Current design fads in laptops that you hate.

Haven't tried a smaller versions (and I don't really consider the Samsung Edge curved since it's just at the sides), but I can see them being problematic too. It's just in the middle range of sizes (20"-40" I'd say) that I like them. But to each his own. I'd say they should try a curved and non curved version to see which people like more, but they're probably going to sell like 10 total since it's such an outlier in terms of price/spec. Maybe if a company like ASUS or MSI can give one of their 17" models that option then we'd have a better idea of what the market's actually like. (Though from your response I'm going to predict: very polarized).

 

A good friend of mine has a giant TV (40"+ I think) in his room and the room isn't that large, but having a large curved display is very nice.

He also has a curved monitor for gaming, but once you go large, going smaller curved... is not the same. So I agree, I also think there's a special size for them to achieve greatness.

 

The one I had in mind was the Acer X34.

 

Curved screens are a massive gimmick....I have monitors up to 120", NONE need to be curved and would have no benefit if they were. The only way you get a benefit if it curves around your peripheral vision. Simple.

 

I agree. I'd rather have project Valerie...than a stupid curved screen.

 

I beg to differ... Curve Screens have their uses. One they look cool. Two if your sitting close & smack in front of it, it does look great and more immersive. The biggest disadvantage is if you have guest and their sitting to the side, then it's no good. I watch a lot of TV by myself in my man cave room, so 60" Samsung 4K Curve is great. When I have company we watch it in the main room on my 75" LG ULTHDTV. Now, if I had to choose only one to use all the time, well then the Curve would lose out.

 

I find it to be somewhat dependent on screen size, user position and panel use. Those 34" ultrawide curved panels are pretty nice, smaller ones seem to benefit less even if a user is sitting right in front of them. . Bigger ones are also nice, but the distance users normally sit from them makes them less useful. And for things like informational displays there's zero point at all.

 

Oooooooh, look at Mr. Rich here with two big 4K TVs!

Jk. I've got an LG UF850T from 2015, so it's not even that old. I used to have an even older Panasonic 1080p LCD from like 2006, it was one of the first large flat-screen TVs. This new one has quite significant IPS bleed, very noticeable in a dark room. LG's OLED HDR TVs today look sexy as hell...

 

The benefit of a curved display on a giant 30"+ display is not the point of a discussion on LAPTOPS. I stand by my assertion that on a laptop...it's a stupid gimmick.

 

I hate soldered WLAN adapters most, at the moment. OK, Intel drops current-gen 802.11ad wireless docking - and what are those few who actually rely on it supposed to do until 802.11ay deployment, which can take years? Use wired docks like it's 2011, or throw money on SAN/NAS? Meh!

Next on the list would be minor cost-cutting by not connecting second PCIe lane to WLAN slot, rendering it unusable for 802.11ad upgrade.

 

I think it's only on that big Acer, and that's mostly a "look at how much money I have to spend on a laptop, I bet you wish you were as affluent as me" machine. I doubt it will ever make its way to mainstream laptops.

 

Currently i hate a little too much but:
- Laptops with I/O Ports on the front right side as usually this blocks my mouse (hint to ASUS)
- Laptops without an SD or microSD CardReader (Hi Razer or Apple or ...)
- Laptops with buildwise inefficient Airflow or Design Issues (hint to Dellienware Desaster)
- Laptops with small batteries or without possibility for iGPU usage
- Laptops with too small or too bad Touchpads
- Laptops which are nice, but not get sold in the EU or just once end of life
- Laptops which only have in TopEdge Configuration or next higher Model an acceptable Display
- Gaminglaptops which look like Toys (MSI really, you´ve did a great job with the GT72 1st Gen)
- Laptops which get refreshed and castrated upon they bring a pricier version (GT72/73...)
- Laptops which does not match commercials, replacable MXM (MSI GT72 i should stop or?)
- Laptop Refreshs (DTR giant ones) which does not offer 2nd/3rd/4ths SSD (MSI hey ...again, oh)
- in general devices which not offer 2nd/3rd storage option if there is the place available
- SOLDERED MEMORY on the mainboards is a no go (except: some superthin Ultrabooks)
- Gaminglaptops which look like toys (guess i hate that at most)
- "as thin as possible" marketing of the MaxQ Series and pricetagraising GSYNC feature (thanks)

