20 ms·

Hello! Person who actively dislikes 4k here. In my experience: 1. No matter what operating system you're on, you'll eventually run into an application that doe

Hello! Person who actively dislikes 4k here. In my experience: 1. No matter what operating system you're on, you'll eventually run into an application that doesn't render in high dpi mode. Depending on the OS that can mean it renders tiny, or that the whole things is super ugly and pixelated (WAY worse than on a native 1080p display) 2. If the 4k screen is on your laptop, good luck ever having a decent experience plugging in a 1080p monitor. Also good luck having anyone's random spare monitor be 4k. 3. Configuring my preferred linux environment to work with 4k is either impossible or just super time consuming. I use i3 and it adds way more productivity to my workflow than "My fonts are almost imperceptively sharper" ever could My setup is 2x24" 1920x1200 monitors - so I get slightly more vertical pixels than true 1080p, but in the form of screen real estate rather than improved density. I also have 20/20 vision as of the last time I was tested. My argument in favor of 1080p is that I find text to just be... completely readable. At various sizes, in various fonts, whatever syntax highlighting colors you want to use. Can you see the pixels in the font on my 24" 1080p monitor if you put your face 3" from the screen? Absolutely. Do I notice them day to day? Absolutely not. I genuinely think 4k provides no real benefit to me as a developer unless the screen is 27" or higher, because increased pixel density just isn't required. If more pixels meant slightly higher density but also came with more usable screen real estate, that'd be what made the difference for me.

