. Maybe when we will get foldable extendable screens.

Quote from: LL on May 20, 2023, 10:37:18What is the minimum physical size you can read an A4 document comfortably in a screen regardless of resolution?

But it can't be regardless of resolution because for text you need sharpness AKA pixel density - more PPI makes text sharper and easier to read and give you way more variety and options to use different scalings according to your own comfort and needs.

Compare that PPI with DPI that's used in print, as they are fairly similar in essence as one is Pixels Per (physical) Inch and another is Dots Per (physical) Inch - newspapers are printed most often at 100 DPI and that text is pretty grainy and not really comfortable to read for long periods due to its lack of sharpness. Regular documents, brochures, books and such are printed at 200-240 DPI and high quality print such as magazines are at 300 DPI in 95% of cases.

Then let's turn back to laptop screens - 127.34 PPI is really comparable to newspaper print quality of 100 DPI and that is exactly what you get for PPI on a 17.3" screen with 1920x1080 resolution. I legit can't read sh*t comfortably for a long time at such screen, like reading an A4-sized book. Or put that to more extreme example - is 83.86 PPI of a 1920x1200 27" 16:10 monitor going to make it sharp and easy to read just because it is 16:10?

Meanwhile, on my X1 Carbon with 14" 2560x1440 with 210 PPI Google Docs sample page A4, Roboto at 11 pt text size, full A4 page set to fit the screen height, looks like this at 55-60 cm distance 👉 imgur.com/xz7qPk9 👈 Say what you want but that is perfectly readable and comfortable to the eyes and I took that photo with a cheap phone and shaky hand as I just woke up.

Quote from: LL on May 20, 2023, 10:37:18The point is unless you can put a whole A4 document in portrait mode that you can read comfortably without scrolling it always be advantageous to have more real estate vertically.

Yes, exactly, I agree. Which is why I fail to understand (and at this point I'm starting to assume that I'm just being slow or borderline dumb) - how can more width with the same or greater height be worse just because it's 16:9? I don't get it. How can Acer Swift X SFX14-51G with 14" 16:10 2240x1400 be better than a random 14" 16:9 with 2560x1440 when that Acer has less pixels both vertically and horizontally (assuming same/similar panel quality)?

Or how can a random 16:10 1920x1200 laptop be better to use than a 16:9 2560x1440 just because it is 16:10 when there is insane PPI/sharpness difference and PPI is all it matters for text and general usability. I simply don't understand.

Or let's put it this way in following example; how can a laptop with

• 2880x1800 16:10 screen

be better to use than a laptop with

• 3200x1800 16:9 screen

? They both have almost the same screen size, they both have the same amount of vertical pixels but the latter has 320 more pixels horizontally, so why is it that bad to have more width? Why is 16:10 so much preferred here in that example?

I apologize in advance, my intention is not to sound cocky or to troll or provoke anything, I'm just genuinely curious as I can't understand that (but clearly 1920x1200 16:10 laptop is always better than a 1920x1080 16:9 laptop because it has more vertical estate, I'm not denying not arguing that).

Quote from: Neenyah on May 20, 2023, 12:29:29how can more width with the same or greater height be worse just because it's 16:9?

Presuming we measure width - not in numbers of pixels but - in centimeters, more width of 16:9 looks stupid when displaying empty space besides the contents!

However, you argue by numbers of pixels, and then greater width as numbers of pixels due to larger display ratio results in smaller height in centimeters when the height in numbers of pixels is constant.

Quote from: RobertJasiek on May 20, 2023, 12:38:32Presuming we measure width - not in numbers of pixels but - in centimeters, more width of 16:9 looks stupid when displaying empty space besides the contents!

All I can say is that Photoshop in 16:9 is far more usable than Photoshop in 16:10 (both same height, same scaling) 👉 imgur.com/X5XChaB

Does that look stupid when you have ability to expand everything around and not cover your content, plus having more ability to zoom in without tools being all over the image? Perhaps it really does.

Actually I can show the same with text editors, Excel and similar things where with more width you have more estate to place tools around and not obscure the main content and focus of your work but I guess this is enough.

Quote from: RobertJasiek on May 20, 2023, 12:38:32However, you argue by numbers of pixels, and then greater width as numbers of pixels due to larger display ratio results in smaller height in centimeters when the height in numbers of pixels is constant.

