zlacker

>>ekianj+(OP)
FHD on a 13 inch or larger just doesn't cut it these days. QHD is the minimum for people whose jobs are computers, imo.

>>corndo+De
Here's a ppi calculator https://www.sven.de/dpi/ to satify various hypotheticals.

Any 4K monitor 26" or greater is the same dpi as FHD at 13"

Various examples here https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?d=4k+monitor

A 24" 4K monitor is only 8% better in fact. I would venture to guess it would be basically indistinguishable to the naked eye.

QHD at 13" is 226 ppi is that really a reasonable minimum?

>>michae+po
It's less about DPI than about raw pixel count. At 1080p, you simply lose too much usable screen space to menus, toolbars, task bars, and all the dumb shit that websites set "position: fixed" on. 2560x1440 (or better yet, 2560x1600) with appropriate magnification gives you a lot more flexibility in how you use screen space, instead of more or less forcing you to work with only one maximized/fullscreen window at a time.

I use a 13" MBP with no UI magnification, but most web pages scaled to around 200%. That keeps the UI nice and compact and leaves a lot of screen space for actual content (about 2170x1523 with my current browser layout). I do occasionally set it to a scaled resolution when someone else has to watch/use the machine as well.

>>wtalli+Hp
>or better yet, 2560x1600

I couldn't agree more, I was given 16:10 monitors for my current job and I'm not sure if I'll ever go back to 16:9 if I can avoid it. Next laptop is a 13" MBP for sure too.