the_af 6y ago
Thanks for sharing your experience! > My argument in favor of 1080p is that I find text to just be... completely readable. Yes, me too. To me it's more than just readable, I find the text crisp and comfortable. I don't need anything else.
turtlebits 6y ago
OS X handles hidpi perfectly. Never had an app that didn’t display as it should. I do agree with you that 4K under 27” isn’t necessary.
- Polylactic_acid 6y ago
  I have a 4k 27" monitor and I have had to run it in 1440p recently because its all my dell xps can manage and its usable but a noticeable downgrade. My 24" 1440p monitor at work looks perfectly fine though.
jseliger 6y ago
3. Configuring my preferred linux environment to work with 4k is either impossible or just super time consuming This seems like a long-standing problem with Linux, rather than a reason to dislike high-res screens.
- enobrev 6y ago
  Why not both? If I'm on linux, with no interest in changing and perfectly happy with my display, and 4k doesn't work easily on my system, why would I be interested in a 4k screen?
- fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago
  So far, I've never had an issue with KDE Plasma and 4K@60Hz on linux, once I realized that you can't just use any old HDMI cable: you need DisplayPort or HDMI2
  - Polylactic_acid 6y ago
    Its a problem if you have a nvidia gpu (forcing you on x11) and have 2 different dpi screens. On AMD/Intel/Nvidia open source drivers it works fine.
    - fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago
      Yeah, I’ve always picked my GPU to work well on Linux, so I have an AMD one.
- notyourday 6y ago
  Strange. I'm not seeing any issues with Linux and 4k. I'm running a plain Debian 10 with OpenBox running on 4x 4k (3x 28" in a row and one 11" 4k under the right-most) monitors though, granted, I only normally have one web browser that follows me around, across work spaces pinned to the right monitor, mostly maximized Sublime on the middle monitor and a pile pile of alacritty/xterm windows on the left-most monitor. The small monitor which content also follows me around contains clipboard, clocks, Slack and monitoring. What is the software that people are using that creates problems?
AshamedCaptain 6y ago
One can definitely still see the pixels in a 4K 24'' monitor. That is not the point. But I do agree with points 1 and 2 (they tend to work better on windows, though). On the other hand, what about 3? I would find it ridiculous that it'll take you more than 5 seconds to enlarge DPI (no multi-monitor) even on the weirdest of X11 WMs. X11 is designed for this....
mthoms 6y ago
> Person who actively dislikes 4k here I don't think the reasons you illustrated support that conclusion. You don't actively dislike the extra pixel density of a 4K display. You seem to only dislike the compatibility issues relevant to your use case. >No matter what operating system you're on, you'll eventually run into an application that doesn't render in high dpi mode. FWIW, I can't recall the last time I has a problem with apps not rendering correctly in hidpi mode on MacOS. Unless you've got a very specific legacy app that you rely on for regular use it's a non-issue. >Configuring my preferred linux environment to work with 4k is either impossible or just super time consuming Ah, I think I found the real issue ;-) If your linux desktop rendered 4K beautifully, seamlessly, and without any scaling issues right out of the box, I could all but guarantee that your opinion would be different.
semi-extrinsic 6y ago
FWIW, my main monitor is a 43" 4k display, and it works perfectly fine on AwesomeWM - but I' don't use any scaling, the 4k is purely for more screen real estate - literally like having 4 perfectly aligned borderless 24" monitors. I can fit 10 full A4 pages of text simultaneously.
- tomxor 6y ago
  Haven't you effectively escaped the super hi-dpi issues of parent? I think he is referring to use of smaller screens at 4k. Interesting idea thought just effectively having a massive monitor.
- gorgoiler 6y ago
  Which display in particular are you recommending, and what is the latency like?
  - okasaki 6y ago
    I use Samsung 4k TV's (55in and 43in) at work and home and the experience is absolutely fantastic. In game mode the latency is reported to be 11ms and there's no difference visible to me compared to 60hz computer monitors.
    - xenihn 6y ago
      Do you have the specific model numbers? I'm buying a new monitor soon, and considering using a 4K TV. Would be great to check out the ones you're using!
      - okasaki 6y ago
        They're both ru7100. It may be called something else depending on where you are / may be replaced with newer models. It basically works out as 4 seamless 1080p monitors, and I use i3 for a 3x2 window layout
  - semi-extrinsic 6y ago
zzo38computer 6y ago
> No matter what operating system you're on, you'll eventually run into an application that doesn't render in high dpi mode. It might depend on the program, too. Some might only work in pixels. Fortunately, it is usually not a problem if you are trying to run a program designed for Gameboy; the emulator should be able to scale it automatically, subject to the user setting. I don't know if any X server has a setting to magnify mouse cursor shapes, but it seems like it should be possible to implement in the X server. Also, it seems like SDL 1.x has no environment variable to magnify the image. My own program Free Hero Mesh (which I have not worked on in a while, because I am working on other stuff) allows icons to be of any size up to 255x255 pixels (the puzzle set can contain icons of any square size up to 255x255, and may have multiple sizes; it will try to find the best size based on the user setting, using integer scaling to grow them if necessary), but currently is limited to a single built-in 8x8 font for text. If someone ports it to a library that does allow zooming, then that might help, too. However, it is not really designed for high DPI displays, and it might not be changed unless someone with a high DPI display wants to use it and modifies the program to support a user option for scaling text too (and possibly also scaling icons to a bigger size than 255x255) (then I might merge their changes, possibly). Still, I don't need 4K. The size I have is fine, but unfortunately too many things use big text; some web pages zoom text by viewport size, which I hate, and a bigger monitor would then just make it worse.
- bitwize 6y ago
  What X server? You should be using Wayland. X does not intrinsically support automatic scaling. Wayland does.
  - zzo38computer 6y ago
    The protocol is irrelevant. It isn't an extension to the protocol, and would not be seen by clients. It is an implementation detail.
    - bitwize 6y ago
      Technically, that's true, but "Wayland is inherently better at security/DPI scaling/other" is one of those cultural myths that eventually come true because of the people who believe in it. It would be possible to add these improvements to the X server, but no one wants to maintain or improve the X server anymore. All the developer effort is behind Wayland. So to get those benefits, you have to use Wayland.
auggierose 6y ago
If you are on macOS, all is good. Never had a problem with any of my 4 monitors (3x4K, 1x5K). I set the scaling to a size I like, and the text is super crisp. I don't see how any programmer can NOT like that.
- mulmen 6y ago
  How do you manage multiple monitors with MacOS? I was doing this until recently and every single login involved rearranging my windows because MacOS moves them all to whatever display woke up first. In my experience MacOS multi-monitor support is effectively non-existent. Recently I picked up a 49” ultra-ultra wide monitor (basically 2x27” panels). It is one monitor but MacOS can’t drive it. They just don’t detect that resolution. I switched to a 43” 4k monitor (technically more pixels) and MacOS drives it fine. My experience with MacOS is not “it just works” unless you are doing something Apple already predicted. That’s fine for me, I just wish they still sold a reasonable monitor themselves so I could be assured it would work properly.
  - kitsunesoba 6y ago
    >How do you manage multiple monitors with MacOS? I was doing this until recently and every single login involved rearranging my windows because MacOS moves them all to whatever display woke up first. At least for apps that are dedicated to one screen + virtual desktop, right click its icon in the dock and assign it to that display and workspace. Note that the effectiveness of window restoration also depends on the make/model of your monitors – many manufacturers incorrectly share EDID's across all units of the same model and sometimes across multiple models, making it much more difficult for operating systems to uniquely identify them.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - eludwig 6y ago
    It helped me to check "Displays have separate spaces" in the Mission Control panel. MacOS seems to remember what went where with this checked.
TylerE 6y ago
4K on a desktop is just sorta silly. Now.... 1440p is a very useful bump over 1080.
- turtlebits 6y ago
  Being used to MacBooks with retina screens, 4K on at 30” is perfect to me as “retina”. Anything larger needs to be 5k or 6k. 1440p is passable on <24”.
- sgt 6y ago
  You still need to scale the resolution to make it easily readable on most common monitor sizes like 27". The end result is really good and sharp.
  - hadlock 6y ago
    27" x 1440p has been my go-to for a while now. Works well without scaling between win/mac/linux, does not dominate the desk completely, high quality monitors are readily available in this resolution etc etc.
    - TylerE 6y ago
      I think my dream set up would be a 27" 1440P (What I currently have at home, with a pair of smaller (19" maybe?) 1080p screens on either side setup in portrait. Basically a similar screen area to 2x27", but without a bezel right in the center of my field of view, and the 1080x1920 screens will be a good size for displaying full page (e.g. PDF) at more or less full screen.
      - mulmen 6y ago
        At that point not just run an Ultrawide at 1440p?
        jablan 6y ago
        The price is probably double.
coffeemaniac 6y ago
I miss i3 so much. But I've succumbed to laziness and have been using my various macbooks. Agree that it's a huge productivity gain, moreso than any font improvements.
dlannoye 6y ago
For #3, the creator of the i3 window manager is using the 8k monitor mentioned in the article I am pretty sure this is possible. https://michael.stapelberg.ch/posts/2017-12-11-dell-up3218k/ https://michael.stapelberg.ch/posts/2017-12-11-dell-up3218k/
salex89 6y ago
Completely agree! Went from a mediocre 2x1440p to high quality 2 x 4K, then back to a pair of equal quality 2x1440p. I would also add, when it comes to 4K and, for example, MacBooks, things fall apart quickly in my opinion. Cables, adapters/dongles/docking stations just must match up for everything to work in proper 60fps, and it gets worse if you have two external displays. As for my home set up, also stayed at 25" 1440p. Nice balance for work, hobby and occasional gaming without braking the bank for a top-tier GPU.
