3 ms·

I had a similar first reaction. My main monitor is 28" 4k 16:9 and more vertical sounds nice. This monitor is 6144×3456, which is 1.6x more pixels in each dire

I had a similar first reaction. My main monitor is 28" 4k 16:9 and more vertical sounds nice. This monitor is 6144×3456, which is 1.6x more pixels in each direction (2.56x total pixels), and physically a bit bigger. So I feel like I'd get the extra real estate I want. Heck, I might be comfortable even adding some more inches to the side, making it more widescreen! However I really don't want a 60Hz monitor. Everything is much smoother at even 90Hz. That's my dealbreaker.

ComputerGuru 4y ago
You might not actually get (that much) more usable real estate - it depends on how well your machine handles fractional dpi scaling. Odds are the virtual pixels will be too small at the same DPI you are using with all those extra hardware pixels but only stuffed into an extra 2" diagonal, so you'll have to increase the dpi configuration. Your current monitor has 157 ppi while this one has 220. I don't know what DPI you're currently running, but 157 is pushing it for 100% DPI, and totally not doable at 220.
- rektide 4y ago
  I develop at native res on my Macbooks sometime, which are all 254 DPI. They used to run Linux & it was more than fine there too. I have good wall-mount arms for my displays so I have a lot of freedom to position. I find that generally I can scale up or scale down the font in most applications, without crude fractional scaling measures. That the buttons/menu bars are all tiny is fine with me. I do wish we'd stop just fractionally scaling everything. On the web, having absurd DPI is so rarely a problem. But applications & OSes are still stuck in a very crude world where nothing can be adapted/adjusted, everything is all fixed sized, carefully laid out. Both have a lot more they could do to allow users to experience things as they want. But we seem to have been moving towards more blunt approaches- retreating from any kind of semi-sophisticated attempts- for a while now.
  - ComputerGuru 4y ago
    I could see using the native ppi on macOS and maybe Linux, but on Windows where there are native controls at fixed 32x32 (or smaller!) sizes in use for toolbars, etc in many applications its unfortunately a lot more difficult.

ComputerGuru 4y ago

You might not actually get (that much) more usable real estate - it depends on how well your machine handles fractional dpi scaling. Odds are the virtual pixels will be too small at the same DPI you are using with all those extra hardware pixels but only stuffed into an extra 2" diagonal, so you'll have to increase the dpi configuration. Your current monitor has 157 ppi while this one has 220. I don't know what DPI you're currently running, but 157 is pushing it for 100% DPI, and totally not doable at 220.

rektide 4y ago
I develop at native res on my Macbooks sometime, which are all 254 DPI. They used to run Linux & it was more than fine there too. I have good wall-mount arms for my displays so I have a lot of freedom to position. I find that generally I can scale up or scale down the font in most applications, without crude fractional scaling measures. That the buttons/menu bars are all tiny is fine with me. I do wish we'd stop just fractionally scaling everything. On the web, having absurd DPI is so rarely a problem. But applications & OSes are still stuck in a very crude world where nothing can be adapted/adjusted, everything is all fixed sized, carefully laid out. Both have a lot more they could do to allow users to experience things as they want. But we seem to have been moving towards more blunt approaches- retreating from any kind of semi-sophisticated attempts- for a while now.
- ComputerGuru 4y ago
  I could see using the native ppi on macOS and maybe Linux, but on Windows where there are native controls at fixed 32x32 (or smaller!) sizes in use for toolbars, etc in many applications its unfortunately a lot more difficult.