Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by BeFlatXIII 755 days ago
But that doesn't explain why the market settled on 27" and 32" as the de facto 4K sizes instead of 24" or 22". Apple was right on their 220dpi.
3 comments

32" is large enough that you can get away with 100% scaling and have much more actual workspace instead of increased clarity. It's not really until you get to the 15" or 17" laptops 4k starts being about high DPI and in that space the MacBook Pro screens actually overshoot the target a bit.
If my desk were large enough to support a pair of them, I'd be willing to try 32" 4K @ 1X.
Because most people pick monitors by size, not resolution and PPI.

4K is also popular because it fit within the capabilities of common HDMI and DisplayPort ports on people’s computers and cables.

If you try to sell a monitor that doesn’t work well out of the box with the average laptop, it’s going to have an extremely high return rate. That’s why display resolution will always lag behind the common capabilities of your average HDMI port on a cheap laptop.

There were 24" 4K monitors a while ago, but they stopped making them. Presumably not enough people were buying.

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/monitor/#r=384002160&F=355...

I had one, Dell's UP2414Q. It was a piece of shit, mostly due to requiring multi-stream transport to run in 60 hz mode. So you'd get a GPU driver or OS update and the screen would stop working. Sometimes the panel would split in half and one of them would black out or shift its content sideways so there was a seam in the middle and a piece of the edge wrapped around to the center. Would not recommend.

The ones afterward that got rid of the MST requirement might've been better. Pixel density was great.

I have a pair of LG 24" 4K monitors. It's a limitation of Apple Silicon that limits one to being driven at 30Hz (but the other runs at 60 just fine).