- porker 6y ago
  By equal quality 2x1440p monitors are we talking Eizo quality or Dell UltraSharp quality?
  - salex89 6y ago
    Dell UltraSharp were the 4K and now 1440p. The previous ones were Asus.
- spideymans 6y ago
  >I would also add, when it comes to 4K and, for example, MacBooks, things fall apart quickly in my opinion. Cables, adapters/dongles/docking stations just must match up for everything to work in proper 60fps, and it gets worse if you have two external displays. I agree it's a bit of a mess, but USB-C monitors solve all those issues. I just plug my MacBook in with USB-C, and instantly my 4K (60 Hz) display is connected, along with external sound and any USB peripherals. No fussing with a million different cables and adapters. It's the docking workstation setup I've dreamed of for a decade.
  - CaptainMarvel 6y ago
    It doesn’t solve all of the issues. The USB-C port can support DisplayPort 1.2 or 1.4 bandwidths and you have to make sure it matches up for some high-resolution monitors to work.
jcelerier 6y ago
i3 user on a 4K screen here, has worked fine since 2014 for me (with the exception of the random super old TCL/Tk app) ? https://i.imgur.com/b8jVooO.png https://i.imgur.com/b8jVooO.png
tomxor 6y ago
Another linux+i3 user here, I've not tried 4k yet but you confirmed my suspicions. I did a lot of research before buying an xps-13 and went with the 1080p version due to basically all the reasons you just stated + poor battery life and video performance. I have hope for the future though... what would really make transitioning easier is a way to automatically upscale incompatible programs, even if it means nearest neighbor scaling at least it will make them usable on super hi-dpi monitors.
tly_alex 6y ago
Same here.
z3t4 6y ago
Im on Gnome and use fractal scaling . 2x and everything got too big. But 1.6 looks OK. Its actually not on the app layer, its the screen that is scaled up. Although some low level programs can have issues with mouse pointer position if they dont take into account the scaling.
nine_k 6y ago
FWIW, switching between resolutions in my favorite desktop environment, Xfce, is two steps: # This affects every GTK app. xfconf-query -c xsettings -p /Xft/DPI -s 144 The second step is going to about:config in Firefox, and setting layout.css.devPixelsPerPx to a higher value than 1.0. I really need to write an extension to do that in one click. What is really tricky, though, it's having two monitors with different DPI. Win 10 does an acceptable job with it; no Linux tools I'm aware of can handle it reasonably well. Some xrandr incantations can offer partial solutions.
- jandrese 6y ago
  Even Win10 struggles when you move windows between different DPI domains. Apps will slide in HUGE or tiny until you get past the midway point. And when the system goes to sleep everything can go to hell. You can come back to small message windows being blown up to huge sizes or windows crushed down to a tiny square. You can forget about laying out your icons perfectly on your desktop too, they'll get rearranged all the time. Even more fun when you remote into a high DPI display with a low DPI display. It actually works pretty well, but stuff will get shrunk or blown up randomly when you to back to the high DPI display.
  - StillBored 6y ago
    Logically having your OS maintain a consistent UI size makes sense until you try it without. I'm running a couple medium high density monitors alongside one of the highest density ones available. I don't scale the HIDPI monitor at all, which means when I drag windows to it they are tiny. Instead it works in two ways, as a status screen for activity monitors/etc and as a text/document editing screen. AKA putting adobe acrobat, firefox or sublime/emacs/etc on the high DPI screen and then zooming in gives all the font smoothing/etc advantages of high DPI without needing OS support. So the TLDR is, turn off dpi scaling, and leave the hidpi screen as a dedicated text editor/etc with the font sizes bumped to a comfortable size. Bonus here is that the additional effort of clicking the menu/etc will encourage learning keyboard shortcuts.
  - Polylactic_acid 6y ago
    >Apps will slide in HUGE or tiny until you get past the midway point. This is a non issue to me. I don't use apps half way across 2 screens. Its just a minor bit of weirdness while dragging them.
bitexploder 6y ago
I have a 49" curved monitor. It is effectively two 27" 1440p monitors stapled together (5120x1440). It is the best monitor I have ever had. 1440p has a very decent [higher than typical] pixel density but is not "retina". Fonts look pretty smooth, but you can still see pixels if you try really hard. Overall, I do think high density screens look amazing, but the software has not quite caught up to them. The benefits are on the softer side, and if I could just have magical mega-high-DPI displays with no side effects, sure why not? As it stands, 49" curved monitor is pretty fine. It fits four windows side by side at reasonable resolutions. Primary apps go in the middle, such as code editor, etc.. Tertiary windows, such as documentation go on the outer edges. Still quite usable, but a little out of the way for extended reading.
- abnercoimbre 6y ago
  Hey, do you mind sharing more info. on how to get the monitor? I'm looking to invest in a curved one since it's an experience I've never had. And are there retina models out there, or is it not worth it, in your view?
  - bitexploder 6y ago
    https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/dell-ultrasharp-49-curved-monitor-u4919dw/apd/210-arnw/monitors-monitor-accessories https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/dell-ultrasharp-49-curv... I like Retina DPI, but this is good enough. It’s not very curved, but it has some curvature. I don’t think it’s worth it. 1440p is good enough for me.
- monting 6y ago
  I have a 49” curved too! But it’s a UHD TV so it’s four 24” 1080p screen in one! Three/two portrait windows is great for reading, reducing scrolling.
- CaptainMarvel 6y ago
  I couldn’t agree more with this. A 49” 5120x1440 curved monitor is brilliant for productivity. It’s better than two or three separate monitors. I do miss high DPI but I wouldn’t trade this type of monitor for the current batch of smaller high DPI ones. There’s only two or three things that would make this better. A high DPI variant, more vertical space and a greater refresh rate. Given those two things, I think that’s the endgame for monitors (in a productivity context). (I think that’s 8x the bandwidth so it’s a while away!)
Bayart 6y ago
>My setup is 2x24" 1920x1200 monitors - so I get slightly more vertical pixels than true 1080p, but in the form of screen real estate rather than improved density. I'm working on an old 24"16/10 display (the venerable ProLite B2403WS) and an OK 32" 4K display with a VA panel. Both are properly calibrated. There is no amount of tinkering that can make fonts on the 24" look good. It looks like dog shit in comparison to the 4K screen. It might not be obvious when all you got in front of your eyes is the 24" display, but it's blatant side to side. On top of it, the real life vertical real estate of the 4K display is also quite larger. I've never been a big 16/9 fan, but frankly at the size monitors come in today and the market prices, I don't a reason not to pick a few of these for developing.
slantyyz 6y ago
So I'm a little nuts in that I run 2 x 27" 4K monitors side by side with no scaling. 27" is about the smallest I can tolerate 1:1 pixel sizes. Since aging has forced me into wearing reading glasses, I wear single vision computer glasses that are optimized for the distance range of my monitors' closest and furthest points. Because I dont have scaling enabled, I don't get any of the HiDpi issues that I've gotten on my laptops with Windows. I have found that I am still wanting for even more screen real estate, and for a time I had a pair of ultrawide 23" monitors underneath my main monitors, but it created more problems than it solved and I recently went back to only two monitors.
- swader999 6y ago
  I do the same with three but all in portrait mode.
  - slantyyz 6y ago
    That's an interesting idea. I should look into that when I eventually upgrade. A stubborn part of me left the monitors in landscape because I occasionally play games, but I end up never doing that on my desktop. Because I prefer to use the same model of monitor when doing a grid, so I don't think I want to add to my existing setup, because my monitors are discontinued, and they're displayport only for 4K60. I think they have more than a few years of life left in them, but I'll definitely look into a configuration like yours at upgrade time.
    - swader999 6y ago
      I find it easier to look up and down than side to side. Too many ski and skateboard crashes with whiplash when younger.
monadic2 6y ago
I agree with all your points, however I’ve found the mac is extremely variable DPI friendly. I think the games with custom UIs (Europa Universalis IV comes to mind) are the only things that haven’t adapted and it’s hardly a problem if you set the scaling to “large text” or whatever, just a little pixelated like you would see on a 1080p screen.
boltzmann_brain 6y ago
To each their own but it's mindblowing to me that one cannot see a massive different in text quality of 4k or higher monitors compared to ancient sub 4k resolutions.
rvolosatovs 6y ago
> 1. No matter what operating system you're on, you'll eventually run into an application that doesn't render in high dpi mode. Depending on the OS that can mean it renders tiny, or that the whole things is super ugly and pixelated (WAY worse than on a native 1080p display) Never happened to me in 4 years, see below. That said, I barely use any graphical programs besides kitty, firefox, thunderbird and spotify. > 3. Configuring my preferred linux environment to work with 4k is either impossible or just super time consuming. I use i3 and it adds way more productivity to my workflow than "My fonts are almost imperceptively sharper" ever could This is just not true. I have used the same 32" 4k monitor for 4 years running NixOS with bspwm (a tiling window manager, which does even less than i3) on 3 different laptops - thinkpad x230 (at 30 Hz), x260 and x395 and it all worked completely fine. I used a script like this to setup monitors, I would run it every time I would change my monitor setup (e.g. on the go): https://github.com/rvolosatovs/infrastructure/blob/0e17a142193b10f5e73e8ecf8c04d6680454b49e/home/graphical.nix#L384-L422 https://github.com/rvolosatovs/infrastructure/blob/0e17a1421... It depends on a very simple tool I wrote, because I was sick with `xrandr`: https://github.com/rvolosatovs/gorandr https://github.com/rvolosatovs/gorandr , but `xrandr` could easily be used as alternative. Recently I switched to Sway on Wayland and it could not be smoother - everything just works with no scripting, including hot-plug. > I genuinely think 4k provides no real benefit to me as a developer unless the screen is 27" or higher, because increased pixel density just isn't required. If more pixels meant slightly higher density but also came with more usable screen real estate, that'd be what made the difference for me. Indeed, screen size is way more important than resolution. In fact, even 4k at 27" seemed too small for me when I had to use that in the office - I would either have to deal with super small font sizes and straining my eyes or sacrificing screen space by zooming in.
