4K monitors?

[lee]

Tim <ignored_mailbox at yahoo.com.au> writes:

> Tim:
>>> I tend to agree regarding things like resolution.  Screen dimensions and
>>> resolutions are fixed entities, and should be set to exactly match the
>>> hardware involved.
>
> lee:
>> Many people still don't see it that way.  And in a way, they are right:
>> Nobody prevents you to use 800x600 on a display which is capable of
>> 1920*1200.
>
> However, modern displays only work well at one resolution, their native
> resolution.  Exact halves can work, but odd divisions do not work well.
> Some of them are bloody awful.

Yes, I know --- and many ppl don't realise.

>
>>> So simply playing with screen is X by Y pixels to set things up is
>>> really inadequate.
>
>> When you consider screen resolutions as fixed entities, what other
>> choice do you have but to set up the resolutions of your displays as X
>> by Y pixels?
>
> None, to be pedantic.  But people bodge the resolution to solve other
> problems:
>
>   The size of the fonts
>   The size of the icons
>   The size of graphics
>
> Which really ought to be controlled, directly, and individually.

The ppl who don't realise that they are supposed to use the resolution
their display was made for probably tend to think that reducing the
resolution makes everything bigger and easier to read.  You might have
to remove an obvious way to change the resolution and give them obvious
way to adjust these things.

Besides, ppl tend not to realise that there is a relationship between
the size of the display and a reasonable resolution.  A 21" display made
for 1920x1200 is silly because you have to make everything so large that
the advantage of the relatively high resolution is negated.  And
displays that are much wider than high (1920x1050 or whatever that is)
suck --- probably even if you turn them by 90 degrees because they
aren't wide enough then ...  That's particularly awful with laptops
nowadays.


-- 
Fedora release 20 (Heisenbug)