5 ms·
It's pretty clear that 5k / 218ppi just has no significant market appeal at this point This is apparently true, and it's baffling. I was able to pick up one of
by orangecat 5y ago
It's pretty clear that 5k / 218ppi just has no significant market appeal at this point
This is apparently true, and it's baffling. I was able to pick up one of the now-discontinued 5k PC displays a few years ago, and it's fantastic in Linux and Windows with 2x scaling.
- btgeekboy 5y agoI’m trying to make a 32” 4K work for me, and Windows’ 125% scaling is hot garbage. Macos is slightly better, but it’s still obvious it’s not an integer multiple of native.
- oblak 5y ago27 1440 is fine. Is 32 4k that higher dpi wise?
- kllrnohj 5y ago27" 1440p is only 109 ppi. Basically unchanged since the dawn of computer monitors. 32" 4k is then 137 ppi, and 5k 27" is 218 ppi. All of these are pathetically small numbers compared to the >400ppi we all carry in our pockets, though.
- arvinsim 5y agoIf am going to put my tin foil hat on, then I would think it's a deliberate action to keep us glued to our mobile devices.
- 14u2c 5y agoNo way. The difference between 1440p and 4k at 27" is night and day if you are staring at text (code) all day.
- thirdsun 5y ago> 27 1440 is fine That may be your opinion. I'd say it's downright terrible.
- searls 5y agoThis was absolutely true five years ago but there's been so few recent attempts since GPUs, Windows/Linux, and fast connectors have improved that I think this has become an apparent axiom when it's really more of an untested hypothesis.
- p1necone 5y agoI think this is just because 4k has been settled on as the standard, and the difference between 4k and 5k is too small for most manufacturers to bother offering both. You'll likely see 8k as the next common step up from that (it's already happening with TVs). Who knows, maybe we'll have this same conversation again then because Apple will release a 9k display at that point.