ogre_codes 6y ago
> 1. No matter what operating system you're on, you'll eventually run into an application that doesn't render in high dpi mode You lost me right here on line 1. If there are apps on MacOS that can't handle high dpi mode, I haven't run into them as a developer (or doing photo editing, video editing, plus whatever other hobbies I do). Also, I don't have any trouble with plugging my highDPI MacBook into a crappy 1080p display at work. > 3. Configuring my preferred linux environment to work with 4k is either impossible or just super time consuming. Things like this are exactly why I left Linux for MacOS. I absolutely get why you might want to stick with Linux, but this is a Linux + HighDPI issue (maybe a Windows + highDPI issue also), not a general case. > I genuinely think 4k provides no real benefit to me as a developer unless the screen is 27" or higher, because increased pixel density just isn't required. You could say the same for any arbitrary DPI; 96dpi isn't "Required", we got by fine with 72dpi. It's all about ergonomics as far as I'm concerned.
- Polylactic_acid 6y ago
  I have been using a 4k monitor and 2 1080p monitors on linux for a while now. The current state of things is that hidpi works correctly on everything I have run including proprietary apps. I'm also surprised when my wine programs scale properly as well. What does not work perfect is mixing hidpi and lowdpi screens. On wayland with wayland compatible apps it works fine but on X11 or with xwayland apps like electron it will not scale properly when you move the window to the other screen, it will scale to one screen and be wrong when moved over. Overall I don't find this to be too much of an issue and when chrome gets proper wayland support the problem will be 99% solved.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    > I have been using a 4k monitor and 2 1080p monitors on linux for a while now. The current state of things is that hidpi works correctly on everything I have run including proprietary apps. It's good to hear things aren't as bad as some have suggested.
    - Polylactic_acid 6y ago
PascLeRasc 6y ago
You know, I was in complete agreement with the article and I was considering a 1440p monitor or something until I saw your comment and reflected on it. The most productive periods/jobs I can remember were on i3wm with a Goodwill 900p/19" monitor and a 20" iMac 10 years old at the time. But it's because I had access to good tools then like Neovim/Atom respectively. My work now requires an RDP Notepad.exe session so there's no monitor that will help me there. I guess software tools are way more important.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  Is there no way to sync files with the remote environment so that you don't have to actually use notepad.exe
Legogris 6y ago
> 3. Configuring my preferred linux environment to work with 4k is either impossible or just super time consuming. I use i3 and it adds way more productivity to my workflow than "My fonts are almost imperceptively sharper" ever could What issues actually? Xmonad on Arch user here and I find the sweet spot for me is 27-32" 4k, 1440p on laptop (I guess 4k would be nice here too, but not sure if it motivates the increased power draw). After getting used to the increased real-estate, I do feel limited on my older 1080p laptop screen; fonts smaller than 8p (which is still all good) noticably impacts the readability to the point I can feel my eyes strain faster. It did take a bit of playing around with Dpi settings to get it right, though, out of the box it's not great. The Arch wiki has some great material. The only frustration I do have (which IS super-frustrating, specifically for web browsing) is with multi-monitor setups with different pixel density - your point 2, I guess. Even plugging anything larger than 19" with 1080p into my 1080p Thinkpad is annoying. I think it should be possible to configure it correctly but I just gave up and end up zooming in/out whenever I do this and send windows between screens. Haven't looked at it, but maybe a mature DE like KDE or GNOME (which, if you don't know, you can still use with i3) should be able to take care of this. Also, this is all on X11, have no idea if and how wayland differs.
tomc1985 6y ago
> 2. If the 4k screen is on your laptop, good luck ever having a decent experience plugging in a 1080p monitor. Also good luck having anyone's random spare monitor be 4k. I have been running two 1440p displays on a 4K retina MBP and the experience has been impressively seamless. Both with Catalina (the latest) and High Sierra The biggest problem is with Apple port splitters; they are crap and sometimes monitors wake from sleep with a garbled picture
29athrowaway 6y ago
> Good luck ever having a decent experience plugging in a 1080p monitor. A 4k monitor is now $300 (new). Used are even cheaper. > Configuring my preferred linux environment to work with 4k is either impossible or just super time consuming. I use i3 and it adds way more productivity to my workflow I use Gnome 3.36 and many HiDPI issues I was having before are now gone, without any extra configuration. > My argument in favor of 1080p is that I find text to just be... completely readable. It is readable but fonts are pixelated, unlike 4k. My only problem is that macOS has some artificial limitations when it comes to using non-Apple monitors. Like a lower refresh rate. My solution? Use Linux.
- the_af 6y ago
  $300 is a lot of money where I'm from. And they aren't available at that price here, anyway. What do you mean, fonts are pixelated at 1080p? Whether you can see the pixels probably depends on pixel size. I certainly can't see them on my 23" LG monitor unless I try really hard.
mixmastamyk 6y ago
I’ve had dual 4k monitors under Ubuntu Mate for years without problems so I’m gonna have to disagree. You can pry them out of my cold dead hands.
trabant00 6y ago
> 3. Configuring my preferred linux environment to work with 4k is either impossible or just super time consuming. I use i3 and it adds way more productivity to my workflow than "My fonts are almost imperceptively sharper" ever could Happy i3 arch linux 4k monitor user here for over 2 years. I only set an appropriate Xft.dpi for my monitor size/resolution in ~/.Xresources once and that was it. Can't imagine being easier than this tbh.
kubav 6y ago
I have 4K monitor on laptop and also as external monitor but I have no problem with linux (using debian testing with gnome 3). I can easily combine it with 1080p monitors. Everything works out of the box. I still switched to 1440p as 4K is just better looking 1080p. You cannot fit more information on the screen with scaling and without scaling everything is too small. I work as backend developer so space is more important for me than visual quality.
- tapland 6y ago
  Why not scale for example 50%? The same things hold true for 1440p (or are you just able to suck up things only getting a bit smaller?)
jnxx 6y ago
> No matter what operating system you're on, you'll eventually run into an application that doesn't render in high dpi mode. I am using using Emacs and tmux under Linux, in the Gnome desktop. Gnome has HDPI scaling. For me, that works fine with a 4K 43 inch display. The thing you need to watch out for is to get a graphics card with proper open source (FOSS) driver support. Some cards are crap and don't come with FOSS drivers. You can get them to run but it is a PITA on every kernel update. Don't do that to yourself, get a decent card.
da39a3ee 6y ago
> I genuinely think 4k provides no real benefit to me Could you clarify when in your life you've had a 4k screen with good OS support, so that we know what experience you are speaking from when you say that?
ghostpepper 6y ago
Since nobody else has mentioned it, if you like i3 you should give Sway a test drive. Wayland still has some rough edges (screen sharing, for example) but it supports high DPI monitors with fractional scaling almost out-of-the-box.
gimboland 6y ago
> 1. No matter what operating system you're on, you'll eventually run into an application that doesn't render in high dpi mode. I haven't had this experience (MacOS, 4K monitor for 2.5 years) > 2. If the 4k screen is on your laptop, good luck ever having a decent experience plugging in a 1080p monitor. Also good luck having anyone's random spare monitor be 4k. shrug - 4K and 1080p seem to work together just fine for me. I've currently got a 27" 4K monitor and a 24" 1080p monitor both running off my 2015 13" MacBook Pro; the 4K is on DisplayPort (60Hz @ 3840x2160) and the 1080p is on HDMI (and it happens to be in portrait mode). I use all three screens (including the laptop's), and while the 1080p is noticeably crappier than the other two, it's still usable, and the combination of all three together works well for me. A couple of extra tools (e.g. BetterTouchTool) really help with throwing things between monitors, resizing them to take up some particular chunk of the screen, etc. - my setup's quite keyboard-heavy with emphasis on making full use of the space inspired by years of running i3 (and before that xmonad, ratpoison and others) on linux and freebsd. > 3. Configuring my preferred linux environment to work with 4k is either impossible or just super time consuming. That's a statement about linux and i3, not monitors. (And again, I like i3, but stating this limitation as if it's a problem with monitors not i3 seems... odd.)
- DJHenk 6y ago
  > > 3. Configuring my preferred linux environment to work with 4k is either impossible or just super time consuming. > That's a statement about linux and i3, not monitors. (And again, I like i3, but stating this limitation as if it's a problem with monitors not i3 seems... odd.) It is also wrong. I am a long time i3 user. Never had a problem with it, never done anything special. Most of the time I'm running Debian stable, so I even use software versions that most people consider 'old'.
shezi 6y ago
I'm not going to argue your preferences, but then why don't you get one 50 inch 4k display? That's about four of your current displays at similar density on a single cable. And probably at a similar price point, too. Or, if you are using decent graphics hardware, you could even get two of them and have four times more display space than you have now.

