Dell sells XPS 13s with Linux preinstalled. The newer XPS has a 16:10 display, and they have hidpi OLED panels as an option.

I am sort of generalizing here, but I bet that most linux laptop users are probably into development more than they are into multimedia. Syntax highlighting doesnt require fancy displays.

> Syntax highlighting doesnt require fancy displays.

It does. Text looks better on high density displays.

Density =/= color resolution. High DPI displays are great for text, but the amount of colors you need for highlighting is very small.

It's just 14". Are you sure you need 4k?

HiDPI != 4k

If the choice is between fullhd and 4k, then hidpi==4k.

I don't follow. In the general case it's not true e.g. Full HD at 42 inches is not HiDPI but neither is 4k at 42 inches. In this case (14" laptop) it's not true either as there are more options than 1080p or 4k panels, for instance 2560x1440 at 14 inches is perfect for HiDPI at 200%.

There aren't more options readily available at good supply and cost. E.g. dell xps 13: there are exactly two options, fullhd+ and 4k+ (it is 16:10 hence plus). Same for a thinkpad X1. Same for schenker/clevo whatever etc.

> In general case it is not true....

Really? You could at least pretend to argue in good faith...

I don't see an issue with 1080 on 14", but having double pixel density (like retina) really makes using it a much better experience.

Higher resolution means higher power consumption. If you follow laptop reviews, you'll see that getting a 4k panel will set you back at least an hour of battery consumption compared to standard 1080p, perhaps two or three depending on panel and battery size.

I like high-res screens. But in general, the best course of action for a laptop is to get the lowest possible resolution that still works for you. Personally, I have a hard time seeing how an upgrade from 1440p-ish to 4K-ish makes any discernable difference on a 14" and how it justifies cutting into my power efficiency.

It's probably a question of price and what this tiny company is able to do with the suppliers. Comparison with Apple is not very fair.

Based on my dealings with replacing random laptop panels for family members a 4k panel tends to be well within $50 of a 1080p one and supplied by the same manufacturers/distributers so I don't think it's related to price. Could very well have to do with keeping the supply chain and parts list simple though.

Buying some leftovers from some supplier is likely not the same as securing a reliable supply for periodic few thousand unit sales for a few years.

There's likely some sweet (sour) spot of "not enough" that the supplier will care, and "too much" to satisfy your demand from some stock leftovers.

These panels are produced by the millions for use in dozens of different devices over many years so why are we talking about using leftovers and availability of a few thousand? The resolution doesn't even come into play here as 4k panels haven't been boutique items since a decade ago, you go through the exact same supply chain process talking to the exact same manufacturers as you would vetting and selecting which 1080p panel to source.

You don't need to be a mega company to source 4k panels instead of 1080p panels in 2021, both are long past being volume commodity parts the same as sourcing 16 GB DIMMs instead of 4 GB DIMMs doesn't require you be Apple or Dell either.

It makes for a much slower experience more like, assuming the other hardware isn't up to spec. Which it definitely isn't, it being a laptop.

Maybe for some. I personally would not pay a single extra penny for 4K on 14" and do not see much difference in practice.

Why on earth would I want waste money on 4K (or whatever their version is) laptop displays. Size of such display makes this kind of resolution useless. They work just fine at HD. When I want proper graphics I hook up large hires external monitors.

Framework laptop

Very high DPI is mostly a marketing gimmick, like it happened on megapixel count on cameras.

Humans simply cannot see with such clarity without using a magnifying glass.

Plus, it uses more energy and require more expensive GPUs.

As someone who is an avid Linux user for over a decade and MacBooks daily at work, this is 100% sour grapes.

There is absolutely a visible difference between HiDPI displays and standard ones.

I mean, sure. I've got a high-dpi tablet (Surface Pro 3, GNOME 3.38, 2x scaling), and it's obviously noticeable that the tablet is higher resolution than, say, my 32-inch 1440p monitor. Honestly though, the difference is pretty minuscule in day-to-day use. I can't help but roll my eyes when I hear someone brag about the merits of hidpi when it's really just a cool novelty that reduces the number of windows I can keep onscreen at once.

I wrote *very* high DPI

> Humans simply cannot see with such clarity without using a magnifying glass.

You may need glasses. The difference between a 1920x1200 panel, and a 2560x1600 display at 13.3" is slight, but very visible.

I suppose if you give a generous take on what "very high DPI" is this would be easily agreeable e.g. some phones pushing 600 DPI but for the devices in question they ship with ~160 DPI displays though and that's nowhere near needing a magnifying glass to distinguish more clarity.

It does suck some power though, same with high refresh. I used to have my laptop flip between 4k 200% DPI and 1080p 100% DPI based on whether I was plugged in. Usually ran games at 1080p. Important to use nearest neighbor scaling in that situation though or it'll get blurry.

Yes, I wrote *very* high DPI but the downvote dogpile already started.