Also a dislike atm are "reviewers" on Youtube which bring out 50 videos a week and had a device 2 days and run 2 benchmarks, but claiming they re so awesome

A dream would be an Threadripper Notebook, with nice smart design, disable option the Cores for battery life (as 2 cores should be enough for casual programming / working / consuming content) maybe a FREESYNC display which is IGZO/IPS and has 120Hz ... i dream on

Greetings =)
aVa

 

^

The MSI GT62 3k IPS I have is very nice; not at all like a gaudy toy. (unlike the GX660R). Black aluminum lid with only the "msi" (not the dragon) logo on the lid.

I'd throw in touchpads & palmwrests that are too big. Gigabyte's p35X is insanely huge and annoying.

Ditto on the screens. I"m still pissed that MSI isn't selling 1070gtx's with a 4k screen in a 15" laptop. like WTF?

I second the I/O ports & the stuff on the right side by where the mouse is. Poor design if there ever was one. Equally poor is putting the power jack on the side. And if that absolutely MUST happen--at least have the decency to put an angled plug on the end of the A/C adapter. Actually, ALL A/C adapters should have angled plugs.

 

MSI did sell the 1070 GT62VR with a 4K panel when they first came out. I have a feeling it didn't sell well. 4K has no place in a 15" screen, and a 1070 is not enough to power it for competitive gaming. Especially going forward.

 

Some of us can't stand ****ty 1080p and have been chafing under it's horribleness since the forced downgrade circa 2009.

It's ill-conceived logic like that which as given us a dearth of UHD offerings on 15" laptops. Armchair pundits who think THEY know better than the people who actually use UHD displays. So because someone has the lack of foresight to declare the modern-day display equivalent of "640k ought to be good enough for everybody", those of us who can and do appreciate the advantages of UHD are forced to adapt to a display resolution that was outdated a decade ago.

 

There are other factors to consider, including performance. When Volta drops and XX60/XX70 GPUs can put out solid 60+FPS at 4K in laptops, you'll see the 15" 4K show back up. Right now a 1070 in a 15" chassis doesn't really seem like it can handle that with any reliability. Also, initial 120Hz panels were all FHD, and at least in gaming, refresh+FPS trumps resolution in terms of what consumers seem to want to buy. I predict next gen GPU laptops will have a wider availability of 4K panels, and it will be nearly universal the GPU gen after that, probably with higher Hz as well. And yes, I understand that there are non-gaming uses for systems with high resolution displays, but in most of those cases it can be done with the 1060 or P4000 that's offered with 15" 4K models already.

 

All I'm saying is that I'd like to have the option. I bought a 3k 15" laptop with a GTX 780m card, and i'm sure it would fall into the same categories you describe...but limitations or not, the advantage over FHD easily justified the UHD screen. Since a 1070 will fit in a 15", and since UHD can be offered on a 15"--there's ZERO reason not to offer the OPTION of both together in a laptop--regardless of any perceptions of limitation or consumer demand.

From my perspective, companies offering different models of 15", one with UHD and another with a 1070 (but none with both) are simply trolling us. And it's unfortunate, because it's how I got stuck with a shoddy Gigabyte. Dell, MSI or even Asus could have had my money instead--but they apparently don't care about those of us in this apparently "niche" market. Apart from Clevo offerings (which my Sager experience turned me off on) there's no other options. It can't possibly be THAT hard to put a UHD screen on your GT62VR. Don't act like it's somehow a great inconvenience, and you'll have to charge a $400 premium for it, if you even offer it at all. UHD should be offered on every 15" laptop--BAR NONE--as an option. And it shouldn't ever cost more than $100 for a UHD upgrade. period.

