Minimum size 4k2k
- Thread starter Krillian
- Start date
I think the general consensus is 32 inch. I've yet to try 4k but read about lots of people struggling on the desktop and with apps at 28 inch as text is too small and windows scaling isn't good.
Because scaling support is iffy on Windows and most software at the moment the general recommendation is 31.5"+. On a 28" model I found things quite nice with 125% scaling, but not natively. Some applications don't scale at all and others look a bit rubbish when they're scaled so it's best to stick to native if possible. On a 31.5" or larger screen you could probably get away with native settings, but it's down to preference.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
Something in the high 30's would be ideal - 38-39"
28" is a little small for me, I'd say a 32" 4k would be perfect. That said, as scaling improves and high dpi monitors become more prevalent, lower sizes will be better because the pixel density of 4k is impressive, fonts look incredibly sharp... but I'd say there is some room for improvement 
Even going from my 15.6" 1080p laptop (141 ppi) to a 28" 4k (157 ppi) the difference in quality is easily noticeable. Squeezing even a few more ppi in would make a big impact.
Consider this: Font antialiasing and subpixel rendering still makes a very noticeable difference even on a 28" 4k. Squeezing in more pixels per inch has to be the way forward!
Even going from my 15.6" 1080p laptop (141 ppi) to a 28" 4k (157 ppi) the difference in quality is easily noticeable. Squeezing even a few more ppi in would make a big impact.
Consider this: Font antialiasing and subpixel rendering still makes a very noticeable difference even on a 28" 4k. Squeezing in more pixels per inch has to be the way forward!
With my 28" 4k monitor I find things too small. Yes in a game that supports the resolution it looks beautiful on a smaller screen but outside of full screen games I would much rather have a 32+ Inch screen because I'd like to use the real estate since things don't scale that great. I would rather a 4k monitor be like a 2x2 1080p monitor configuration but without the bezels. But that's just me.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 11,924
- Location
- London, McLaren or Radical
31.2" gives the same DPI as a 15.6" 1920x1080 laptop monitor... I am happy with this size, so I'm aiming for a 32" 3840*2160 screen
I can see how that would be too small for some people though.
28 would still be bareable for me, but I might find myself squinting a bit depending on the viewing distance.
I can see how that would be too small for some people though.
28 would still be bareable for me, but I might find myself squinting a bit depending on the viewing distance.
That is even more pointless resolution/size
Because you will see nothing more, and you will strain your graphic cards and while still needs to zoom in making it no better than a 2560x1440 monitor of same size at the end of the day.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 11,924
- Location
- London, McLaren or Radical
Not everyone has bad eyesight Panos 
I don't quite get that scaling thing- is it up to the OS (Microsoft) or to the software developers (Adobe, Autodesk, etc) to make sure the programs (I am not talking about the OS UI here) have normal sized menus and buttons?
If it is up to the developers- even if Windows 9 get it's s..t together how would that solve the issue with tiny menus, icons, buttons in the programs when running 4K on a 28" monitor?
If it is up to the developers- even if Windows 9 get it's s..t together how would that solve the issue with tiny menus, icons, buttons in the programs when running 4K on a 28" monitor?
Exactly. It surely depends on both. Unless Windows 9 has some sort of smart feature to override software-based scaling.