Yes, correct, about 1.22 cm higher in height as shown with X1C8 16:9 vs X1C9 16:10 here: i.imgur.com/l2vFwCL.jpg

Fair point. And that is undeniably nice but that also has its cons - footprint is larger so carrying around is less ideal, less screen width for most usage (spreadsheets) and if that 1.22 cm height is so crucial you can always bring laptop a bit closer to you.

Laptop without HDMI 2.1 for $6600 in 2023, with igpu/dgpu both having 2.1 built in? This is some frank meanness from the developers of the laptop.

We go further - the screen with a shameful response of 10-13ms, which gives real 75-100Hz. Forget even about 120Hz+, "240Hz" is a pure fake here, for illiterate townsfolk. But the question is - what kind of people are they who do not know about this and are ready to pay more than $6000 for it?!

Why does this screen need a DCI-P3 color coating without HDR600+ support? After all, in normal work, all colors will be oversaturated and will be poisonous, because. almost everything is done in sRGB. For accurate work with color, the screen is still not good - AdobeRGB coverage is only 85%, which is not enough.

16:9 is extremely inconvenient both for the office and for YouTube (the controls run into the picture) and for Photoshop, where professional cameras generally shoot at 3:2. But for games, this is probably the best resolution, because. minimizes the load on the 4090.

It turns out a laptop only for games for more than $6000, because. even in the office load it is wildly noisy. Well, probably the manufacturer knows exactly his target audience - rich and deaf people... =)

For that kind of money, I would expect at least a perfectly quiet operation of only the processor (turned off coolers) up to 40% of the load on the cores on average. Plus 18" 4k@120Hz with 95%+ AdobeRGB and 1000 nits brightness (HDR1000) + full auto VRR support from 24Hz to 120Hz - you don't have to switch the refresh rate - the software should do everything automatically depending on the content and situation. Of course with real contrast of 2000:1+ at the level of LG "IPS Black" panel in a semi-matte design.

And of course, in a laptop for this price, RJ45 should be at least 10Gb / s.

3x PCIe4 x4 M.2 2280 slots the 4th is missing, as in MSI Titan 2022, where a fault-tolerant and fast RAID10 is easily created from 4 SSDs. The MSI Titan 18" 2023 made the same bad decision to reduce the number of M.2 slots to 3, which led to the removal of RAID10 support.

On the right (for right-handers) there is not enough usb-a for the mouse radio transmitter. The left-handed audio port is missing on the right, on the left, it is uncomfortable for them on sofas and beds.

Well, they already said about the keyboard - again a corrupted numpad (right arrow in place of Insert, which destroys fast blind typing using it)

------

For the debaters above about ppi - taking into account the fact that under Windows in the most popular Chrome browser, non-disabled muddy fonts since version 50 due to incorrect (and not eliminated for many years) black and white text smoothing, which introduces shadows around letters (and they should not be with the correct anti-aliasing version, as in Windows XP, for example), all people sitting at screens with ppi below about 220-230 spoil their eyesight in Chrome (under Linux, this incorrect anti-aliasing, as I was told, can be disabled with the command key line, but this key does not work in Windows), and these are almost all PC/laptop screens with rare exceptions. With what I "congratulate" the owners of these devices. I personally read texts only in Firefox, where incorrect anti-aliasing can at least be turned off.

Until all screens are at least 230 ppi, the problem of fuzzy fonts will haunt all browser users and especially Chrome.

To be so wrong about so many things but be so proud about it, impressive...

Quote from: NikoB on May 21, 2023, 17:50:32For accurate work with color, the screen is still not good - AdobeRGB coverage is only 85%, which is not enough.

🤣
AdobeRGB is needed for professional print as it covers all CMYK gamut perfectly, 75% is enough to use, 85% definitely more than enough, and 90%+ is needed only for specific Pantones. But in that case one will use a professional monitor such as the BenQ SW321C which is, check this now...

Quote from: NikoB on May 21, 2023, 17:50:3216:9 is extremely inconvenient both for the office and for YouTube (the controls run into the picture) and for Photoshop, where professional cameras generally shoot at 3:2.

