For laptop scale its fine. Its shrinked down so not grainy at all. 4k is not only bad for gaming but also unhealthy for batterylife. Not say it isnt preferable for some but just not the majority based on how every brand went with 2k 16:10 ,its the safe and probability also economically sensible option. Im used to this resolution for linux now, scale is not bad at all just need to increase the font size by a notch and games look good.
3 Likes
I’m also looking forward for using this for Linux but I’m a Linux desktop noob.
Are there any sample for screenshot for desktop, file explorer, terminal for 16 inch screen? I would like to see how small is it? And also 2x how bad is it?
Another dumb question is I thought Wayland has some kind of support for fractional scaling. How much useable is it? If we wait a bit for GTK5 or other updates, will the situation be better for fractional scaling?
Fractional scaling on KDE works even on X11 (quite well, I use it on Framework 13 and 4K monitors), so this seems more like a Gnome issue than Linux issue.
7 Likes
A full 4k screen on a 16" monitor is a waste in much more ways than might be initially obvious. For one, that resolution can’t be seen by the eye. Another reason is that these additional pixels require the CPU and GPU to work and this wastes the battery for no real appreciable difference. This additional unnecessary heat wears components down faster, and the cycle is repeating.
I get that fractional scaling on Linux is kind of a mess, but even that doesn’t justify a 4k screen. What I am currently doing my on 12th FW is using large fonts. This has made the resolution at 100% scaling just fine. I would recommend this work around.
17 Likes
There is a workaround though:
I’ve heard that for example on Gnome you can modify the system font-sizes which is supposed to work way better than fractional scaling.
Here is an example on how to do that.
2 Likes
The solution to things being too small isn’t to develop a more expensive and power-hungry display only to throw away 3/4 of the pixels! If you have a problem with the relative size of items on the 2k 16" display, you would be better served by requesting a lower resolution such that the display works well at 100% scaling!
You’re essentially asking for a more expensive, more power-hungry, lower refresh rate, and higher response time 1920x1200 display!
I think your thoughts are in the right place, though. I would much prefer a 1920x1200 display, especially since videos, images, code, and everything else would look perfectly crisp at that resolution on a 16" display. Unfortunately, manufacturers seem to think that the average consumer believes bigger number = more better. That, or they don’t want to be seen as cheap for “only” having a 1920x1200 display while other manufacturers have 3840x2400 displays (that their consumers end up throwing away 3/4 of!).
Do you have any examples of apps that give you issues? 150% scaling hasn’t caused me any issues on my Framework 13 running Mint with the Cinnamon desktop environment, so it’s misleading to say that there’s a problem for Linux users and not just your particular distro.
Overall, though, I agree that a 1920x1200 display would be far more appropriate for 16". I just don’t see a need to make each of those pixels have 4 sub-pixels.
12 Likes
It’s not universal to Linux and depends on your software and config. On my Framework 13, I use Sway with 140% scaling, and it works fine and fonts are crisp in all my apps, even with XWayland. All I had to do was add output eDP-1 scale 1.4 to my Sway config.
Check your WM’s documentation and/or HiDPI - ArchWiki , they might have added support for it since you last checked; and if not there may be workarounds.
4 Likes
This is an clear and concise explanation of my justification for wanting a lower resolution for a smaller screen.
Again, why do so many people seem to think that the solution is to go 4k and throw away 3/4 of the effective pixels?
165Hz refresh rate isn’t desired for AAA games (100Hz is fine enough for cinematic pieces IMO). It’s for competitive shooters. Either way, I enjoy older games, so I’ll certainly be able to appreciate a high refresh rate. I was initially surprised at how much they’re catering to gamers, but as GPUs get better, it’ll make more sense, since you’ll be able to swap the new ones into this laptop!
I do think that going 2560x1600 was a bad idea, though. 1920x1200 would have been far more appropriate for 16". Still, they gotta appeal to the mass market, which means inflating the specs with bigger numbers. They don’t wanna be the odd one out after all the existing players have convinced everyone that 1080p is a thing of the past whether the screen is 16" (where it’s fine) or 36" (where it is indeed not fine).
7 Likes
Well put.
6 Likes
I’ve never had an issue with 150% or 175% scaling in Fedora.
9 Likes
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.
5 Likes
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.
3 Likes
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.
3 Likes
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.
4 Likes
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:
(https://www.sven.de/dpi/)
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.
9 Likes
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.
2 Likes
@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?
2 Likes
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