this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2025
21 points (86.2% liked)

LinuxHardware

397 readers
1 users here now

A community where you can ask questions about what hardware supports GNU/Linux, how to get things working, places to buy from (i.e. they support GNU/Linux) and so on.

Quick rules:

EXTERNAL RESOURCES

GNU/LINUX VENDORS

OTHER VENDORS

Webcasts

founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
21
Finally, a Linux laptop with a brilliant display and performance that rivals my MacBook (www.zdnet.com)
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Its not the same result lol its the incorrect thing to do. Lowering the resolution fucks the image. You need to scale instead to maintain resolution and image quality

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I didn’t say that, go strawman someone else. Shoo, troll, shoo!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

i think what they meant is that you end up with 1080p output this way, whereas scaling would give you "real" 4k