I find nothing wrong with my dell 1080 either. It's bright, vibrant and accurate for photography.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The sad state of screen resolution in Windows PC laptops
- Thread starter skaertus
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, but even now, people want 4k, especally since apple went with the 16" form factor. Like I said, 4k is overkill for laptop form factors, but that's just my opinion btw, as many know, I went with a 4k but I bought into the marketing hype but comparing my 4k ThinkPad and 1080P Razer - I'm not really noticing a huge difference. Yes, the Thinkpad has some crisper text and what not, but overall, I'd say its not noticeable. I prefer using my Razer, as its my go to machine when I'm mobile
Yes, nothing wrong with the image. The problem is text, not images. Text is not sharp enough in a 1080p display. And I work with text, not images.
A 1080p display is OK for photography. But the text is not crispy enough on a 1080p screen.
on 15"ers 1080p with 125% scaling looks good enough, it is stretched a bit thin on 17"ers at 100% though. 1440p is starting to gain some traction on gaming laptops, as the best compromise between a sharper resolution while still allowing decent frame rates at decent graphics settings. As even the 3080 doesn't really seem up to doing 4K120 gaming I guess it might end up becoming a mainstream option.
Yes, 4K is overkill. But 1080p is low. I would be happy with 1440p or 1600p on a 13 or 14-inch display. On a 15-inch screen, perhaps 1600p or 1800p.
For images or videos, it hardly makes a difference. But for text it does. Just compare a 13-inch non-4K Dell XPS and a 13-inch 4K Dell XPS and you will see how much sharper text looks on the latter.
someone was complaining about PC's and the sad state of the screen and some here defended our laptops
the only advice, since we type all day, would be to get a manual brother typewriter and call it a day
Ah, THAT comment helps me understand what the issue is....
Screen resolution is not the problem... pixel density is. THAT is what set the Macbook apart from Windows-based notebooks. (back in the day=10 years ago)
A 1080 pixel screen on a 13.3" will look sharper than a 1080 pixel screen on a 15" laptop.
My 13.3" Lenovo Yoga 6 has a 1920x1080 display that is absolutely gorgeous for images, video, and text. (still diggin' this device... and has proven to be a worthy successor to my 13" MBA) Text is sharp and clear and easily readable at native resolution and scaling. The difference between that and my 15" Lenovo IdeaPad with the same screen resolution only looks "pretty good" by comparison.
I think with the way Windows scaling works, it's actually more a function of what the resolution scaling defaults to? While, yes, the pixels are smaller and closer together on a 13" 1080p panel than they are on a 15" or 17", if the scaling is set to 100% the actual image will look exactly the same, just at three different sizes. Each icon will be made up of the same number of pixels on all three screens so it won't necessarily look (much) sharper. What makes the image look sharper is having it made up of more pixels, and to do that, you need to increase the scale to 125% or 150% (try it and look at the battery icon for example). That's also why the retina displays on Apple computers looks sharper, things are kept the same size on screen, but displayed across more pixels.
Well, crispness is only part of it.
I have a 15.6-inch 4K laptop (a Dell XPS 9550 with a 3840x2160 resolution). I do not use it at native resolution. I use it scaled at 150%, giving me a real estate of 2560x1440.
So, I have crisp text and, at the same time, more screen space to work with. This is particularly helpful for me, as I like using Microsoft Word and Adobe Reader (and sometimes another application) side-by-side.
A 13.3-inch screen probably would not benefit from such real estate. But at least the crispness would be there.
Yes, but if I scale the image, I lose space to work with. Some may find it small, but I like using 1920x1080 at 100% on a 13.3 or 14-inch screen to maximize real estate.
Apple does not give a **** about 4k and other marketing ********, they use displays that look great when scaled by 2. So 4k would have the size of 1080p when scaled non fractional. Sure, Apple also supports fractional scaling (imo the only reliable ui scaling available in any OS to date), but that comes with it's own problems.
That is my biggest gripe with the current display/monitor market. It basically makes no sense. 27" 4k simply isn't enough. You want 5k at that size, otherwise you sit in front of a ginormous UI. And it's the same with laptops: 1080p isn't sharp enough on 15", but 4k divided by 2 ends up with a pretty small UI. And the mess only continues, when you try to combine all that with external monitors that need a different scaling.
I'm currently using a LG 5K2K Ultrawide, which is gorgeous and big, but sucks with Windows and Linux because you have to scale it.