You laptop manufacturers have been trolling us videophiles for years with your crappy FHD downgrade. I'm sick and tired of it.

 

This is true, but you should not be looking at MSI laptop. MSI laptops are designed for Gamers (same as Alienwares and Asus). Just look at all the marketing. It's designed to attract gamers.
Someone who wants a 4k screen on a 1070 isn't a gamer. They are a production or design engineer or artist or a businessman or woman. They want to do work. And if you want to do work, you want a laptop designed for it. A LIGHT, thin laptop with a very high resolution screen and high battery life.

A desktop 1070 can't push out frames enough to be competitive in any modern game. Sure in games written before 2010, it can, but I think people are forgetting something:
UHD is FHD with 4x supersampling antialiasing. Remember back when people were using 4xSSAA on games that ran at 120FPS usually at 1920x1080, and then watched the performance completely plummet? That's what you get on a 4k screen. QHD is already 77% more pixel space (77% higher fill rate required) than 1920x1080. 4k is 4x the amount of pixel space...not just 77%.

4k screens on a GAMING laptop will not sell well. And laptops don't have hardware scalers (the best scalers are actually in some 4k TV's) so they can't even downsample 4k to 1080p and keep full quality. Some of those 4k TVs can display 1080p perfectly with no loss in image quality and no interpolation artifacts whatsoever.

With desktops, you can simply choose what monitor to buy and if something doesn't suit you, move to something else.

 

Precisely my point. I should at least have the OPTION. Regardless of "whether it sells or not", we're not talking a niche, ground-up build. We're talking about slapping a UHD screen (although, TBH, QHD would also be a welcome improvement) on an existing upper-high-end 15" laptop chassis & calling it a day. These UHD screens are already readily available, and in widespread use; availability is not an issue. Nor is cost prohibitive; UHD is already offered on Ghost Pro laptops, etc.

This is simply a refusal to combine the UHD screen with the 1070 chassis. Hell, even a company coming out and FLAT OUT stating a reason like "the 1070 runs too hot with this combination" would at least be a step in the right direction.

p.s.
I'm a gamer. 120hz FHD isn't for all gamers. It's geared for people who play FPS's or twitch shooters--specifically online. Most of the games I play probably don't need more than 30-60 FPS to be quite enjoyable, but the difference between FHD and UHD is quite pronounced.

 

I don't follow your reasoning here.

I am a product designer/engineer, and I want to do work. I don't care one bit about thin and light.

 

Well good news, the upcoming 15.6" Sager NP9155 looks like it will be available with a 1070 and a 4K display, maybe they were listening to you.

 

thin/light/battery life is overrated. i need UHD, high-power, and efficient cooling.

 

$3000? Um, no. This is firmly in the $2000 range. I should know. I've bought 3 laptops at this price point.

The "VR" crap can get bent. It's added on fluff that I don't want or need. Yet somehow it's being hawked as justification for jacking up the price to the stratosphere, and UHD is a tiny footnote (if there at all).

 

Seems someone is back to being angry that the market doesn't perfectly cater to them and them only .

You're asking for niche things. For-profit businesses need to make a return on their investments. Pay up or shut up (or wait until those requirements become non-niche)

 

I'm sorry. How many UHD laptops have you owned? Are are you--like the low-res luddites--simply talking smack in a realm where you haven't the first idea of what you speak?

I've been hawkishly tracking the 15" laptop segment for display advances--for the better part of 8 years. I watched WUXGA die and FHD cost me 120 lines of resolution. I was there the day 3k became available. And I've seen how UHD offerings on 15" laptops have almost always been ~$100 upgrade from the FHD variety. So no, this isn't "niche". MSI has traditionally been offering UHD for a while now. Here's a last-gen GPU example:

https://us.msi.com/Laptop/GS60-Ghost-Pro-4K-GTX-970M.html

The issue isn't "niche". It's that the GPU and displays both exist; they're both in widespread use; they're even both offered by many manufacturers. But for whatever reason--they're not offered TOGETHER. And to my knowledge the 10xx gen is the first time since the 7xx gen (when UHD debuted) when MSI isn't offering the lower-top-tier card in a 15" with UHD. So you either get 1070 with FHD, or 1060 with UHD.