...16:9 monitor! And is the most widely used monitor in professional photo editing and graphic design waters. benq.com/en-us/monitor/professional/sw321c.html

Then we have the very close second professional grade monitor - Eizo ColorEdge CG319X - with 17:9 aspect ratio. So, by your own definition, this one is even more extremely inconvenient than 16:9 because, oh the horror, it is wider 😱

16:9 is inconvenient for Photoshop on small screens (under 14") with small resolutions and PPI under 150-ish. For everything else not a single sane person who uses it professionally is going to choose 16:10 over 16:9 or 21:9 (or 32:9) because it limits your usable area, as I demonstrated perfectly clearly before:

Quote from: Neenyah on May 20, 2023, 13:07:57All I can say is that Photoshop in 16:9 is far more usable than Photoshop in 16:10 (both same height, same scaling) 👉 imgur.com/X5XChaB

If NOT HAVING tools all over your image is what you call inconvenient then ok, that's just trolling.

Quote from: NikoB on May 21, 2023, 17:50:32For the debaters above about ppi - taking into account the fact that under Windows in the most popular Chrome browser, non-disabled muddy fonts since version 50 due to incorrect (and not eliminated for many years) black and white text smoothing, which introduces shadows around letters (and they should not be with the correct anti-aliasing version, as in Windows XP, for example), all people sitting at screens with ppi below about 220-230 spoil their eyesight in Chrome (under Linux, this incorrect anti-aliasing, as I was told, can be disabled with the command key line, but this key does not work in Windows), and these are almost all PC/laptop screens with rare exceptions. With what I "congratulate" the owners of these devices. I personally read texts only in Firefox, where incorrect anti-aliasing can at least be turned off.

Until all screens are at least 230 ppi, the problem of fuzzy fonts will haunt all browser users and especially Chrome.

Update your GPU drivers and stop using TN panel. 210 PPI here, text is perfectly sharp and definitely not fuzzy at all in Microsoft Edge. Confirmed with fully zooming in with a camera to the point of clearly seeing each pixel - absolutely nothing is fuzzy.

Quote from: Neenyah on May 21, 2023, 21:43:10But in that case one will use a professional monitor such as the BenQ SW321C which is, check this now...

What do I care what some marketers call their series. ))

Quote from: Neenyah on May 21, 2023, 21:43:10For everything else not a single sane person who uses it professionally is going to choose 16:10 over 16:9 or 21:9 (or 32:9) because it limits your usable area, as I demonstrated perfectly clearly before

You are also illiterate and do not even know the level of elementary school arithmetic. 16:9 has a smaller screen area than 16:10 and even more so 3:2.

Quote from: Neenyah on May 21, 2023, 21:43:10If NOT HAVING tools all over your image is what you call inconvenient then ok, that's just trolling.

People like you don't need arguments. You still do not understand them, there is not enough education. Even school.

Quote from: Neenyah on May 21, 2023, 21:43:10210 PPI here

And again it is confirmed that you are an illiterate ignoramus.
The ppi of the laptop under discussion does not even reach 170.

Quote from: Neenyah on May 21, 2023, 21:43:10Update your GPU drivers and stop using TN panel.

))
I can easily prove with 3 screenshots with a magnification of 400% that more than 90% of the world's population, owners of laptops and PCs with Windows 100% spoil their eyesight under browsers on the Chromium platform. Except for those using Firefox with anti-aliasing disabled or Linux+Chromium.

I have proven this on dozens of forums on the net. But judging by the reaction of the public, approximately 1-2% of the population really understands what is happening. The rest are just idiots.

In general, the level of commentators here, of course, only amuses me. Although this is not funny, but tragic, how many illiterate people there are on planet Earth. And as I noticed, new generations are getting dumber and dumber...

Quote from: NikoB on May 22, 2023, 11:16:01

Quote from: Neenyah on May 21, 2023, 21:43:10For everything else not a single sane person who uses it professionally is going to choose 16:10 over 16:9 or 21:9 (or 32:9) because it limits your usable area, as I demonstrated perfectly clearly before

You are also illiterate and do not even know the level of elementary school arithmetic. 16:9 has a smaller screen area than 16:10 and even more so 3:2.

Yes, sure it does in your own head with questionable school experience. But reality is truly different 👉👉 imgur.com/MGUuPpg

Quote from: NikoB on May 22, 2023, 11:16:01

Quote from: Neenyah on May 21, 2023, 21:43:10If NOT HAVING tools all over your image is what you call inconvenient then ok, that's just trolling.

