Why do people act as if "4k" is something new? 10 year

>>56995426
>The IBM T220 and T221 are LCD monitors sold between 2001 and 2005, with a native resolution of 3840×2400 pixels (WQUXGA) on a screen with a diagonal of 22.2 inches (564 mm). This works out as over 9.2 million pixels, with pixel density of 204 pixels per inch (80 dpcm, 0.1245 mm pixel pitch), much higher than contemporary computer monitors (about 100 pixels per inch) and approaching the resolution of print media. The display family was nicknamed "Big Bertha" in some trade journals. Costing around $8400 in 2003, the displays saw few buyers.
>$8400
jesus christ

>>56995426
so basically the price point and having to use a magnifying glass to use it?

I've always wanted one of those. By the way, does anyone know what DE is that? I can't recognize it.

>>56995426
>IBM: Hey guys! I made this great monitor, wanna buy it?
>People: No, fuck off and die NERD.
>Apple: Hey guys! I made this great monitor and attached it to this laptop that doesn't have enough power to drive it, wanna buy it?
>People: Take all my money!!!!!! I wanna suck your dick.

>>56995426

look at the device config 5 lines down fag

> Modeline "1920x2400_24"
>not 4k
>impressive
>not 4k

File: 1363273499846.png (97KB, 1440x851px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1440x851px

>>56995617
More like
>fuck off until it runs SHOOTAN GAEMS

>>56995650
It's 2x 1920x2400 = 3840x2400 = 4k

>>56995426
Show me one recent instance of someone acting like 4K is new.

>>56995552
FVWM I think

>>56995552
It's actually just Windows XP

>>56995426
I've been waiting to pick one of these up for less than $200 when I get a chance on ebay.

Is there a single 4k tv worth buying anyway?

Blame hollywood of shilling HD AND FULL HD for sheep.

>>56995426
Well it's not some new fangled technology that we've only just worked out how to do, the way people say things are new is the fact they are appearing in catalogs and online for sale at a significant frequency, not that they have just been invented and they are the first ever.

>>56995426
because we're on a consumer technology board unfortunately