M0oP0o

Ha, and soooo much more.

Anyone who uses spreadsheets regularly wants the extra real estate. Anyone who works with complex documents wants the extra real estate.

And yet as I have stated this is not the case for most users. I remember when a national here bank decided to do an "upgrade" to 4k monitors there was so much push back from users (in this case mortgage lending) that after installing the monitors I was back two weeks later to change them back.

People who use spreadsheets regularly (myself included) would rather have a second monitor or a bigger one then one 4k one. I have a 32 inch 1080p monitor as my secondary and it works great at a cheap price. I went with one that is brighter and a slower refresh rate since I don't need or want that on a secondary. And if you are going big why spend the money on a 4k one if you are just going to use scaling anyway?

~~ICE~~ america is out of control and beyond repair - This ~~agency~~ nation needs to be stripped down to the studs. ~~Dems~~ The world should start preparing now.

That seems better.

Maybe we are all in the bad place.

One of us has clearly stronger feelings on 4K+ monitors. And that is fine.

And that's not releated to the resolution yet people have tied higher resolutions to better quality.

It is your fault if you start an argument over your inability to read however.

Oh I said it before there are use cases. Most working monitors are 1080p since excel is not really benefited from 4k+. However I have seen some graphic designers want the higher resolutions for example.

The vast majority of people working will get pissed at you if you changed their monitor to an ultra high resolution (I have been the one getting yelled at) without scaling it to look like 1080p. No one wants to squint to use their workstation.

Why is it that this example keeps coming back as if having your ultra high resolution using scaling to look like 1080p is not a self burn? Its not a worth while cost for the monitor, more so when you run them in lower resolutions for performance anyway. You would be foolish to go for a ultra high resolution monitor over a lower response time or higher frequency. The desktop argument is pathetic, its the desktop, no one but arch users spend their time stareing at it.

Retrospection gas kinda exists.

Oh there are more pixels, sure. But not worth the money and most (and a big most) applications want more frames and smoother movement with less input lag over more pixels. The push for 4k gaming has went no where and it has been more then 10 years. You want to watch some 4k video? sure! That is a use case, but just get a TV with the nicer lumen, slower rates and comparably tiny price tag. I can not stop people from buying stupid crap, but I am judging them.

Yes, we are clearly using so much fidelity that 4k is needed.... and 3d TVs are going to come on back. I am not saying you can not tell the difference, I am saying people want smooth frame rates over pixels and that 4k monitors are not worth it. That all the bullshit sold to users is just that. But hey thanks for bringing up my mother, who does not have curves (unless ash is curvy?).