• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

LG Announces the UltraFine 5K and UltraFine 4K Monitors

Yeah, people with more money than brains will usually buy anything, if you can make it shiny enough.
But here's the thing: when the first thing thing you think about when looking at a monitor is DPI scaling, it means you don't actually want the monitor running at its native resolution. You may find the odd usecase where it may make sense, but overall it just means there are too many pixels per inch.

With PROPER DPI scaling, you can get super sharp (retina-speak) text and lines on display, because you can make use of excellent high DPI fonts and sub-pixel rendering to create text and lines that appear to feature no cusps unlike lower resolution displays. All this is done at NATIVE resolution of the display, the effective displayed content is less than suggested by the resolution of the display, but you gain enormous sharpness (such that at the reading distance your eyes are unable to discern pixels or effects of spatial quantization). This makes reading text (especially smaller fonts because they are subjected to more relative quantization) and vectorized images/art a lot more enjoyable and easier. I believe this is what a lot of people who have never experienced proper DPI-scaling have trouble visualizing. The best analogy is to think that you have enough GPU power to always use the highest setting in anti-aliasing on a 4k display, such that all lines, text and borders of any game are razor sharp and you are unable to see "jaggies".

I have only had the chance to use Windows 10 + 4K screen once earlier this year and I found that many applications (even those that came bundled with the laptop) did not scale properly. This is in stark contrast with OS X, when all bundled applications scale properly and just about all applications since late 2012 (when the first "Retina" Macbooks came out) have scaled properly with razor-sharp text and lines. Even earlier applications are handled by OS X properly (if it isn't high-DPI aware, the OS apparently renders it as if it was viewed on regular-DPI screen), you don't get the benefit of the razor sharp text and lines, but it certainly is properly sized on the screen and usable versus the super-tiny fonts of applications in Windows 10.

By the way, I did not appreciate your insult about me having more money than brains. Let's refrain from stereotypes and applying it to members here, who are trying to make a contribution to the thread.
 
Last edited:
No thanks, I'll stay with 40" @ 1920x1080

Can you actually buy 1080p monitors that big or are you using a TV?

1080p is aids at 27" so I'm scared to think how bad it must be at 40" /shudder.

*EDIT*

Eww, I thought about it and it's the same as using a 19" screen at 800x600 /vomit.
 
By the way, I did not appreciate your insult about me having more money than brains. Let's refrain from stereotypes and applying it to members here, who are trying to make a contribution to the thread.
Neither did I. It's not like I buy Apple products either (other than my archaic iPhone 4s from years ago,) but rather that I get provided one by my employer. Anyone ignorant enough to say anyone who buys Apple has more money than brains doesn't understand when it comes to business, that reliability and usability are far more important than raw performance or specs. As a software engineer, I don't have time to screw around with my machine because it's not working right. Simply put, when it comes to "just working," No distro of Linux and Windows in general can hold a candle to OS X in that respect and that's because Apple maintains a closed platform so they can control hardware and quality.

So yeah, at home I have a tower with a nice GPU so I can play games but, when it comes to work, I would take a modern Macbook Pro over just about anything else.
 
Neither did I. It's not like I buy Apple products either (other than my archaic iPhone 4s from years ago,) but rather that I get provided one by my employer. Anyone ignorant enough to say anyone who buys Apple has more money than brains doesn't understand when it comes to business, that reliability and usability are far more important than raw performance or specs. As a software engineer, I don't have time to screw around with my machine because it's not working right. Simply put, when it comes to "just working," No distro of Linux and Windows in general can hold a candle to OS X in that respect and that's because Apple maintains a closed platform so they can control hardware and quality.

So yeah, at home I have a tower with a nice GPU so I can play games but, when it comes to work, I would take a modern Macbook Pro over just about anything else.
I did not say _anyone_ buying Apple has more money than brains, that's just you generalizing. But there are (a lot) of Apple buyers like these: http://www.cultofmac.com/288725/iwatch-prank-shows-badly-apple-fans-want-believe/
Software developer that somehow manages to work on laptop running Linux here.
 