the_af 6y ago

Thanks for sharing your experience! > My argument in favor of 1080p is that I find text to just be... completely readable. Yes, me too. To me it's more than just readable, I find the text crisp and comfortable. I don't need anything else.

turtlebits 6y ago

OS X handles hidpi perfectly. Never had an app that didn’t display as it should. I do agree with you that 4K under 27” isn’t necessary.

Polylactic_acid 6y ago
I have a 4k 27" monitor and I have had to run it in 1440p recently because its all my dell xps can manage and its usable but a noticeable downgrade. My 24" 1440p monitor at work looks perfectly fine though.

jseliger 6y ago

3. Configuring my preferred linux environment to work with 4k is either impossible or just super time consuming This seems like a long-standing problem with Linux, rather than a reason to dislike high-res screens.

enobrev 6y ago
Why not both? If I'm on linux, with no interest in changing and perfectly happy with my display, and 4k doesn't work easily on my system, why would I be interested in a 4k screen?
fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago
So far, I've never had an issue with KDE Plasma and 4K@60Hz on linux, once I realized that you can't just use any old HDMI cable: you need DisplayPort or HDMI2
- Polylactic_acid 6y ago
  Its a problem if you have a nvidia gpu (forcing you on x11) and have 2 different dpi screens. On AMD/Intel/Nvidia open source drivers it works fine.
  - fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago
    Yeah, I’ve always picked my GPU to work well on Linux, so I have an AMD one.
notyourday 6y ago
Strange. I'm not seeing any issues with Linux and 4k. I'm running a plain Debian 10 with OpenBox running on 4x 4k (3x 28" in a row and one 11" 4k under the right-most) monitors though, granted, I only normally have one web browser that follows me around, across work spaces pinned to the right monitor, mostly maximized Sublime on the middle monitor and a pile pile of alacritty/xterm windows on the left-most monitor. The small monitor which content also follows me around contains clipboard, clocks, Slack and monitoring. What is the software that people are using that creates problems?

AshamedCaptain 6y ago

One can definitely still see the pixels in a 4K 24'' monitor. That is not the point. But I do agree with points 1 and 2 (they tend to work better on windows, though). On the other hand, what about 3? I would find it ridiculous that it'll take you more than 5 seconds to enlarge DPI (no multi-monitor) even on the weirdest of X11 WMs. X11 is designed for this....

mthoms 6y ago

> Person who actively dislikes 4k here I don't think the reasons you illustrated support that conclusion. You don't actively dislike the extra pixel density of a 4K display. You seem to only dislike the compatibility issues relevant to your use case. >No matter what operating system you're on, you'll eventually run into an application that doesn't render in high dpi mode. FWIW, I can't recall the last time I has a problem with apps not rendering correctly in hidpi mode on MacOS. Unless you've got a very specific legacy app that you rely on for regular use it's a non-issue. >Configuring my preferred linux environment to work with 4k is either impossible or just super time consuming Ah, I think I found the real issue ;-) If your linux desktop rendered 4K beautifully, seamlessly, and without any scaling issues right out of the box, I could all but guarantee that your opinion would be different.

semi-extrinsic 6y ago

FWIW, my main monitor is a 43" 4k display, and it works perfectly fine on AwesomeWM - but I' don't use any scaling, the 4k is purely for more screen real estate - literally like having 4 perfectly aligned borderless 24" monitors. I can fit 10 full A4 pages of text simultaneously.

tomxor 6y ago
Haven't you effectively escaped the super hi-dpi issues of parent? I think he is referring to use of smaller screens at 4k. Interesting idea thought just effectively having a massive monitor.
gorgoiler 6y ago
Which display in particular are you recommending, and what is the latency like?
- okasaki 6y ago
  I use Samsung 4k TV's (55in and 43in) at work and home and the experience is absolutely fantastic. In game mode the latency is reported to be 11ms and there's no difference visible to me compared to 60hz computer monitors.
  - xenihn 6y ago
    Do you have the specific model numbers? I'm buying a new monitor soon, and considering using a 4K TV. Would be great to check out the ones you're using!
    - okasaki 6y ago
      They're both ru7100. It may be called something else depending on where you are / may be replaced with newer models. It basically works out as 4 seamless 1080p monitors, and I use i3 for a 3x2 window layout
- semi-extrinsic 6y ago

zzo38computer 6y ago

> No matter what operating system you're on, you'll eventually run into an application that doesn't render in high dpi mode. It might depend on the program, too. Some might only work in pixels. Fortunately, it is usually not a problem if you are trying to run a program designed for Gameboy; the emulator should be able to scale it automatically, subject to the user setting. I don't know if any X server has a setting to magnify mouse cursor shapes, but it seems like it should be possible to implement in the X server. Also, it seems like SDL 1.x has no environment variable to magnify the image. My own program Free Hero Mesh (which I have not worked on in a while, because I am working on other stuff) allows icons to be of any size up to 255x255 pixels (the puzzle set can contain icons of any square size up to 255x255, and may have multiple sizes; it will try to find the best size based on the user setting, using integer scaling to grow them if necessary), but currently is limited to a single built-in 8x8 font for text. If someone ports it to a library that does allow zooming, then that might help, too. However, it is not really designed for high DPI displays, and it might not be changed unless someone with a high DPI display wants to use it and modifies the program to support a user option for scaling text too (and possibly also scaling icons to a bigger size than 255x255) (then I might merge their changes, possibly). Still, I don't need 4K. The size I have is fine, but unfortunately too many things use big text; some web pages zoom text by viewport size, which I hate, and a bigger monitor would then just make it worse.

bitwize 6y ago
What X server? You should be using Wayland. X does not intrinsically support automatic scaling. Wayland does.
- zzo38computer 6y ago
  The protocol is irrelevant. It isn't an extension to the protocol, and would not be seen by clients. It is an implementation detail.
  - bitwize 6y ago
    Technically, that's true, but "Wayland is inherently better at security/DPI scaling/other" is one of those cultural myths that eventually come true because of the people who believe in it. It would be possible to add these improvements to the X server, but no one wants to maintain or improve the X server anymore. All the developer effort is behind Wayland. So to get those benefits, you have to use Wayland.

auggierose 6y ago

If you are on macOS, all is good. Never had a problem with any of my 4 monitors (3x4K, 1x5K). I set the scaling to a size I like, and the text is super crisp. I don't see how any programmer can NOT like that.

mulmen 6y ago
How do you manage multiple monitors with MacOS? I was doing this until recently and every single login involved rearranging my windows because MacOS moves them all to whatever display woke up first. In my experience MacOS multi-monitor support is effectively non-existent. Recently I picked up a 49” ultra-ultra wide monitor (basically 2x27” panels). It is one monitor but MacOS can’t drive it. They just don’t detect that resolution. I switched to a 43” 4k monitor (technically more pixels) and MacOS drives it fine. My experience with MacOS is not “it just works” unless you are doing something Apple already predicted. That’s fine for me, I just wish they still sold a reasonable monitor themselves so I could be assured it would work properly.
- kitsunesoba 6y ago
  >How do you manage multiple monitors with MacOS? I was doing this until recently and every single login involved rearranging my windows because MacOS moves them all to whatever display woke up first. At least for apps that are dedicated to one screen + virtual desktop, right click its icon in the dock and assign it to that display and workspace. Note that the effectiveness of window restoration also depends on the make/model of your monitors – many manufacturers incorrectly share EDID's across all units of the same model and sometimes across multiple models, making it much more difficult for operating systems to uniquely identify them.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- eludwig 6y ago
  It helped me to check "Displays have separate spaces" in the Mission Control panel. MacOS seems to remember what went where with this checked.