That is my biggest gripe with the current display/monitor market. It basically makes no sense. 27" 4k simply isn't enough. You want 5k at that size, otherwise you sit in front of a ginormous UI. And it's the same with laptops: 1080p isn't sharp enough on 15", but 4k divided by 2 ends up with a pretty small UI. And the mess only continues, when you try to combine all that with external monitors that need a different scaling.
I'm currently using a LG 5K2K Ultrawide, which is gorgeous and big, but sucks with Windows and Linux because you have to scale it.
Yeah, Apple has its own marketing term, which is "Retina Display".
Fractional scaling always worked well for me, and I have no problem with it at all. In all my retina Macs (I had three so far), I have always used the "More Space" scaling option. I like having more space on the screen while keeping text sharp.
On my desktop, I have a 4K 32-inch monitor. I use it at 125% scaling, which provides a 3072x1728 work area. Which is great.
I have seen many complaints about scaling under Windows, which may be one of the reasons why manufacturers never made screens with higher resolutions standard in laptops. I never had a problem with scaling under Windows, and I have used it for more than 6 years now.
Apple not putting a touchscreen on Macs reflect an approach taken by the company in the past. I do not think it has to do with selling more iPads or lack of investment.
Steve Jobs once mentioned that Apple tested touchscreens on Mac, but concluded that they did not work. According to Steve Jobs, "touch surfaces don't want to be vertical" and "it's ergonomically terrible". You can watch the video here:
I personally see little use in touchscreens on PCs. As I mentioned before, I have a Dell XPS 9550 with a 4K touchscreen. It has been 5 years since I bought it, and I have never used the touchscreen. I always used the mouse/trackpad instead.
But, of course, some people see how it could be useful and would like a touchscreen on a Mac. Apple just does not give them this option.
I agree with the OP. I can't look at 1080p on a laptop anymore - retina ruined it for me. I agree that 4K is a waste, but 1080p is a non-starter, and there are a lot of laptops out there that don't offer any middle ground. I've been interested in the latest laptop chips from AMD and was excited for HP's new EliteBook line, but every display they offer is 1080p. A premium business laptop released in 2021, and no option for a higher resolution? I understand why gamers don't care, but I spend most of my time looking at text on my laptop and after having a retina MBP since 2015, any laptop I see in a store with 1080p makes me immediately look for its floppy drive. 
Windows scaling is fine (just a little buggy sometimes), the support by many apps not. MacOS is simply lightyears ahead
Not with their screens though, that what I was talking about. It's retina and it's sharp. And it works. 🤷♂️
I have a 4K display on my Windows desktop, and I scale it to 125% or so with no issues. Windows seems to do a fine job with it, and it's really nice to look at. It's a lot like the retina* display on my MBP.
*yes it's marketing wank, but whatever anyone calls it, low dpi displays such as 1080p look terrible in comparison. 1440p should be the baseline for a (non-gaming) premium laptop by now, IMO.
*yes it's marketing wank, but whatever anyone calls it, low dpi displays such as 1080p look terrible in comparison. 1440p should be the baseline for a (non-gaming) premium laptop by now, IMO.
Last edited:
But not misleading, that's what I meant.
4K Ultra HD is like the ultimate marketing nonsense for monitors and computers. It's just not what matters if you keep screen sizes etc. in mind. That's what I meant.
It's to general to be misleading. the apple way. Baffle with bullS(&T, not with facts.
Well, it depends on what you consider "misleading".
"Retina Display" is a marketing term crafted by Apple. It means that the pixels in the display are invisible to the human eye, and only because Apple gave it this meaning. A Retina Display is expected to be sharp enough, but the term does not indicate the screen resolution. It just indicates "high pixel density".
4K Ultra HD is a market standard, not just a marketing term. Some entities related to the TV industry defined some standards which include 4K and Ultra HD (UHD). So, when you say that a screen is 4K Ultra HD, it in fact means that it meets certain industry specifications. This speaks nothing of the actual user experience, as a 15-inch and a 90-inch screen will have different levels of sharpness even if they are both 4K.
4K Ultra HD is a more technical and specific term than "Retina Display". It is not just marketing nonsense. When I bought my external monitor, it helped me a lot to see that it was 4K Ultra HD: I understood it right away and it was one of the main reasons why I bought it.
Incorrect.
Low DPI is independent of screen resolution. They are two separate measurements.