I did not say _anyone_ buying Apple has more money than brains, that's just you generalizing.
You mean when you say:
Yeah, people with more money than brains will usually buy anything, if you can make it shiny enough.
that you're not generalizing a population? Is it the entire population, no but, your wording implies the majority of it. You can generalize without including everyone...
 
I believe you implied it via - "people with more money than brains will usually buy anything". I didn't generalize anything, you stereotyped.
Well, people with more money than brains will buy shiny stuff, that's not up for debate. What I was trying to debate is how you took that sentence and somehow thought I was applying it to all Apple customers. Which I don't.
And I hope it's clear enough now, because I'm going to stop, I don't want to turn this into a flame war or smth.
 
Well, people with more money than brains will buy shiny stuff, that's not up for debate. What I was trying to debate is how you took that sentence and somehow thought I was applying it to all Apple customers. Which I don't.
And I hope it's clear enough now, because I'm going to stop, I don't want to turn this into a flame war or smth.
It's not a very far leap from your statement to say that if someone has money and buys apple that they're stupid because you're basically saying that stupid people with money will buy Apple (or something shiny.)

How about you refrain from calling people stupid and we won't have a problem...
 
It's not a very far leap from your statement to say that if someone has money and buys apple that they're stupid because you're basically saying that stupid people with money will buy Apple (or something shiny.)

How about you refrain from calling people stupid and we won't have a problem...
Ok, I'll bite. Do the people in the video I linked above looked smart to you?
 
Well, people with more money than brains will buy shiny stuff, that's not up for debate. What I was trying to debate is how you took that sentence and somehow thought I was applying it to all Apple customers. Which I don't.
And I hope it's clear enough now, because I'm going to stop, I don't want to turn this into a flame war or smth.

Okay, fair enough. Let's chalk it up to a misunderstanding.
 
It's not a very far leap from your statement to say that if someone has money and buys apple that they're stupid because you're basically saying that stupid people with money will buy Apple (or something shiny.)

How about you refrain from calling people stupid and we won't have a problem...

Aquinus, let it go and we'll all discuss more meaningful things.

Mac users are frequently stereotyped and I remember a time, more than a decade ago, when I thought I was above Macs and therefore their users for some reason. You should see the forums at Wccftech, it is full of personal attacks. I'm glad I joined this forum because it seemed to contain higher discussion standards.
 
Ok, I'll bite. Do the people in the video I linked above looked smart to you?
Look at your source, buddy, it's freaking Jimmy Kimmel Live. I suspect they're doing it because it's funny because sitcoms that aren't funny are bad. Also, coming from a place called cultofmac.com, I suspect that bias isn't in short supply.
Aquinus, let it go and we'll all discuss more meaningful things.

Mac users are frequently stereotyped and I remember a time, more than a decade ago, when I thought I was above Macs and therefore their users for some reason.
It's hard to when people like bug are busy trying to derail it. Bullshit needs to be called out.
 
Well, in all fairness Kimmel doesn't disclose how many people were asked about the watch. They might have asked 100 people just to find a few that gave silly answers.
 
It's hard to when people like bug are busy trying to derail it. Bullshit needs to be called out.

I agree, but "bug" didn't seem too genuinely intent on insulting us, as he later explained. He has an opinion, but he didn't intend to directly apply it to us. Although the wording was very general in its application.

PS. I'm new to this forum and as long as this doesn't keep on happening, I'll be okay with that!
 
  • Like
Reactions: bug
Just as well, about 1/3rd of the people in my department uses Macs for scientific research (including me) and this has been a trend from what I can observe at prestigious universities in the states, Canada and western Europe. I know for a fact that a lot of smart people uses Macs, too.
 
Well, in all fairness Kimmel doesn't disclose how many people were asked about the watch. They might have asked 100 people just to find a few that gave silly answers.

Yeah, it is just a TV show meant to humor, it isn't statistically relevant or significant as a representative sample. It is meant to convey the joke the writers had in mind.
 
Back
Top