If it appears I'm mostly picking on MSI--it's because I am. I'm utter baffled at why this seemingly easy offering is totally ignored. If you think this is about "cost" for the MFG to be able to offer such a thing--you're more naive than I could have imagined.

 

I like reading your posts

Anyway, you have to realize that businesses don't cater to individual people (unless you're rather wealthy, that is). To add some option/feature/etc. to a product, there needs to be enough demand to justify buying capital (and labor, if applicable) to implement that feature. Buying a few dozen UHD panels for the few people who'll buy them in an already-niche boutique gaming laptop, as implied in previous comments, doesn't seem to have the same return on investment as high-Hz displays at the moment.

An earlier comment posted what you're looking for for ~$3000. If that feature is such an important thing for you that'd you'd rant on for a few pages about the lack of said feature, I'd say it's money well spent.

 

I just want a laptop with a 15-20 hour battery life really. Please give me this.

 

@jaug1337
We are kinda close now. Some systems can already go 15hr+ under low load. Now imagine if OLEDs got more popular and you're running a dark theme. For text work 20hr+ is definitely within reach.

For heavy work though, you'll have to swap batteries.

 

20h battery life is quite possible. Portability may suffer...but I'm positive we can already hit 20h.

 

Sorry. There is no conceivable planet, reality, or alternate universe where the FHD>UHD upgrade on a 15" laptop justifies a $1000 premium. That is highway robbery.

 

IIRC, Thinkpad X-series laptops have been able to hit ~20hr runtimes for a few generations now, if you opted to use the external batteries with it. But yeah, can get a bit bulky, though thankfully things have been getting better over time.

Then continue waiting for prices to go down. Businesses aren't charities

Back when it was brand-new, I was more than happy to pay the (highway robbery) $250 upgrade price for 1080p on the Thinkpad W520. Yeah, it was expensive but it was far more usable than 768p, and the feature was important enough for me to justify the cost. Few years later and now a high-quality 1080p display is rather cheap and now the expensive option is to have a good 4K display.

 

X/T series can do ~20hr at idle. If you actually use it for anything though it won't last that long.

Things won't get much better after a certain point. Once idle power draw of the compute parts get low enough, most of the load for light usage would come from the screen. In that case beside using OLED and a dark theme for text there's not much you can do at a given brightness/contrast level, assuming no paradigm shift in battery tech. The last obvious low hanging fruit might be retiring the 2.5" bay and use that space for battery.

 

Except you missed the part where UHD has ALREADY BEEN a $100 upgrade. This isn't some mystical event in the future. The 3k laptop I bought in 2014 was a $100 premium over the FHD variety (identical specs otherwise). Same for the 4k I bought at the end of 2016.

p.s.
If any company was ever charging a $250 "upgrade" to 1080p....that is highly unethical. 1080p was already a DOWNGRADE from WUXGA. Oh, and idk who came up with 768p. There's 720p and there's XGA.

 

So then go buy the laptop with the $100 UHD upgrade?

 

And that's back to square one. For whatever reason, said upgrade with a 1070 gtx chassis--ISN'T OFFERED. MSI, ASUS, Dell among others--do not offer. That's why I got the Gigabyte P35X, because it was the only non-clevo that even had this combo available. And the ordeal soured me to Gigabyte.

 

Besides MSI, it seems that Clevo does offer such an option . Not at $100, but if you really really need it, it's there. Whether or not that need is worth the upgrade price is up to how importantly you value such a GPU/display combo.

 

@imperfectdarkness—there are perfectly valid reasons why people discourage against buying 4K displays on a tiny 15" notebook.

