[FEEDBACK] Framework 16 screen and Linux (why not 4K)

Well put.


I’ve never had an issue with 150% or 175% scaling in Fedora.


I don’t think solving an obvious software problem with more hardware is the right way to go.

I got one real problem with fractional scaling. Boxes and Remmina appear to not resize the hosts resolution if I set it to fullscreen. I don’t even understand how that’s possible. Normal resizing works.

I think fractional resizing has to be available by default. So more users might use it and ask their favorite programs to display properly.


Yeah I don’t get the reasoning. Software will improve with time, hardware wont.

We’re also talking about an OS here that probably only around 10-20% (guessed) from the Framework customers use.

Also, there are either workarounds or even solutions for this HiDPI issue on the Arch Wiki and other docs.

I currently use a QHD monitor but scale it down without any problems whatsoever, neither on Xorg nor on Wayland.

The problem is not just in fractal scaling, but in very big and visible pixels.

Laptop screen is much closer to the eyes. In this case 2560x1600 on 16" will be not enough pixel density to makes pixel invisible.

Just a math: 16" screen → 35.4 cm width → 1.4 mm per pixel. 1.4 mm is pretty visible on a distance of 0.3-0.5 m, which we have for laptop users.


The ideal distance to keep our eyes from the computer is 51 to 101cm.
A thumb rule is: Touching your monitor with a fully stretched arm should be barely possible.


That seems hardly realistic in a laptop.

The keyboard is just in front of the screen and your arms are bended to use the keyboard. If i extend them i can touch the screen and some more.


Sadly this is true. I am not saying what he is saying is wrong, just that it isn’t very good for our eyes.

That’s not really true. I get a dot pitch of 0.1346mm which results in 188.68 DPI:

(DPI Calculator / PPI Calculator)
And that’s barely visible to the eyes. I have a 34" 5120x2160 monitor, which has even a lower pixel density at 163 DPI, and I need a distance of ~15 cm to see some pixel structures.
Here is a photo I just took with my smartphone with a distance of ~10 cm:

Therefore I doubt the pixel density is too low in any way.


There are so many people I want to respond to her, but I’ll just reply all at once.

Yes, I understand the use case for the gamer. You don’t need more than 1200p for your purposes, and I understand that. But throwing away 3/4 of the pixels is at least possible; 4x-ing the pixels is not.

I’m not sure about the rest of the posters suggesting that it’s not a perceptible difference at this resolution from 4K; I’ve had both, and it legitimately affects my work because the readable of smaller text is just higher, and I can fit more on my screen. Similarly, fine details are perceptible when doing precision graphics work that aren’t otherwise without zooming and therefore losing context. Not trying to be rude, but it’s possible that it’s actually not perceptible to you just because your vision isn’t perfect/corrected perfectly.


@A111 I’m a bit confused about your use case. In graphics, lighting is just as important as detail, but this is a laptop screen, something you’d use on the go in a variety of environments. Wouldn’t you rather keep a room specifically for color grading and graphics work that has the high end monitors you need?


In my experience linux has horrendous GUI scaling at 4k, and I don’t want my laptop running that a display with that much demand anyways. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s another option down the line, but for me personally if they announced 4k I would’ve been heavily disappointed.

1 Like

I don’t have much to add other than what has been said; 4K, fractional scaling issues aside, is otherwise wasted in a laptop. I’m currently working on my desktop with two monitors, one 1440p ultrawide and one 4K, both the same height, and 99% of the time I can barely tell the difference between them at typical viewing distances. For a screen as small as 16 inch, the visual acuity differences for a 4K are practically imperceptible unless you’re regularly hunched over within a foot of your screen.