TylerE 6y ago

4K on a desktop is just sorta silly. Now.... 1440p is a very useful bump over 1080.

turtlebits 6y ago
Being used to MacBooks with retina screens, 4K on at 30” is perfect to me as “retina”. Anything larger needs to be 5k or 6k. 1440p is passable on <24”.
sgt 6y ago
You still need to scale the resolution to make it easily readable on most common monitor sizes like 27". The end result is really good and sharp.
- hadlock 6y ago
  27" x 1440p has been my go-to for a while now. Works well without scaling between win/mac/linux, does not dominate the desk completely, high quality monitors are readily available in this resolution etc etc.
  - TylerE 6y ago
    I think my dream set up would be a 27" 1440P (What I currently have at home, with a pair of smaller (19" maybe?) 1080p screens on either side setup in portrait. Basically a similar screen area to 2x27", but without a bezel right in the center of my field of view, and the 1080x1920 screens will be a good size for displaying full page (e.g. PDF) at more or less full screen.
    - mulmen 6y ago
      At that point not just run an Ultrawide at 1440p?
      - jablan 6y ago
        The price is probably double.

coffeemaniac 6y ago

I miss i3 so much. But I've succumbed to laziness and have been using my various macbooks. Agree that it's a huge productivity gain, moreso than any font improvements.

dlannoye 6y ago

For #3, the creator of the i3 window manager is using the 8k monitor mentioned in the article I am pretty sure this is possible. https://michael.stapelberg.ch/posts/2017-12-11-dell-up3218k/ https://michael.stapelberg.ch/posts/2017-12-11-dell-up3218k/

salex89 6y ago

Completely agree! Went from a mediocre 2x1440p to high quality 2 x 4K, then back to a pair of equal quality 2x1440p. I would also add, when it comes to 4K and, for example, MacBooks, things fall apart quickly in my opinion. Cables, adapters/dongles/docking stations just must match up for everything to work in proper 60fps, and it gets worse if you have two external displays. As for my home set up, also stayed at 25" 1440p. Nice balance for work, hobby and occasional gaming without braking the bank for a top-tier GPU.

porker 6y ago
By equal quality 2x1440p monitors are we talking Eizo quality or Dell UltraSharp quality?
- salex89 6y ago
  Dell UltraSharp were the 4K and now 1440p. The previous ones were Asus.
spideymans 6y ago
>I would also add, when it comes to 4K and, for example, MacBooks, things fall apart quickly in my opinion. Cables, adapters/dongles/docking stations just must match up for everything to work in proper 60fps, and it gets worse if you have two external displays. I agree it's a bit of a mess, but USB-C monitors solve all those issues. I just plug my MacBook in with USB-C, and instantly my 4K (60 Hz) display is connected, along with external sound and any USB peripherals. No fussing with a million different cables and adapters. It's the docking workstation setup I've dreamed of for a decade.
- CaptainMarvel 6y ago
  It doesn’t solve all of the issues. The USB-C port can support DisplayPort 1.2 or 1.4 bandwidths and you have to make sure it matches up for some high-resolution monitors to work.

jcelerier 6y ago

i3 user on a 4K screen here, has worked fine since 2014 for me (with the exception of the random super old TCL/Tk app) ? https://i.imgur.com/b8jVooO.png https://i.imgur.com/b8jVooO.png

tomxor 6y ago

Another linux+i3 user here, I've not tried 4k yet but you confirmed my suspicions. I did a lot of research before buying an xps-13 and went with the 1080p version due to basically all the reasons you just stated + poor battery life and video performance. I have hope for the future though... what would really make transitioning easier is a way to automatically upscale incompatible programs, even if it means nearest neighbor scaling at least it will make them usable on super hi-dpi monitors.

tly_alex 6y ago

Same here.

z3t4 6y ago

Im on Gnome and use fractal scaling . 2x and everything got too big. But 1.6 looks OK. Its actually not on the app layer, its the screen that is scaled up. Although some low level programs can have issues with mouse pointer position if they dont take into account the scaling.

nine_k 6y ago

FWIW, switching between resolutions in my favorite desktop environment, Xfce, is two steps: # This affects every GTK app. xfconf-query -c xsettings -p /Xft/DPI -s 144 The second step is going to about:config in Firefox, and setting layout.css.devPixelsPerPx to a higher value than 1.0. I really need to write an extension to do that in one click. What is really tricky, though, it's having two monitors with different DPI. Win 10 does an acceptable job with it; no Linux tools I'm aware of can handle it reasonably well. Some xrandr incantations can offer partial solutions.

jandrese 6y ago
Even Win10 struggles when you move windows between different DPI domains. Apps will slide in HUGE or tiny until you get past the midway point. And when the system goes to sleep everything can go to hell. You can come back to small message windows being blown up to huge sizes or windows crushed down to a tiny square. You can forget about laying out your icons perfectly on your desktop too, they'll get rearranged all the time. Even more fun when you remote into a high DPI display with a low DPI display. It actually works pretty well, but stuff will get shrunk or blown up randomly when you to back to the high DPI display.
- StillBored 6y ago
  Logically having your OS maintain a consistent UI size makes sense until you try it without. I'm running a couple medium high density monitors alongside one of the highest density ones available. I don't scale the HIDPI monitor at all, which means when I drag windows to it they are tiny. Instead it works in two ways, as a status screen for activity monitors/etc and as a text/document editing screen. AKA putting adobe acrobat, firefox or sublime/emacs/etc on the high DPI screen and then zooming in gives all the font smoothing/etc advantages of high DPI without needing OS support. So the TLDR is, turn off dpi scaling, and leave the hidpi screen as a dedicated text editor/etc with the font sizes bumped to a comfortable size. Bonus here is that the additional effort of clicking the menu/etc will encourage learning keyboard shortcuts.
- Polylactic_acid 6y ago
  >Apps will slide in HUGE or tiny until you get past the midway point. This is a non issue to me. I don't use apps half way across 2 screens. Its just a minor bit of weirdness while dragging them.

