3 ms·
43" 4k is way too low density. For sheer size its nice, but I want some retina displays, of which there are currently very few.
by samcat116 7y ago
43" 4k is way too low density. For sheer size its nice, but I want some retina displays, of which there are currently very few.
- _trampeltier 7y agoNa, not way to low. I have one and I'm very happy with it. I do no graphic things, so thats ok .. and no scaling .. no troubles with Linux or Windows.
- ahartmetz 7y ago24" 1920x1200 is not bad. 8K is still a massive strain on hardware so I'm planning to get something like 32" 4K. Retina is nice, but real estate is useful.
- giobox 7y ago24 inch 1920x1200 is ~94 PPI - this is pretty crappy by modern standards and will result in the dreaded “jaggies”. Great if you can live with this, but one shouldn’t be surprised that many people won’t. 100 PPI is what we typically had on good monitors in the late 90s, it’s 20 years later now!
- Jach 7y agoHow close are you sitting to this 43" 4k? Retina is a function of viewing distance. I've been enjoying a couple hundred dollar 4k 60hz 42" seiki for years, it's basically the equivalent of stacking 4 "traditionally sized" 1080ps together and eliminating the bezel. I wouldn't use it for detailed graphics work due to not so great color fidelity (though there are better models now), but everything else, for the price, mwah. It is "retina" at 33 inches. Admittedly I'm often closer than that, but not by much, and frequently I'm further away.