Why do people hate pixels?

>>59308701

>OS's can't scale it properly

Whoa, wait a minute there. Maybe *yours* can't. Mine handles it just fine.

hate pixels as in we want less or hate as in we dont want to see them.

i feel both about your thread

>>59308701
gg op

>>59308701
>1440P
>not a dead stop-gap resolution
Pick one and only one, 1440p was never a resolution that was going to stick around, not until a mainstream replacement was found for 1080p which as anyone knows is 4k.
1440p was nice for those who wanted more pixels and was supported on almost all modern graphics cards and display connectors (ie DVI).
Now with panel makers revving up for 4K and graphics cards getting more powerful there is less and less reason for 1440p.

>>59308701
>getting a 4k screen when you can get an ultrawide monitor

plebe

>>59308701
>It's lagger, OS's can't scale it properly, it's harder to push, kills battery life
t. mactoddler

>>59309038

It's funny you'd say that, because MacOS is literally the only OS that *can* scale high-DPI properly.

>>59308795
No, your standards of "just fine" are lower than dirt.

File: Screenshot from 2017-03-08 18-47-00.png (844KB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

844KB, 2560x1600px

>>59309078
wrong

>>59309097

By all means, clarify. To what are you referring?

>>59309078
Windows can also scale high-DPI just fine in multiples of 2 1440p -> 720p, 4k -> 1080 etc
Linux and Mac still does it better for any arbitrary resolution.

I haven't noticed this lagger or OS's ca'nt scale it properly. No battery life either. The highest quality panels are typically high resolution, too, because then they can charge more for it. And the bandwidth exists to be eaten, unless you're talking Amerifat's phones.

>>59308988
1440p144 > 4K60 for gaming.

>>59308701
>1440P monitor with HDR and freesync when?

Later this year, apparently.

>>59308701
>Quad HD is the next step
At what screen size and what viewing distance?

>>59309122
Your standards of "just fine."

>>59309245
(you)

>>59309245

If you don't clarify soon, you're basically admitting by default that you have no basis on which to make that claim.

>>59309175

Windows scaling is horse shit. My only Windows 10 computer -- a Win10 game console -- has trouble with it all the time. I connected it to a large HDTV, and its auto-scaling chose a setting that caused several different non-resizable windows to spawn off of both the top *and* bottom of the screen.

If you have to fuck with it to make it functional or change it on a situational basis, it's not good scaling.

File: 2012%2F12%2F04%2F6b%2F9stunningex.bof.jpg (197KB, 1200x627px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1200x627px

>Once pixels get so small that you can't see them (like 4k on my 15" laptop), you don't get any benefit.


You stupid fucking retard, the point of high PPI is make pixels so damn small they 'vanish' and you no longer see the jagged edges of pixels everywhere.

>Quad HD is the next step, not 4k.
nigger, what do you think 4K is ? its 1080 x 4

>>59309119
>those fonts
Did you purposely fuck them up? MacOS usually has A+ tier font rendering

>>59308988
Personally I would not consider buying a 4K screen for AT LEAST another 5 years.

Game-wise anything less than around 120hz is shit, and graphics cards are still a long ways from being able to push anything relatively modern at 4K at high framerates; 1440p by comparison is much more plausible.

The other issue is high-DPI scaling, which as others have noted is still a problem with a lot of software. There's no benefit in making screen elements smaller and smaller - the point is to be able to display things at a reasonable size without noticeable pixilation. Again, 1440p doesn't strictly need any scaling options when used with a 24-27" screen.

1440p therefore has more than enough time and benefits to be a viable option.

>>59309175
>Windows can also scale high-DPI just fine in multiples of 2 1440p -> 720p, 4k -> 1080 etc
I might add that even if you don't scale it by exactly 2 ( 200%), you won't really notice a difference anyways since the pixels as so damn small to begin with.
If some window or graphic didn't have perfect scaling and had an extra column of pixels at either end, would anyone notice ? probably not.

>>59308701
My HMD disagrees with you.

>>59308701
i had quad hd crap half a decade ago.

>>59309298
HD is 720p. Full HD is 1080p

Dumb, I know...