bitexploder 6y ago

I have a 49" curved monitor. It is effectively two 27" 1440p monitors stapled together (5120x1440). It is the best monitor I have ever had. 1440p has a very decent [higher than typical] pixel density but is not "retina". Fonts look pretty smooth, but you can still see pixels if you try really hard. Overall, I do think high density screens look amazing, but the software has not quite caught up to them. The benefits are on the softer side, and if I could just have magical mega-high-DPI displays with no side effects, sure why not? As it stands, 49" curved monitor is pretty fine. It fits four windows side by side at reasonable resolutions. Primary apps go in the middle, such as code editor, etc.. Tertiary windows, such as documentation go on the outer edges. Still quite usable, but a little out of the way for extended reading.

abnercoimbre 6y ago
Hey, do you mind sharing more info. on how to get the monitor? I'm looking to invest in a curved one since it's an experience I've never had. And are there retina models out there, or is it not worth it, in your view?
- bitexploder 6y ago
  https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/dell-ultrasharp-49-curved-monitor-u4919dw/apd/210-arnw/monitors-monitor-accessories https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/dell-ultrasharp-49-curv... I like Retina DPI, but this is good enough. It’s not very curved, but it has some curvature. I don’t think it’s worth it. 1440p is good enough for me.
monting 6y ago
I have a 49” curved too! But it’s a UHD TV so it’s four 24” 1080p screen in one! Three/two portrait windows is great for reading, reducing scrolling.
CaptainMarvel 6y ago
I couldn’t agree more with this. A 49” 5120x1440 curved monitor is brilliant for productivity. It’s better than two or three separate monitors. I do miss high DPI but I wouldn’t trade this type of monitor for the current batch of smaller high DPI ones. There’s only two or three things that would make this better. A high DPI variant, more vertical space and a greater refresh rate. Given those two things, I think that’s the endgame for monitors (in a productivity context). (I think that’s 8x the bandwidth so it’s a while away!)

Bayart 6y ago

>My setup is 2x24" 1920x1200 monitors - so I get slightly more vertical pixels than true 1080p, but in the form of screen real estate rather than improved density. I'm working on an old 24"16/10 display (the venerable ProLite B2403WS) and an OK 32" 4K display with a VA panel. Both are properly calibrated. There is no amount of tinkering that can make fonts on the 24" look good. It looks like dog shit in comparison to the 4K screen. It might not be obvious when all you got in front of your eyes is the 24" display, but it's blatant side to side. On top of it, the real life vertical real estate of the 4K display is also quite larger. I've never been a big 16/9 fan, but frankly at the size monitors come in today and the market prices, I don't a reason not to pick a few of these for developing.

slantyyz 6y ago

So I'm a little nuts in that I run 2 x 27" 4K monitors side by side with no scaling. 27" is about the smallest I can tolerate 1:1 pixel sizes. Since aging has forced me into wearing reading glasses, I wear single vision computer glasses that are optimized for the distance range of my monitors' closest and furthest points. Because I dont have scaling enabled, I don't get any of the HiDpi issues that I've gotten on my laptops with Windows. I have found that I am still wanting for even more screen real estate, and for a time I had a pair of ultrawide 23" monitors underneath my main monitors, but it created more problems than it solved and I recently went back to only two monitors.

swader999 6y ago
I do the same with three but all in portrait mode.
- slantyyz 6y ago
  That's an interesting idea. I should look into that when I eventually upgrade. A stubborn part of me left the monitors in landscape because I occasionally play games, but I end up never doing that on my desktop. Because I prefer to use the same model of monitor when doing a grid, so I don't think I want to add to my existing setup, because my monitors are discontinued, and they're displayport only for 4K60. I think they have more than a few years of life left in them, but I'll definitely look into a configuration like yours at upgrade time.
  - swader999 6y ago
    I find it easier to look up and down than side to side. Too many ski and skateboard crashes with whiplash when younger.

monadic2 6y ago

I agree with all your points, however I’ve found the mac is extremely variable DPI friendly. I think the games with custom UIs (Europa Universalis IV comes to mind) are the only things that haven’t adapted and it’s hardly a problem if you set the scaling to “large text” or whatever, just a little pixelated like you would see on a 1080p screen.

boltzmann_brain 6y ago

To each their own but it's mindblowing to me that one cannot see a massive different in text quality of 4k or higher monitors compared to ancient sub 4k resolutions.

rvolosatovs 6y ago

> 1. No matter what operating system you're on, you'll eventually run into an application that doesn't render in high dpi mode. Depending on the OS that can mean it renders tiny, or that the whole things is super ugly and pixelated (WAY worse than on a native 1080p display) Never happened to me in 4 years, see below. That said, I barely use any graphical programs besides kitty, firefox, thunderbird and spotify. > 3. Configuring my preferred linux environment to work with 4k is either impossible or just super time consuming. I use i3 and it adds way more productivity to my workflow than "My fonts are almost imperceptively sharper" ever could This is just not true. I have used the same 32" 4k monitor for 4 years running NixOS with bspwm (a tiling window manager, which does even less than i3) on 3 different laptops - thinkpad x230 (at 30 Hz), x260 and x395 and it all worked completely fine. I used a script like this to setup monitors, I would run it every time I would change my monitor setup (e.g. on the go): https://github.com/rvolosatovs/infrastructure/blob/0e17a142193b10f5e73e8ecf8c04d6680454b49e/home/graphical.nix#L384-L422 https://github.com/rvolosatovs/infrastructure/blob/0e17a1421... It depends on a very simple tool I wrote, because I was sick with `xrandr`: https://github.com/rvolosatovs/gorandr https://github.com/rvolosatovs/gorandr , but `xrandr` could easily be used as alternative. Recently I switched to Sway on Wayland and it could not be smoother - everything just works with no scripting, including hot-plug. > I genuinely think 4k provides no real benefit to me as a developer unless the screen is 27" or higher, because increased pixel density just isn't required. If more pixels meant slightly higher density but also came with more usable screen real estate, that'd be what made the difference for me. Indeed, screen size is way more important than resolution. In fact, even 4k at 27" seemed too small for me when I had to use that in the office - I would either have to deal with super small font sizes and straining my eyes or sacrificing screen space by zooming in.

ogre_codes 6y ago

> 1. No matter what operating system you're on, you'll eventually run into an application that doesn't render in high dpi mode You lost me right here on line 1. If there are apps on MacOS that can't handle high dpi mode, I haven't run into them as a developer (or doing photo editing, video editing, plus whatever other hobbies I do). Also, I don't have any trouble with plugging my highDPI MacBook into a crappy 1080p display at work. > 3. Configuring my preferred linux environment to work with 4k is either impossible or just super time consuming. Things like this are exactly why I left Linux for MacOS. I absolutely get why you might want to stick with Linux, but this is a Linux + HighDPI issue (maybe a Windows + highDPI issue also), not a general case. > I genuinely think 4k provides no real benefit to me as a developer unless the screen is 27" or higher, because increased pixel density just isn't required. You could say the same for any arbitrary DPI; 96dpi isn't "Required", we got by fine with 72dpi. It's all about ergonomics as far as I'm concerned.

