I know a lot of people want fancy high res touchscreen screen options, I think it would be cooler to have a lower resolution 1920x1280 screen (essentially the 3:2 equivalent to 1080p). This would help improve the battery life of the laptop. For linux it would help with the scaling issues as linux is only really properly supported for 1080p and 4k at the moment.
Also a matte screen would be nice but I’d take glossy if needs be.
Don’t you mean it’s only properly supported for 1x scaling and 2x scaling?
I say this because a 1920px width would be a bit small for me at 1x scaling… unless you’re one of those people that think the sweet spot on the current 2256px width screen is 1.25x DPI scaling rather than the 1.5x DPI scaling that I’d prefer.
Regardless, if we assume that 1.5x is the current DPI scaling sweet-spot, then I would think a better solution that “ticks all of the boxes” is to instead use something like a 3000x2000 display (a display resolution that is already used elsewhere) and ideally include 1500x1000 in the stock EDID (though if 1500x1000 isn’t in the stock EDID then you can always just make a custom resolution whether via CRU on Windows or via xrandr / xorg.conf on Linux)
The three concerns this would instantly solve are:
the ability to use a desktop resolution of 1500x1000 and avoid HiDPI altogether; it should automatically use 200% nearest neighbor scaling which will make it look like a native 1500x1000 display (it’s possible that your OS may not use nearest neighbor scaling by default though; in Intel’s Windows GPU drivers it’s called “retro scaling” and on Linux, at least for xrandr, you may need to pass the
--filter nearest argument)
the ability to use 200% DPI scaling, avoiding the issue where fractional scaling is not always available in certain Linux situations
200% DPI scaling tends to give better results than 150% DPI scaling, avoiding the issues that fractional scaling sometimes results in
Technically these things can be done today but an effective resolution of 1128x752 might result in a desktop that’s a bit more cramped than you’re used to (not to mention that more and more websites expect a minimum horizontal resolution that’s somewhere between 1152 and 1280 - in my experience 1184px was the smallest horizontal resolution that did not have have a horizontal scroll bar appear on the websites that I commonly use - Framework forums not included because it’s dumb and always shows a horizontal scrollbar with only a teeny bit of actual “scrolling” no matter what for me)
And, of course, if you’re someone that thinks the DPI scaling sweet-spot on the current 2256px display is 1.25x, then swap out the 3000x2000 resolution for 3600x2400 instead (with 1800x1200 then being the corresponding half vertical & half horizontal resolution for such a panel)… or split the difference with resolutions like 3240x2160, 3300x2200, 3360x2240, etc (or go full lulz with 3333x2222)
I think a 1920x1280 screen would be amazing. I use linux & wayland and any fractional scaling kinda sucks right now.
TBH, the framework screen sucks… I just got my framework and contemplating on returning it. I just cant deal with the odd screen… I tried installing RedHat on it and it did not have the screen size nowhere in the settings… Just dont understand why they went with such a odd shaped screen… ugh