4 ms·

My personal story: Last year I went from a Dell 24" (1920x1200) to a Benq 32" (2560x1440). I deliberate didn't choose a 4k because I knew that without at least

My personal story: Last year I went from a Dell 24" (1920x1200) to a Benq 32" (2560x1440). I deliberate didn't choose a 4k because I knew that without at least 150% scaling, my poor 48 year old eyes wouldn't be able to read anything, so 4k seemed pointless. Additionally, I use a wide gamut of software, half of which is not hiDPI aware. Overall, I'm really happy with my Benq 32" it strikes a nice balance between being a larger screen, but still readable at 100% scaling.

TaupeRanger 7y ago
That doesn't make any sense. A 24" 1080p monitor has the same "effective DPI" (actual physical size of things on screen) as both a 32" 1440p monitor at 100% scaling AND a 32" 4k screen at 150% scaling. You would be getting literally the exact same amount of screen space on the 4k display at 150% as you do on your 1440p screen, except that it would be even easier to read because the text, for example, would be sharper.
- Jaruzel 7y ago
  And the older apps that are not hiDPI aware, would ignore the scaling request, and be too small to use. No thanks.
tjansen 7y ago
Same here, also a 32" BenQ with 2560x1440, and I am really happy with it. Better than the 27 Thunderbolt Display at the same resolution I use at work. Much better than 1080 for me.
karmakaze 7y ago
I really did love my Dell 24" 1920x1200 (even in portrait rotation). I have since switched to a 43" LG 4k monitor and I have no regrets. I tend to only use the middle 2/3rds and keep the desktop background dark. It is more pleasurable than needing to wear reading glasses and it doubles as a half-decent surface to watch shows. Recently I connected a 19" 1280x1024 monitor for a Pioneer DDJ setup and it was by far the best size/aspect for the task. 16x9 is only ideal within the medium-large range of sizes.

4 ms·

My personal story: Last year I went from a Dell 24" (1920x1200) to a Benq 32" (2560x1440). I deliberate didn't choose a 4k because I knew that without at least

by Jaruzel 7y ago

TaupeRanger 7y ago
That doesn't make any sense. A 24" 1080p monitor has the same "effective DPI" (actual physical size of things on screen) as both a 32" 1440p monitor at 100% scaling AND a 32" 4k screen at 150% scaling. You would be getting literally the exact same amount of screen space on the 4k display at 150% as you do on your 1440p screen, except that it would be even easier to read because the text, for example, would be sharper.
- Jaruzel 7y ago
  And the older apps that are not hiDPI aware, would ignore the scaling request, and be too small to use. No thanks.
tjansen 7y ago
Same here, also a 32" BenQ with 2560x1440, and I am really happy with it. Better than the 27 Thunderbolt Display at the same resolution I use at work. Much better than 1080 for me.
karmakaze 7y ago
I really did love my Dell 24" 1920x1200 (even in portrait rotation). I have since switched to a 43" LG 4k monitor and I have no regrets. I tend to only use the middle 2/3rds and keep the desktop background dark. It is more pleasurable than needing to wear reading glasses and it doubles as a half-decent surface to watch shows. Recently I connected a 19" 1280x1024 monitor for a Pioneer DDJ setup and it was by far the best size/aspect for the task. 16x9 is only ideal within the medium-large range of sizes.