The right image is probably also closer to an ideal layout than the right image as well, but that's not exactly something consumers care about, only designers. Given the advantages of ideal layout vs pixel-snapped and grid aligned, the technical hurdles of sub-pixel rendering (layers render onto also needing to be pixel-snapped, alpha blending issues, device orientation, etc), and high-density displays becoming cheaper and the norm, I don't anticipate sub-pixel cleartype will be making a comeback. As a result, I've been thinking pretty hard about just picking up a 4k monitor to run things at 200% scaling. Seems like the best way to go at this point.
Still a waste of resources and energy to replace a perfectly working 1920x1200 24" display by a 4k 16:9 display which in combination with my 17" laptop with 1920x1080 display will cause scaling problems. I read that modern 4k uses no more than old 2k - but my logic says that modern 2k should use even less than modern 4k
I use Win 10 preview so I know that I can set the scaling per monitor but again not all programs work with per mon scaling which results in bitmap scaled program windows when moving a windows between two monitors with different scaling levels. Pretty cool for Windows Explorer - maybe Office 2016 but MMC based windows like event viewer and service manager are just ugly.
So I would need the laptop display and external display with the same ppi to be able to use 200% on both. Replacing the laptop display is currently impossible - and again, I do not need more pixels. All I would need is an option to stop all kind of font smoothing and set a system font like Arial or Tahoma which displays nicely without font smoothing in contrast to Segoe UI and most modern web fonts.
But economy wants to sell new stuff and not let us use working stuff or save resources ;-)