People like you don't need arguments. You still do not understand them, there is not enough education. Even school.

Let's repeat that again, shall we? 👉👉 imgur.com/MGUuPpg

Quote from: NikoB on May 22, 2023, 11:16:01

Quote from: Neenyah on May 21, 2023, 21:43:10210 PPI here

And again it is confirmed that you are an illiterate ignoramus.
The ppi of the laptop under discussion does not even reach 170.

Says the guy perfectly incapable to read past its own words, but perfectly capable to start throwing childish insults in his own powerlessness to force his own views on everyone else 😂 Here, let me help you I will even underline it for you:

Quote from: Neenyah on May 21, 2023, 21:43:10on small screens (under 14") with small resolutions and PPI under 150-ish.

I legit wasn't aware that the laptop under discussion with its 17.3" screen is in fact smaller than 14". Today I learned, thank you my great sensei.

Quote from: NikoB on May 22, 2023, 11:16:01I can easily prove with 3 screenshots with a magnification of 400% that more than 90% of the world's population, owners of laptops and PCs with Windows 100% spoil their eyesight under browsers on the Chromium platform. Except for those using Firefox with anti-aliasing disabled or Linux+Chromium.

I have proven this on dozens of forums on the net. But judging by the reaction of the public, approximately 1-2% of the population really understands what is happening. The rest are just idiots.

In general, the level of commentators here, of course, only amuses me. Although this is not funny, but tragic, how many illiterate people there are on planet Earth. And as I noticed, new generations are getting dumber and dumber...

All you can prove that you can throw random insults at anyone who dares to not think wrongly like you, as proven nicely here, and that you have somewhere between zero and nothing clue about what you talk about (or that you have defective hardware, perhaps it's time to upgrade mate, hm?). Oh yeah, lol, you also somehow forgot to praise Apple's supremacy in this thread as you do in every other, and in your great NikoBdamus manner throw your prophecy about x86 being completely dead soon because of how magic Apple is.

And zo get back to the start of my comment, you know what they say about the third time being the charm... 👉👉 imgur.com/MGUuPpg

Cheers ✌

Quote from: Neenyah on May 22, 2023, 12:11:53Yes, sure it does in your own head with questionable school experience. But reality is truly different

That more? 3840x2400 (16:10) or 3840x2160 (16:9)? I'm afraid for you this is an unsolvable arithmetic problem in your alternate reality.

You will have to prove that you have clear fonts in Chrome with screenshots at 400% magnification in paint.

I am waiting.

Otherwise, the argument is pointless with an opponent who does not even have a school level of arithmetic.

Quote from: NikoB on May 22, 2023, 14:06:05

Quote from: Neenyah on May 22, 2023, 12:11:53Yes, sure it does in your own head with questionable school experience. But reality is truly different

That more? 3840x2400 (16:10) or 3840x2160 (16:9)? I'm afraid for you this is an unsolvable arithmetic problem in your alternate reality.

I'm also afraid that you have certified inability to read anything but your own words. Here, from the previous page:

Quote from: Neenyah on May 20, 2023, 12:29:29...how can more width with the same or greater height be worse just because it's 16:9?

...

How can Acer Swift X SFX14-51G with 14" 16:10 2240x1400 be better than a random 14" 16:9 with 2560x1440 when that Acer has less pixels both vertically and horizontally (assuming same/similar panel quality)?

...

Or let's put it this way in following example; how can a laptop with

• 2880x1800 16:10 screen

be better to use than a laptop with

• 3200x1800 16:9 screen

? They both have almost the same screen size, they both have the same amount of vertical pixels but the latter has 320 more pixels horizontally, so why is it that bad to have more width?

Plus this:

Quote from: Neenyah on May 19, 2023, 23:49:43Same as I would always take 2560x1600 16:10 laptop over 2400x1600 3:2 laptop - same vertical, more horizontal. No one can tell me that 2400x1600 is better here because that makes no sense at all. But of course that 2400x1600 16:10 is better than 2560x1440 16:9.

Then again, 2880x1620 laptop with its "sh*t 16:9" is by clear logic better than a 3:2 2400x1600 laptop - it has more vertical and horizontal pixels.

