> Consider that the wide availability of crappy low end hardware gave Windows laptops a terrible reputation.

Standard DPI displays are not "crappy low-end hardware"?

I don't think there's a single widescreen display which qualifies as hiDPI out there, that more or less doesn't exist: a 5K 34" is around 160 DPI (to say nothing of the downright pedestrian 5K 49" like the G9 or the AOC Agon).

Ehh I had a 2013 MacBook pro back in 2013 with a 2560x1600 display. That's 227 dpi. A decade later, I think it's safe to say that anything smaller than that is extremely low-end in 2022.

I agree it's kinda sad how few desktop monitors are high dpi. It gets even worse if you limit yourself to low latency monitors.

Anyway I haven't used macos in a while so I'm not sure what you mean by Apple not supporting non-hidpi

The actual screen dimensions make a huge difference to whether or not a given DPI value is low or high end. My current monitor is 157 DPI and I can assure you it is not an extremely low end monitor at all. Unless your frame of reference is anything below $5k is low end or something.

Right, what I meant to say is that anything under 1600p is low end because it was already widely available in 2013.

dpi isn't the right metric. you don't keep a phone the same distance as a 49" monitor.

DPI is absolutely the right metric, the target goal just depends on the usage.

A hidpi computer display is north of 200 (iMacs are a bit below 220, MacBooks a bit above).

A phone is north of 300 (iPhones have ranged from 324 to 476).