Hacker News Reader

Comment by PhasmaFelis | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, I'm amused by the idea that a 4.7" screen with nearly the same resolution as the 13" laptop I'm using right now is somehow insufficient for media.

View on HN

But how will you watch 4K video streams on the go, when you don't have a 4K screen to admire the "Buffering…" notification?

I like your comment. But before you can load the buffering icon, you have run out of mobile data.

I think most users do not own a 4K monitor at home or in their companies. I am not sure if 4K recording/ decoding is useful in this period.

> I think most users do not own a 4K monitor at home or in their companies.

I've just migrated one of our offices from 17" 1280x1024 screens to handed down 24" 1920x1200 screens. The latter were replaced in another office with 25" 2560x1440 screens… 4K is just not cost effective right now.

Engineers are paid six figure salaries but you're not willing to spend $600 on a display?

If I have to staff several offices, $600 apiece quickly escalates.

And no, not engineers. Marketers.

I only just got my first proper HD monitor at home, and we have exactly one 4K monitor at work for compatibility testing.

Versions of Windows earlier than 10 do display scaling badly, so having a very high resolution monitor can be unusable.

Doesn't Windows 10 just add better scaling for multiple screens with different pixel densities? Normal high-dpi support was IMHO quite sufficient since Vista (of course, oftentimes depending on the application).

In 7 at least it's completely useless, because "depending on the application" means it works nowhere. Not even Windows' own UI is consistently scaled, never mind random third party applications.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com