this post was submitted on 12 May 2024
466 points (85.6% liked)

linuxmemes

21263 readers
588 users here now

Hint: :q!


Sister communities:


Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
  • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
  • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.

  • Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

    founded 1 year ago
    MODERATORS
     
    you are viewing a single comment's thread
    view the rest of the comments
    [–] becausechemistry@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

    limit it

    There isn’t some software limitation here. It’s more that they only put two display controllers in the base level M-series chips. The vast, vast majority of users will have at most two displays. Putting more display controllers would add (minimal, but real) cost and complexity that most people won’t benefit from at all.

    On the current gen base level chips, you can have one external display plus the onboard one, or close the laptop and have two externals. Seems like plenty to me for the cheapest option.

    [–] lud@lemm.ee 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

    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@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

    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@lemm.ee 0 points 6 months 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.