3K/4K Resolutions VS 1080p and lower...Scaling/DPI Question

So, I'm really torn on which Laptop to buy (GS60 & GS60 PRO 3K) and the main reason is im reading a lot about how 3k and higher resolution displays are not good, because most things on windows looks like crap and a lot of games don't work well with the new higher resolution displays. So my question to everyone is, Is it really worth it to go to a better display with these issues? If you have a above 1080p display, Please share your opinion please! Thanks

 

Yes, if you plan to use this machine for 2+ years and can wait for support for some programs. I have no trouble gaming at quarter res (1600x900!).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

1080P is good to be honest. Honestly thats the highest I would go on a laptop as of now

 

HiDPI looks really nice when it works. Win8.1 with IE11 can make for a very attractive and readable webpage, and Windows 8-style apps, which are already DPI-aware and designed for HiDPI, are more or less problem-free.

That said, there's a lot of times when HiDPI in Windows just doesn't work. Third party app support is slim to none, even Chrome can't properly do HiDPI. Windows 7's HiDPI support is minimal at best, and even Win8.1, which touts HiDPI support, doesn't really handle it well either.

Right now there's just too many oddities with HiDPI to recommend it. I also don't think it's going to be magically fixed in six months or a year or two years. a 1080p display now is probably going to be the safest bet for the longer term.

 

I have an GS60 non pro and I could say the menu is quite small with only 1080p. It is perhaps because of my minus eyesight.
By the way, I also have seen ASUS 4K laptops and it is really unbearable to read those tiny menu unless there are full support of DPI scaling.

 

I have a 3k resolution laptop. Linux is a pain to use... no high DPI support on my distro. But Win 8.1 has had virtually no issues, support for hi-res is wonderful, and the screen is beautiful.

 

Does anyone know where i can find a video that explains or shows these examples?

 

Living a High-DPI desktop lifestyle can be painful - Scott Hanselman

 

My answer is a clear no; there are no tangible benefits for me, but currently some serious drawbacks with these displays.

 

I'm willing to wager a key selling feature of Windows 9 will be native 4K resolution support. Notebook makers are no longer releasing new laptops with anything less than 3K... You might still be able to find small-screen devices with 1080p. But, whether you like it or not, 1080p will become extinct within a few years...

 

Windows 8 apps are already resolution-independent, and they have slowly been HiDPI'ing the desktop, but it's gradual. 8.1 tries to manage multiple displays with/without HiDPI but the method they use is very odd.

The third party apps are the killer, so much stuff isn't HiDPI friendly. It's funny, even when installing things, the various install screens flip-flop between crisp HiDPI and blurry upscaling.

 

Simply because that's where the novelty is. It was the same a few years ago with the pixel wars from cameras. At this point there is no 3k standard and its doubtful there ever will be. As for 4k, support is gaining but there a lot that will change between now and the time it becomes widely adopted. I'd consider 4k only if I was an avid gamer with a huge budget.

I'd much prefer a more color accurate display that was lighter and thinner since those are real improvements and are things we call all appreciate and use right away.

The extinction of 1080p is a long time away merely because that's today's broadcast standard. Just look how far advanced and how far improvements in resolution came before stations began to broadcast in HD. 4k will begin to gain prominence bit by bit. But its not something we as consumers should be considering anytime soon.

 

HiDPI isn't defined by 3K or 4K or any K. It's simply a DPI thing. 2560x1440 @ 27" isn't HiDPI. 2560x1440 @ 14" is. Mind you we're not talking about a movie/TV standard here. This is just "a desktop on an OS." Windows can't have "native 4K support" just like it can't have "native 1080p support".

Simple text reading with HiDPI can be a totally altering experience. I have a 17" MacBook Pro, 1920x1200, and a 15" Retina, 2880x1800, and there is simply no comparison. The 1920x1200 display, despite being a very good display, simply looks like a screen door against Retina. Anyone who sits in front of text all day would jump for a HiDPI display, provided their apps properly work with it. On the Mac it's close to universal, on Windows it's the total opposite. The sad thing is the vast majority of Windows apps will likely never work right with HiDPI. This is a nuisance now for early adopters, but it's going to be a mess a few years out.

 

As someone who has to stare at code all day, and who prioritizes how much text can fit on a screen, and who has terrible eyesight, a high resolution screen is an incredible thing.

Windows 8.1 has great support for it, I notice no issues there with only a few programs not having default support (very few).

Linux is another story... but it's catching up.

 

I think 4K resolutions will take around as long as 1080p took to mature. Which was quite a long time, so my prediction is that 4K laptops won't be widely used at least for another 1.5 - 2 years.

 

^ Nobody really understood my post. Notebook makers are phasing out 1080p as fast as they could. 3k/4k is the new "iPod" thing! Although Windows 8.1 has dpi scaling, I wouldn't really call that native. By native, I mean every single Windows element was coded as a vector (not as a bitmap that can be upscaled). A native HiDPI OS has to be redesigned from the ground up. Win 8 is more like patch work on Win 7...

 

Um, vectors scale, bitmaps don't...

 

You don't need to design the OS "from the ground up" for this but, yes, you need a completely re-designed desktop graphics subsystem. Which was promised to us in the run-up to Longhorn, and never materialized. Instead, they decided they needed to add some useless crap to Windows 8, while removing useful, and even crucial features from Windows 7 for good measure, and here we are...

 

Maybe so, but the industry isn't developed for text. That is just a fortunate side-effects. So if there is to be any further development, look to the broadcast industry to lead the movement.

 

Apple makes exactly one device, ONE, that has 1920x1080. A base model 21" iMac. Nothing else they have has 1920x1080. Nothing else Apple sells conforms to any "broadcast industry" format, and I don't think Apple nor Apple's userbase really cares. I also don't think they designed Retina and afterwards noticed text looked good. I think it was one of the driving forces behind it.

 

You're not listening. The monitor industry advances due to advancements in media and broadcast, not the other way around. Text just comes along for the ride.

Regardless of the gimmicks Apple comes up with to sell more devices, 1080p is as good as it gets, and is our present standard. Nothing else is supported or of any significance at the moment. When the standard does change, it won't be to an intermediary, but directly to 4k.

So you see, its unlikely that any of these intermediary advancements will ever be recognized to any significance in the greater scheme of monitor advancements.

 

I don't know about that. That maybe have been true in the past, but I think times have changed. With the introduction of phone and tablet resolution and pixel density "wars", if you want to call it that. Offering "Retina" like displays maybe a good way to grab peoples attention in the PC market again.

Sent from my SGH-T999

 

Display technology is driven largely by phones. Tech is built for phones, prices ar edriven down by phones, etc. At one point it was "We need this for videos" or whatever. Now it's "we need this for my app so I can read text on a 5 inch screen".