Comment on Study Claims 4K/8K TVs Aren't Much Better Than HD To Your Eyes
M0oP0o@mander.xyz 5 months agoI have 2 collage diplomas and worked 10 years in the industry at IBM alone. Your not going to cow me or tell me I have no credentials, those accusations mean nothing. I don’t really get why you are so very aggressively pushing this nonsense, do you just love tech slop so much? Are you getting a kickback with every 4k monitor sold? Why of all the hills to die on it is this?
And no, 4k desktops do not “look nicer”, it is stupid and tiny for no reason. Unless you have like 250 shortcuts on your desktop what is the point?
On the internet where you go by “Moonpoo” you in fact have no credentials because nobody can verify anything.
It is in a way hilarious to imagine that IBM is so broken that its employees can’t figure out how to make fonts not tiny on 4K. You must have been a manager.
Oh IBM is way more broken then that. But by making the fonts bigger so you can read them on a 4k monitor is not the augment you think it is for 4k…
But hey as long as everyone buys monitors for roughly 3x the price then its all good then, right? I think you are even losing the plot here on WHY people should buy 4K or higher monitors. There are fringe cases, of course, but the vast majority of time its just a fool and their money soon to be parted.
Basically every modern OS in existence including Linux supports proper scaling for higher resolution displays. You don’t just have to make the text bigger. Proper scaling is implemented. Integer scaling is best supported.
linux-hardware.org/?view=mon_resolution&colors=10
Let’s look at desktop users
4k = 13.7% of Linux users QHD = 12.4% 3440x1440 = 3.9%
30% of desktop users are using > FHD
What is your point? Why would someone pay for a 4k monitor? Its a waste of money, that is the point I made. How does showing me that even after 10+ years of 4k or higher monitors being for sale that 30% of users have them (well Linux users at least)? That is not showing what you think it is.
relativestranger@feddit.nl 5 months ago
if you have an ultra-high desktop resolution, you’re probably using a scaling factor to make everything look about the same size it would otherwise be at ~ 1080p… windows will even default to something around that… just no ‘jaggies’.
so yea, it does ‘look nicer’ and no, everything is not ‘stupid and tiny’.
M0oP0o@mander.xyz 5 months ago
Why is it that this example keeps coming back as if having your ultra high resolution using scaling to look like 1080p is not a self burn? Its not a worth while cost for the monitor, more so when you run them in lower resolutions for performance anyway. You would be foolish to go for a ultra high resolution monitor over a lower response time or higher frequency. The desktop argument is pathetic, its the desktop, no one but arch users spend their time stareing at it.