> This is common on 4k displays as many are too small for 100% scaling to be readable but too big for 200%. This is why I went for 32" 2560x1440 when I got a l

> This is common on 4k displays as many are too small for 100% scaling to be readable but too big for 200%. This is why I went for 32" 2560x1440 when I got a larger monitor. Very similar pixel pitch to the 24" 1920x1080 units that I had before (one of which stands beside it in portrait, so 1080x1920). I didn't need more smoothness, just wanted more on screen without needing to make things smaller.