The next issue was the default resolution. Out of the box, the laptop opted for the highest resolution possible, which made everything way too small for my aging eyes. Everything was perfect after a quick change to a 1920 x 1080 resolution.
Just from this snippet it’s quite clear the reviewer has no clue.
Bad eyesight is an indication of “not having a clue”?
Why lowering the resolution when you can use the scaling settings on the very same page?
So because they achieved the same result going a different path, it’s wrong?
Its not the same result lol its the incorrect thing to do. Lowering the resolution fucks the image. You need to scale instead to maintain resolution and image quality
The perceived result is the same. There’s a limit to visual acuity and if the reviewer’s limit is lower than yours, it in no way invalidates the approach.
Also, lowering the resolution doesn’t fuck the image, unless the image has greater resolution than the screen’s resolution. You’re not going to invent quality of nothing. It’s not how things work. This thought process of “bigger number means better quality” is just straight up false. It’s why cameras with 100 megapixels can easily take pictures with worse quality than cameras with lower megapixels and optical zoom.
You really can’t see the irony of an article praising the “brilliant display” of the unit while simultaneously erasing what makes the display good in the first place? How is that a valid review?
Is resolution the only attribute to judge a display by? Is it really that one-dimensional? “Hammer good if make bong louder”?
Tuxedo Computers have been selling good laptops for a while. It’s nice that the reviewer is discovering this too.
