No one complained that everything had to be magnified 200% to print on the new engines - even though that was going on behind the scenes. Instead, everyone enjoyed the new sharper and crisper printouts. And it was wonderful.
The same is true for displays. When you have a display that can run at 200% scaling, that gives you four times the pixels per character compared to your old 100% display.
Everyone's taste is different, but for myself, give me all the pixels I can get. I don't like pixels and I don't want to see them. I want to see the text and graphics I'm working on. If the display has more pixels to represent those, to the point where I can't even see the pixels any more, that's what I want.
Without an external screen, 4k resolution makes everything too small. But setting scaling on the laptop's screen interacts badly with the external screen, which I use almost all the time and do want at 4k. So I end up with the laptop being that much less usable when I'm using it by itself.
>> I have this on my Dell XPS 15.
> You do not have "this", an OLED panel, in your XPS 15.
That's... uncharitable. I also have a 4k screen on my XPS 15. Why would I care whether it's OLED? 4k on a 15 inch screen has been in production laptops for years.
For the reasons laid out in the article. Which is about a specific OLED display which will be used in laptops like the XPS 15 later this year. Those laptops are in development but not released yet.
2560x1440 (native) * 1.5 = 3840x2160 HiDPI / 2 = 1920x1080 (effective resolution)
Obviously it is not as good a real panel but looked good enough to me.
I did the same thing on Ubuntu using xrandr, it was pretty good when it worked (sometimes it didn't, even using the exact same command)