Windows' PPI scaling—however Microsoft wants to wrangle it—is still extremely broken. Unlike the neat pixel doubling on OS X, Android and iOS, Windows has implemented very clunky scaling. Many third-party programs either end up looking blurry as they are scaled up and poorly anti-aliased, or the scaling is disabled, and look absolutely tiny. This is a software issue that Microsoft has to enforce, like Apple has done.

Furthermore, many of the 4K displays simply aren't as high-quality as the 1080p displays. Notebook displays are already poorer quality than their desktop monitor counterparts. This is a hardware issue that manufacturers have to fix.

Finally, 4K displays have to run four times as many pixels as FHD ones. That's 11.9 Gbps of bandwidth sent to the display. Both the display and the graphics processor driving it will require significantly more power. Notebooks are mobile devices. Throwing a 4K display in there will ruin the battery life of most high-end notebooks, whose interior space is mostly dedicated to cooling the beefy hardware.

Nevertheless. If you want a 16:10 Hi-DPI, colour-accurate, deep-colour display in a notebook, either get yourself an Alienware 13 R3, or a MacBook Pro.

 

All these plus the performance hit are reasons this gen doesn't really have it (and why having it on lower spec machines in previous gens was a mistake, a lot of people were unhappy at their 4K machines' performance). On the quality of displays vs 1080p 15" there's also the comparison between quality of the 4K 15" and the 4K 17" which is similar. The 17" panels just seem like they're better when you look at both, despite the lower pixel density.

 

Anything will traditionally look better on a larger display...at least up to a point.

As far as consumer satisfaction...that's on the consumer. If you buy a high-end gaming laptop with a 4k screen and expect it to hit 300fps ULTRA in all the latest games at 4k, you're an idiot. If manufacturers are removing a high-end option because of the idiot unwashed masses, that's a cop-out imho.

I knew back in 2001 when I bought my first truly high-end rig, that there was no expectation to get max everything on a 1920x1440 screen; the 4600 Ti was the only card that was making 1600x1200 playable for the first time--anything more was over ambitious.

Next thing you'll tell me is that a base model Camaro shouldn't be sold, because people will hop in and lead-foot it and be disappointed that it's not got as much oomph as the SS. I mean, that's essentially the same logic here.

Moreover, it will NEVER be a "mistake" to offer 4k on a 15" laptop. NEVER. The option should always be available. And without this kind of support, MS is never going to get off their duff and fix scaling issues. Which means that EVERYONE with a 4k of any size is going to suffer. This is the same luddite nay-saying arguments I heard back when x64 OS's were new, and everyone poo-poo'd moving from x32.

 

Given that there are options out there for what you’re looking for, by this point it seems that you’re mostly ranting about the prices of such selections.

(Or, you know, desktop’s are always a cheaper option )

 

@imperfectdarkness...

If you want a 4K display in a notebook, why not buy one? What's the problem? No one's actually stopping you from spending an extra $100 to get such a display...

Like @Jarhead said here, you're just ranting about nothing but the prices now. The options are there. The 4K option is obviously more expensive than the 1080p one for the time being. If you don't want to pay more, we're afraid that it doesn't work like that.

No one's saying 4K 15" displays shouldn't be sold. We're saying that at present, it's not a smart buy because it's fledgling technology, and the software + hardware support is lacking.

 

Except the manufacturers who don't actually offer this option. Are we forgetting that part now?

If it sounds like repetition, it's because my point isn't getting through. When I needed a new gaming rig with a 1070 GTX card in a 15" laptop--there were TWO manufacturers who offered a 4k display. TWO. Clevo and Gigabyte. I had no issue with the prices on either; my issue with Clevo is from a previous Sager I'd owned. And after buying the Gigabyte, I'm never going to buy another Gigabyte again. For the sake of clarity, MSI, Asus and Dell would have been my top picks--but those weren't even options.

