this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2025
512 points (92.4% liked)
Technology
76457 readers
3763 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Subjective obviously.
Oh there are more pixels, sure. But not worth the money and most (and a big most) applications want more frames and smoother movement with less input lag over more pixels. The push for 4k gaming has went no where and it has been more then 10 years. You want to watch some 4k video? sure! That is a use case, but just get a TV with the nicer lumen, slower rates and comparably tiny price tag. I can not stop people from buying stupid crap, but I am judging them.
What about the vast majority of people who stare at screens for work?
Frame rates aren't really important, it's making things more readable in less space.
The cost / benefit is a completely different dynamic.
Oh I said it before there are use cases. Most working monitors are 1080p since excel is not really benefited from 4k+. However I have seen some graphic designers want the higher resolutions for example.
The vast majority of people working will get pissed at you if you changed their monitor to an ultra high resolution (I have been the one getting yelled at) without scaling it to look like 1080p. No one wants to squint to use their workstation.
There's this thing called scaling that allows you to see things in an appropriate size but higher definition.
Anyone who uses spreadsheets regularly wants the extra real estate. Anyone who works with complex documents wants the extra real estate.
It's not about more dots on your 24 inch, it's about larger monitors that can display more stuff simultaneously. Instead of 4x 1080p monitors you can have 2x larger 4k monitors. Offer this to anyone who makes money by staring at a screen all day and they'll tell you it's worth it.
And yet as I have stated this is not the case for most users. I remember when a national here bank decided to do an "upgrade" to 4k monitors there was so much push back from users (in this case mortgage lending) that after installing the monitors I was back two weeks later to change them back.
People who use spreadsheets regularly (myself included) would rather have a second monitor or a bigger one then one 4k one. I have a 32 inch 1080p monitor as my secondary and it works great at a cheap price. I went with one that is brighter and a slower refresh rate since I don't need or want that on a secondary. And if you are going big why spend the money on a 4k one if you are just going to use scaling anyway?
I honestly find this hard to believe. I have 2x 32 inch monitors on my desk and in 1920x1080 they're ugly to the point of distraction.
4k isn't that expensive. you can get 32 inch 4k monitors for a few hundred dollars.
Scaling is not the same as reducing the resolution.