Nearly no one wants TVs for monitors, the evidence is LG's OLEDs which gamers will take 1440p ultrawides with infinitely worse picture quality over, just for the more reasonable form factor.
It has a bulky monitor stand, but an Ergotron will allow you to mount it on an arm secured to the desk with enough range to move it right to the edge of the desk. You could also mount it on the wall.
So as long as you have a wider desk, like 27" which are available at Ikea, you're good to go. With a good window manager you can do magic with this monitor.
The "if you can manage it" part is an awkward setup usually with terrible ergonomics (a monitor too far away is worse for posture because you subconsciously tilt forward), it takes a ton of space, it looks hideous
-
Forgive my for my bluntness, but I am soooo tired of every conversation about improving monitors being sidetracked by people act like using a TV-sized TV as a computer monitor is better than strictly anything.
It's like saying using your hand saw as a flat head screw driver is strictly better because it had a larger handle... as long as you can line it up in the screw.
In fact your suggestion is worse than standard, most people accept you'll never sit far enough away from a 65" TV to have the same apparent size as a 27" monitor and settle for "small enough" apparent size
-
I can't be bothered to do the exact math here but even at normal TV viewing distanced meant to fill your entire view the recommended distance is 5.5ft to 8ft.
Getting it down to the same apparent size of a 27" monitor would mean sitting across a very large room...
There's no way to have your cake and eat it too on this, either you'll have worse pixel density, or you'll need a very unnatural setup.
You talking to someone who upgraded from a 4k/32" equivalent ("5k" 40" ultrawide) to the XDR just for the pixel density increase, and it's no contest at all: even the most casual PC user would immediately appreciate the bump.
It's not a caveat, it's the whole point. To not have your eyes straining to focus closely the screen needs to be far away, can't have one without the other. The people that value that start at that point of figuring out how to be able to have the screen far away enough. For them it's not a caveat, it's a requirement. So for them when they go shopping for screens the 8K 65" option totally dominates the 5K 27" and is a strictly better option.
> most people accept you'll never sit far enough away from a 65" TV to have the same apparent size as a 27" monitor and settle for "small enough" apparent size
The cases I'm referring do put it far enough away, that's the point, it's how you get a 65" image down to 27" on a desk equivalent. That suggestion shows up once in a while on HN when people discuss eye strain. You've now gotten another answer from someone that does something completely different and uses the 8K TV as a multi-screen setup on a single screen. That's the problem with these discussions. A TV or projector used 5+ meters away, an external screen on your desk, and a 14" laptop at keyboard distance are completely different use cases. Yet often these discussions end up on ">X DPI is essential" without considering this factor. It seems no one can imagine that other people use their screens very differently from them and it turns into a religious war.