👆

Quote from: NikoB on May 22, 2023, 14:06:05You will have to prove that you have clear fonts in Chrome with screenshots at 400% magnification in paint.

I am waiting.

Otherwise, the argument is pointless with an opponent who does not even have a school level of arithmetic.

Yes, because you proved that with your claims and nothing else, right? I don't use Chrome (as I said, but you can't read) but Microsoft Edge...

Quote from: Neenyah on May 21, 2023, 21:43:10...text is perfectly sharp and definitely not fuzzy at all in Microsoft Edge.

...so keep waiting I guess.

Quote from: Neenyah on May 22, 2023, 14:14:07I don't use Chrome (as I said, but you can't read) but Microsoft Edge...

Edge=Chromium. I wait screenshot from Edge with at 400% magnification in paint. This page from NB. =)

Quote from: NikoB on May 22, 2023, 20:33:27

Quote from: Neenyah on May 22, 2023, 14:14:07I don't use Chrome (as I said, but you can't read) but Microsoft Edge...

Edge=Chromium. I wait screenshot from Edge with at 400% magnification in paint. This page from NB. =)

Nice way to dodge the whole discussion about different aspect ratios 😄
 
You said specifically Chrome (not Chromium-based). There, with included photo of laptop's screen from about 45 cm away watching distance: imgur.com/FJAg2tg

Quote from: Neenyah on May 22, 2023, 21:48:00You said specifically Chrome (not Chromium-based). There, with included photo of laptop's screen from about 45 cm away watching distance: imgur.com/FJAg2tg

Forgot to include this when uploading so I'll post the first one again for clarity:

• imgur.com/Kw8Qbu8 (Scrot of Ps, 400%)
• imgur.com/FJAg2tg

(210 PPI from ~45 cm watching distance)
[/list]

Now waiting for you to post text that looks like this (while still avoiding being wrong about aspect ratios): imgur.com/AHOKck2

🙃

Quote from: Neenyah on May 22, 2023, 21:58:21...

Thank you. Now I see that I'm 100500 times right - people are so stupid on the planet that they don't see point-blank that they spoil their vision with blurry fonts - in your case it's not even black and white(greyscale), but in color, because of the terrible Clear Type enabled in OS. And this small number of advanced laymen and pros understand this. like me. It's amazing - point-blank not to see incorrect anti-aliasing! Kinda like with the Covid scam - most people are insane. =)

Well, I found out that even the readers of this site do not know school arithmetic. Another amazing discovery...

You literally have zero clue about what you talking about but are full of yourself to ever admit being wrong so all you can is to call everyone stupid/idiots/fools/retards and so on, no wonder you are a meme on most other tech sites like Techspot etc. 🥴

Why is this obvious troll allowed to keep trolling though? That's the question 🧐

Because I'm right, and moderators and editors see this in your screenshots - clearly visible shadows around characters that should not be there with proper black and white or color anti-aliasing. As have the dozens of professional developers who have pointed these issues out to Google over the years in their bug tracker. It turns out that you are an insane troll (like the majority of the population), and not an adequate commentator, with a real understanding of something. You are extremely poorly educated and do not have the critical thinking to find facts.

But once again, thank you SO MUCH - you caught yourself by the hand. Demonstrated the level of technical illiteracy of the average man in the street once again.

To console you, I give you a link to a screenshot of the correct black and white(greyscale) anti-aliasing in FF before version 69 (and in Chrome before version 50). And also how the text looks in the latest versions of FF without anti-aliasing. What to achieve under Chrome is impossible - there is no such switch:

imgur.com/a/Yxpvpzm

If you are not blind yet, you should already be aware of how spoiling your vision with ClearType (or without it but with incorrect modern greyscale anti-aliasing) and also the majority of the world's population when such a situation is deliberately created by the bastard developers of browsers based on Chromium.

Quote from: NikoB on May 23, 2023, 13:24:57...you caught yourself by the hand. Demonstrated the level of technical illiteracy of the average man in the street once again.

🤡 who claims that 2400x1600 3:2 is more (usable space) than 2880x1620 16:9 calls me technically illiterate? Really? Must be fun being in your head 😂 I won't even comment the rest of 💩 you are able to spam so fast because it makes no sense, lol.

I'm glad you finally admitted defeat.