The only reason $3000 came up was because of the link someone posted a few posts ago. None of the laptops I've ever shopped at were remotely close to the $3000 price point; my GX660R was ~$1500, my 8662 was $2100, my GT60-261 was $2100, and my P35X was ~$1800. 2 of these have UHD displays. I have ZERO issue with the $2000 price point. I have HUGE consternation with the insinuation that I have to step up to the $3000 price point to simply get a 1070gtx with a UHD screen in a 15" laptop.

If I wanted to be ripped off every time I bought a product, have zero choices on customizing it to my tastes, and get derided by loyal fans for questioning the whole affair--I'd buy an Apple.

 

To be honest though, if you have the disposable income for a $2000 machine (hell, I've never spent that much on any of my computers), an extra $1000 isn't *that much* of a stretch beyond that, especially for a *must-have* feature that 1070+/4K seems to be.

Going back to my W520 example, there weren't a lot of options out there for a laptop with a good 1080p display that was durable and could also do some amount of gaming, while not being a gaudy/flashy affair like Alienware, et. al. My choices were basically limited to workstation-class laptops with that narrow criteria and out of the three choices out there (Thinkpad W, Dell Precision, HP Elitebook W), the W520 had the better of the 1080p displays for a "sane" price of $250 (ignoring the very expensive Dreamcolor/Preimercolor options from HP/Dell). Because I considered the featured mentioned to be priorities for me (much in a similar manner as you consider 1070+/4K), I didn't rant online about how Alienware (for example) doesn't go out of its way to make a business-class laptop with conservative styling, I sucked it up and spend the $250 for the W520 1080p display upgrade (compared to $50-$100 for the competitions' lesser-quality 1080p displays). $250 in the context of a laptop that retails in the $1500-$2500 range is peanuts. Sure, I could have traded some of my demands for more selection / lower price, for example I could have gone for a less durable consumer-class laptop and would have had a wide range of models from AW/Clevo/MSI/etc for cheaper (analog to giving up the 4K or 1070 in your case), but I was stubborn enough about my wants/needs to have that option locked from me. That said, it would have been pretty neat to be able to email @Tanner@XoticPC and demand something with very high-end specs in a business-class frame and I will only be willing to pay $X for it, though realistically that's not on the table at the moment.

The Apple buyer analogy is actually pretty apt. We have people who **absolutely must(!!)** have macOS, or a touch bar, or whatever it is that attracts Apple buyers to the platform, and they seem to think that the combination of features is worth the price of entry (or they compromise on features to get macOS anyway and just buy an Air or a Mini).

 

I'll have to disagree with your assessment of $3000 range. Increasing cost by 1/3rd for something that--as shown from previous generations--only costs a tenth of that, is just highway robbery. I've been studying the laptop high-end segment for a decade, as doing so is the only way to keep one's finger on trending--both with pricing and with hardware/software. Desktops are NOT an option for me; Would be nice--but I'm on the go far too much to justify a desktop as my primary gaming rig. Top end 15" laptops have fallen into the $1500-2000 range for many GPU iterations. This is a known quantity for me; I expect future top-end 15" offerings to fall into a similar range. I add to this my knowledge of the "premium" that MSI has charged for 3k screen upgrades (and what gigabyte has charged for similar 4k upgrades) and arrive a the stated figure of $100.

I realize that this research is lost on those who remain intentionally ignorant on the world of 4k in laptops. So in lieu of that, here's proof of why $3000 is an insulting insinuation of necessity for the desired specs:

https://www.avadirect.com/Gigabyte-...070-Graphics-Gaming-Laptop/Configure/11469326

https://www.avadirect.com/Clevo-P95...070-Graphics-Gaming-Laptop/Configure/11418121 (note that this option lists the 4k upgrade at $107)

https://www.avadirect.com/Clevo-P75...YNC-Graphics-Gaming-Laptop/Configure/11560230 ($109 option on this model)

https://www.avadirect.com/Clevo-P65...YNC-Graphics-Gaming-Laptop/Configure/10996563 ($107 on this model)

