291–296 of 296 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure that is the reason, but I find it hard to believe that ripping content could possibly be that much harder just because you're on Windows. And Netflix exclusives regularly make it to pirate sites in 4K afaik?
> And Netflix exclusives regularly make it to pirate sites in 4K afaik? Yes, generally the day of release.
No 4K versions of most shows from the last month.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(Joke) Unless you're North Korean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Star_OS Jokes aside: > Had Apple not gone to OS X 20 years ago, I suspect desktop Linux would be materially further along, but with a well-designed and well-supported commercial *nix OS in the market that ships married to bespoke hardware, there's materially less motivation to make desktop Linux better for people who won't want to have to tinker to…
Android is, but nobody's running Android on the desktop. ChromeOS is, I guess, but how much of a true desktop OS is it vs. a front-end for Google? (Not trolling; I honestly don't know because I don't use any Google products, so it's never been on my radar.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes retina display is 2x. But saying a display is 4k doesn't tell anything about its pixel density or scaling. I mean with fractional scaling where 1 But more to the point you can't easily display those screenshots with different fractional scaling without pixel grid misalignment. > On the other hand; from my own experience (I own linux, macos and windows pcs) on the same display Macos text rendering is much more s…
> And 4K @100% is unusable anyway. That depends on the physical display size and viewing distance.
If you need more working space there's always 5K. That's 1440p@2x. You can even DIY one for pretty cheap. I know there's at least one 3:2 4K display on the market as well, though I wish there was a 24" version.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And 4K @100% is unusable anyway. That depends on the physical display size and viewing distance.
No, not really. 4K@100% is 4x working space as 1080p. There's no way to put that much information in your field of view all at once. If you scale it up (or get really close) where anything is legible it goes out of your field of view and you can only look at (roughly) 1/3 sized region of the screen at a time. That's not usable as a single display. You're basically emulating multi-monitor 1080p at this point. If you n…
That's a distinction that doesn't have to exist. If you don't insist on maximizing all windows, a single large monitor gives you more flexibility that multiple monitors with the same total screen area. E.g. for many applications 1080p is too wide to be effectively be used by a single window but too narrow to have two windows side by side. Dividing a 4K or screen by 3 is much better and also allows you to freely choose the window sizes. Some basic tiling support in your WM (either automatic or via shortcuts) is recommended ofc.
I use a 38" 3840x1600 monitor (= about 110 DPI) at 100% scaling and it works just fine for me at normal sitting distance. That's the same horizontal resolution as 4K and I don't think the missing 560 pixel rows would make much difference to how I would use it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And 4K @100% is unusable anyway. That depends on the physical display size and viewing distance.
No, not really. 4K@100% is 4x working space as 1080p. There's no way to put that much information in your field of view all at once. If you scale it up (or get really close) where anything is legible it goes out of your field of view and you can only look at (roughly) 1/3 sized region of the screen at a time. That's not usable as a single display. You're basically emulating multi-monitor 1080p at this point. If you n…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, not really. 4K@100% is 4x working space as 1080p. There's no way to put that much information in your field of view all at once. If you scale it up (or get really close) where anything is legible it goes out of your field of view and you can only look at (roughly) 1/3 sized region of the screen at a time. That's not usable as a single display. You're basically emulating multi-monitor 1080p at this point. If you n…
> That's not usable as a single display. You're basically emulating multi-monitor 1080p at this point. That's a distinction that doesn't have to exist. If you don't insist on maximizing all windows, a single large monitor gives you more flexibility that multiple monitors with the same total screen area. E.g. for many applications 1080p is too wide to be effectively be used by a single window but too narrow to have tw…
Apple's "retina 4K" LG Ultrafine 4K Display is actually 4096x2304 at this size, which is much higher density at 218.58 PPI.