alt Hacker NewsIs there any other area where you would tolerate 35 year-old performance as "good enough"?
My requirements when buying a laptop are evidently higher than one notch above "unusable".
Replies
Even 50hz is fine. I'd go so far as to say, barring any medical or sensitivity issue, if any person prioritizes a 120hz screen they are a victim to habit or marketing.
It adds zero value to the experience, and you're just looking for things to be annoyed by / brag about.
Modern displays are already cutting edge. They have improved in every way that's meaningful in the last 35 years. Refresh rate is just not meaningful enough. "35 year old performance" it most certainly is not. You just seem hellbent on using this arbitrary (to most people) benchmark as a filter.
FYI, I run my 17 pro almost exclusively on power saving mode to cap frame rates because the battery life extending by 30 mins is more infinitely more valuable than frame rate over 50. I've capped my fancy monitor's frame rate to 60 so it matches my macbook air. And it's all fine in this world, nothing here is "one notch above unusable".
My toilet seems to work fine, and I think it's 35 years old.
But in general I agree, just with different variables. I'm ok with 60hz but I won't use a screen less than 4K. Part of the reason I bought the ThinkPad is because it was one of the few I could find at a reasonable price that had a 4K screen.
> Is there any other area where you would tolerate 35 year-old performance as "good enough"?
Yeah. Speakers, printers, lightbulbs, garage doors, etc., etc.
I can tell the difference between 60 Hz and higher rates, but I think that most people could not care less. You don't buy a Thinkpad to game on, the most intense workout the display is liable to get is scrolling down a page.