Polylactic_acid 6y ago
I have been using a 4k monitor and 2 1080p monitors on linux for a while now. The current state of things is that hidpi works correctly on everything I have run including proprietary apps. I'm also surprised when my wine programs scale properly as well. What does not work perfect is mixing hidpi and lowdpi screens. On wayland with wayland compatible apps it works fine but on X11 or with xwayland apps like electron it will not scale properly when you move the window to the other screen, it will scale to one screen and be wrong when moved over. Overall I don't find this to be too much of an issue and when chrome gets proper wayland support the problem will be 99% solved.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > I have been using a 4k monitor and 2 1080p monitors on linux for a while now. The current state of things is that hidpi works correctly on everything I have run including proprietary apps. It's good to hear things aren't as bad as some have suggested.
  - Polylactic_acid 6y ago

PascLeRasc 6y ago

You know, I was in complete agreement with the article and I was considering a 1440p monitor or something until I saw your comment and reflected on it. The most productive periods/jobs I can remember were on i3wm with a Goodwill 900p/19" monitor and a 20" iMac 10 years old at the time. But it's because I had access to good tools then like Neovim/Atom respectively. My work now requires an RDP Notepad.exe session so there's no monitor that will help me there. I guess software tools are way more important.

michaelmrose 6y ago
Is there no way to sync files with the remote environment so that you don't have to actually use notepad.exe

Legogris 6y ago

> 3. Configuring my preferred linux environment to work with 4k is either impossible or just super time consuming. I use i3 and it adds way more productivity to my workflow than "My fonts are almost imperceptively sharper" ever could What issues actually? Xmonad on Arch user here and I find the sweet spot for me is 27-32" 4k, 1440p on laptop (I guess 4k would be nice here too, but not sure if it motivates the increased power draw). After getting used to the increased real-estate, I do feel limited on my older 1080p laptop screen; fonts smaller than 8p (which is still all good) noticably impacts the readability to the point I can feel my eyes strain faster. It did take a bit of playing around with Dpi settings to get it right, though, out of the box it's not great. The Arch wiki has some great material. The only frustration I do have (which IS super-frustrating, specifically for web browsing) is with multi-monitor setups with different pixel density - your point 2, I guess. Even plugging anything larger than 19" with 1080p into my 1080p Thinkpad is annoying. I think it should be possible to configure it correctly but I just gave up and end up zooming in/out whenever I do this and send windows between screens. Haven't looked at it, but maybe a mature DE like KDE or GNOME (which, if you don't know, you can still use with i3) should be able to take care of this. Also, this is all on X11, have no idea if and how wayland differs.

tomc1985 6y ago

> 2. If the 4k screen is on your laptop, good luck ever having a decent experience plugging in a 1080p monitor. Also good luck having anyone's random spare monitor be 4k. I have been running two 1440p displays on a 4K retina MBP and the experience has been impressively seamless. Both with Catalina (the latest) and High Sierra The biggest problem is with Apple port splitters; they are crap and sometimes monitors wake from sleep with a garbled picture

29athrowaway 6y ago

> Good luck ever having a decent experience plugging in a 1080p monitor. A 4k monitor is now $300 (new). Used are even cheaper. > Configuring my preferred linux environment to work with 4k is either impossible or just super time consuming. I use i3 and it adds way more productivity to my workflow I use Gnome 3.36 and many HiDPI issues I was having before are now gone, without any extra configuration. > My argument in favor of 1080p is that I find text to just be... completely readable. It is readable but fonts are pixelated, unlike 4k. My only problem is that macOS has some artificial limitations when it comes to using non-Apple monitors. Like a lower refresh rate. My solution? Use Linux.

the_af 6y ago
$300 is a lot of money where I'm from. And they aren't available at that price here, anyway. What do you mean, fonts are pixelated at 1080p? Whether you can see the pixels probably depends on pixel size. I certainly can't see them on my 23" LG monitor unless I try really hard.

mixmastamyk 6y ago

I’ve had dual 4k monitors under Ubuntu Mate for years without problems so I’m gonna have to disagree. You can pry them out of my cold dead hands.

trabant00 6y ago

> 3. Configuring my preferred linux environment to work with 4k is either impossible or just super time consuming. I use i3 and it adds way more productivity to my workflow than "My fonts are almost imperceptively sharper" ever could Happy i3 arch linux 4k monitor user here for over 2 years. I only set an appropriate Xft.dpi for my monitor size/resolution in ~/.Xresources once and that was it. Can't imagine being easier than this tbh.

kubav 6y ago

I have 4K monitor on laptop and also as external monitor but I have no problem with linux (using debian testing with gnome 3). I can easily combine it with 1080p monitors. Everything works out of the box. I still switched to 1440p as 4K is just better looking 1080p. You cannot fit more information on the screen with scaling and without scaling everything is too small. I work as backend developer so space is more important for me than visual quality.

tapland 6y ago
Why not scale for example 50%? The same things hold true for 1440p (or are you just able to suck up things only getting a bit smaller?)

jnxx 6y ago

> No matter what operating system you're on, you'll eventually run into an application that doesn't render in high dpi mode. I am using using Emacs and tmux under Linux, in the Gnome desktop. Gnome has HDPI scaling. For me, that works fine with a 4K 43 inch display. The thing you need to watch out for is to get a graphics card with proper open source (FOSS) driver support. Some cards are crap and don't come with FOSS drivers. You can get them to run but it is a PITA on every kernel update. Don't do that to yourself, get a decent card.

da39a3ee 6y ago

> I genuinely think 4k provides no real benefit to me Could you clarify when in your life you've had a 4k screen with good OS support, so that we know what experience you are speaking from when you say that?

ghostpepper 6y ago

Since nobody else has mentioned it, if you like i3 you should give Sway a test drive. Wayland still has some rough edges (screen sharing, for example) but it supports high DPI monitors with fractional scaling almost out-of-the-box.

gimboland 6y ago

> 1. No matter what operating system you're on, you'll eventually run into an application that doesn't render in high dpi mode. I haven't had this experience (MacOS, 4K monitor for 2.5 years) > 2. If the 4k screen is on your laptop, good luck ever having a decent experience plugging in a 1080p monitor. Also good luck having anyone's random spare monitor be 4k. shrug - 4K and 1080p seem to work together just fine for me. I've currently got a 27" 4K monitor and a 24" 1080p monitor both running off my 2015 13" MacBook Pro; the 4K is on DisplayPort (60Hz @ 3840x2160) and the 1080p is on HDMI (and it happens to be in portrait mode). I use all three screens (including the laptop's), and while the 1080p is noticeably crappier than the other two, it's still usable, and the combination of all three together works well for me. A couple of extra tools (e.g. BetterTouchTool) really help with throwing things between monitors, resizing them to take up some particular chunk of the screen, etc. - my setup's quite keyboard-heavy with emphasis on making full use of the space inspired by years of running i3 (and before that xmonad, ratpoison and others) on linux and freebsd. > 3. Configuring my preferred linux environment to work with 4k is either impossible or just super time consuming. That's a statement about linux and i3, not monitors. (And again, I like i3, but stating this limitation as if it's a problem with monitors not i3 seems... odd.)

DJHenk 6y ago
> > 3. Configuring my preferred linux environment to work with 4k is either impossible or just super time consuming. > That's a statement about linux and i3, not monitors. (And again, I like i3, but stating this limitation as if it's a problem with monitors not i3 seems... odd.) It is also wrong. I am a long time i3 user. Never had a problem with it, never done anything special. Most of the time I'm running Debian stable, so I even use software versions that most people consider 'old'.

shezi 6y ago

I'm not going to argue your preferences, but then why don't you get one 50 inch 4k display? That's about four of your current displays at similar density on a single cable. And probably at a similar price point, too. Or, if you are using decent graphics hardware, you could even get two of them and have four times more display space than you have now.