If you really need a 4K monitor for your line of work, you probably want to be working on a larger screen anyway just to save your eyes and back.


hmh, according to my optician my eyes have a visus of 1.2, so I really can’t imagine that that has anything to do with the eyesight in general :wink:
And according to this page, you get a perfect retina view at 44cm distance from the display, which I definitely have as I don’t want to touch the display with my nose…
And as @Be_Far already mentioned: If you really want to do some professional photo editing it’s recommended to have a dark environment and professional monitor anyway - I mean it’s still a laptop display and nothing else…


I’m a huge fan of 4k screens on laptops. You absolutely can tell the difference especially when scaling comes into play. The current Framework screen is nice though and I can understand why they didn’t stretch for 4k.


I really want a Spatial labs autostereoscopic 3d monitor. I’ve seen it in person and it is amazing no 3d glasses required and high res. could be brighter though. It’s on this model from acer PH315-55s-90K9


To people saying there’s no need for 4k on 16inch…

Think of it like this: Can you see the difference between a 4000 grit polish / sanding compare to a 8000 grit outcome? (The answer should be yes even if you don’t have 20/15 visions)

Also, look at your phones, you likely have at least a FHD (or higher) phone on a 6inch display.

Or, think about a spider web, you can see the thread because of the reflection coming off from EACH of the threads. (contrast of a single thread against its background)

That should answer the “can you / can’t you see the difference” argument.

Your eyes are bloody amazing. Reminds me of this Class of 99 / Sunscreen song:
“Enjoy your body. Use it every way you can. Don’t be afraid of it, or what other people think of it. It’s the greatest instrument you’ll ever own

Next, the ‘need’…Just like all other requirements, it’s not anyone’s job to argue what the other person needs / doesn’t need (8GB vs 128GB of RAM, TKL vs full numpad…etc)


Happy to dive into this more! Yes, I do that when I can but this isn’t the main part of my job and, much more importantly, I digital nomad for about half the year and as such just can’t most of the time. Color grading, in particular, isn’t my strong suit anyway :slightly_smiling_face:

Look, I don’t want to catastrophize too much here. Were it possible, I would be happy to do a double-blind test with the different resolutions we’re talking about to demonstrate that I notice the difference even at further distances than are typical (even when traveling, I have an external keyboard and laptop stand for economics, so I sit pretty far away usually). Since that’s not possible, let’s just say for argument’s sake it’s noticeable. I think the question here is really “how noticable” or, more importantly, “how much does the perceived difference affect your day-to-day work”. For me, the answer is “quite a bit” or “probably enough that, unless there are somehow other major justifications, it’s a net downgrade from my 2020 XPS 17”. That being said, I haven’t used it and maybe the processing power upgrade/shift to AMD graphics on Linux would be worthwhile.

And again, I know apple is mostly a marketing company at this point, but one thing they have never done is put a higher resolution screen on a device than they thought absolutely necessary, and look at the resolution on the newest 16 inch MBP: it’s basically 4K.

The other thing I’ve been considering is just getting a framework 13 with an external 17 inch portable monitor, but I haven’t found any that are particularly great.

This is all to say, it would just be nice to have a couple options here, because from this discussion it’s clearer than a 16K, 4-inch screen that we have different preferences :slightly_smiling_face:


I’m definitely with you on not sitting too crazy close to the screen! But I’ll note that that page is talking about 20/20 vision – my vision with contacts is corrected to 20/10, and I think that’s the target for most opticians!

Now if we’re talking about without contacts, we could probably safely go down to 4x4 pixels without me being able to tell the difference :laughing:

One should not compare it like that. The correct comparison would be:
Can you tell one spider’s web from thousands when they are aligned next to each other, as is the case with liquid crystal cells (LCD)? If you have an accurate distance, the answer is almost certainly no.
The same is true for a line of LCD pixels. Sure you could see them if there was only one row of pixels.
But can you distinguish between these pixels if they are aligned within a panel and small enough to cross the “retina border” and you have enough distance (~44cm in the case of the FW16 display)?

Our eyes are amazing, yes. But there are also biological limits to what our eyes are capable of seeing.