• lud
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    If true they are some pretty shitty chips.

    Having two external monitors + the built it minor is extremely common.

    At work almost everyone has at least two monitors because anything less sucks (a few use just a big external one plus the built in) and it’s also common to also use the built in monitor for stuff like slack or teams.

    Having more than two monitors isn’t a “pro” feature. It’s the norm nowadays.

    Sure it might be enough for the cheapest option if the cheapest option was cheap. Unfortunately they are absolutely not cheap, and are in fact fairly expensive.

    • becausechemistry
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      At work, my work PC laptop drives two 1080p monitors. I don’t keep it open to use the onboard one because Windows is so terrible at handling displays of different sizes, and the fans run so much when driving three displays that I think it could take off my desk. So I know what you’re talking about.

      But. Have you ever used a Mac with two displays? A current-gen MacBook Air will drive a 6K@60Hz and a 5K@60Hz display when closed, and it’ll do it silently. Or both displays at “only” 4K if you want to crank the refrsh rate to over 100Hz. You think that’s not enough for the least expensive laptop they sell?

      I’m really tired of people who don’t know what they’re capable of telling me why I shouldn’t enjoy using my computer.

      • areyouevenreal
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yeah people don’t get that they are trading output quantity for output quality. You can’t have both at the same time on lower end hardware. Maybe you could support both separately, but that’s going to be more complex. Higher end hardware? Sure do whatever.