---
Granted, this is just one website. Notice though, that 3 of the 4 are Clevo, and the other is a Gigabyte. The lone MSI offering doesn't have a 1070 offering to go with the 4k. As I stated--MSI, ASUS, etc--don't offer the desired combo. ASUS even lists the GL502VS as having a UHD option--but good luck finding it. I still haven't.

p.s.
The stated purpose of the thread is "design fads in laptops that you hate". The dogmatic clinging to FHD screens w/o even the option for UHD--on top end rigs--most definitely qualifies.

p.p.s.
Oh and on the customer's getting peev'd thing. Then why offer UHD on a 1060? (looking at you, MSI). If it's going to tick off consumers that they can't go max-settings in UHD for the newest games, why is it a 1060 option/standard, but not available at all with a 1070?

 

To be clear, I’m not some sort of anti-UHD person (hell, I own a 4K TV lol). I just don’t value it enough in a laptop to justify the costs, and as far as desktops go, it’s a lot cheaper right now to simply rotator one of my 1080p monitors 90 degrees to get 1920 vertical resolution for when I need it . Still not 4K vertical resolution, but good enough for me while I wait for 4K monitors to become dirt cheap like 1080p monitors are now.

 

I agree Jarhead. I don't see the NEED for 4k really. My "normal" HD stuff works perfectly OK. Therefore saving me tons of money in the process. Its not like jumping from regular definition to HD. Its like running processors now. Yep new ones are faster...but NOT by that much, unlike the good ole days of 286 then jumping to a 386 which was a huge jump in processing speeds. Its that technology in consumer space has sort of hit a peak, yep new stuff comes out...but no thanks on the prices.

 

I much prefer my 3k screen over 1080p.

After four years on this machine, I can't imagine having the 1080p screen option. Well worth whatever I paid for the upgrade.

 

I meant actual display quality, less bleed on the bigger ones, better color space, etc. Perceived quality was a bonus.

High demand screens in lower performing systems sold as gaming-oriented by companies that are synonymous with gaming computers sold poorly, were not received well among the people who bought them, and were frequently returned with low performance as the reason. "Unwashed masses" or not, there's expectations that something sold that way will be good for its implied use (gaming) and when they're not met that's what happens.

I don't say whether it should be sold or not. How well it sells and is reviewed will do that on its own. I mean yes, I think it's kind of silly to sell a Camaro like that but if they sell enough of them to make it worthwhile, they're going to keep making it. I also bet most of the decisions you make when purchasing a car are much more widely understood even when irrational, to the point where even low information buyers know what they're getting more than they would with computers.

It was a mistake to make them under gaming brands and market them as gaming systems when they didn't hold up under a gaming load. Apple could make 4K computers with integrated graphics all day and no one would bat an eye. So could Toshiba or HP. But when companies were pairing 4K with lower GPUs and putting that hardware in lineups that were otherwise gaming, well, there's a reason they stopped, and I have already said there will be a reason for them to start again when there are more mainstream GPUs to back it up. I want the tech to advance as much as anyone, and I am confident we won't have that long to wait before the coming generations of GPU have us swimming in 4K panels.

And the option is available, a 4K panel with a 1070. Gigabyte has a P56 version. AORUS has an X5 coming. The P750TM1-G supports it. The P650HS-G supports it. Not every manufacturer needs to offer every configuration, and some have made it their business to offer more configuration options.

 

That's what I said. Gigabyte (Aorus) and Clevo. And that's sad, especially when I've bought previous editions from other brands--with UHD.

I'm most disappointed with MSI, since I have a 780m with the 3k screen. They even sold a GS60 with a 970m and a 4k screen. So seeing the 1070 w/o any UHD...is just inexplicable. It's backwards progress.

 

Given the poor reception 4K 970M and 960M machines got, I can't really blame any company that doesn't seem excited about jumping on that train this time around. It's not like those three brands that are offering it are bad, especially Clevo, since you can combine the UHD display, a socketed GPU and a desktop CPU in the same package.

And if you're not in the market now or can make what you have last until next year, I bet Volta is going to make those a thing again on all performance tiers.