[Discuss] 4K (or 5K) resolution for Linux desktop

[smallm at SDF.ORG (Mike Small)]

On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 11:56:27AM -0500, Rich Pieri wrote:
> On 1/6/2016 10:05 AM, Mike Small wrote:
> > Eh? I thought point meant point and that this only happened when
> > you make the mistake of specifying your font size in pixels, e.g.
> > pixelsize instead of size in fontconfig language. Though that
> 
> What point means is how large a typeface is in print. Points and picas
> are absolute measurements like inches. An inch is an inch. A point is a
> point.
> 
> When translated to computer screens the pixel size and density (ppi)
> does matter because 100 pixels on one screen is not the same absolute
> dimensions as 100 pixels on a different screen. Most contemporary
> desktop environments have mechanisms for scaling so that a 1 inch line
> is 1 inch regardless of the display's ppi -- but most also default to
> 96ppi which means you get the behavior I described.

I'd think one would want to change the default ppi. I remember it
being 75x75 (or was it 72x72) in the past and over time went up as
new monitors came out with higher resolutions. This should happen
again, yeah? But if these things are short and wide would the new
ppi have to be 100x200 dpi or something not symmetric? I bet there
are bugs to be found from that.

> Which brings me back to the point I made about screen size: you have to
> upscale everything on a UHD screen in order to make everything appear to
> be the same size as it would appear on a 1080p screen with the same
> dimensions. Which is to say, the 4 times greater resolution of UHD is
> wasted if you need to make everything 4 times larger in order to achieve
> consistency.

By "upscale everything" you mean setting the ppi to an accurate
value?  Well yeah I'm also doubtful that fonts at the higher
resolution (and ppi setting) on a "normal size" monitor would
look better enough to justify the present cost of these things...

> 
> Or you can use a physically larger display. A UHD display needs to be
> about 4 times larger (twice as wide, twice as tall) as a 1080p display
> to achieve identical (or close enough) absolute sizes of displayed
> objects without scaling. If you are comfortable with a 17" display at
> 1080p then you will need a 35" UHD display to achieve a similar level of
> comfort without scaling.

... but yes on a very big monitor it sounds possibly worthwhile.
I haven't seen X on a really large monitor, but I'd guess fonts
look less good.

It's a nice thought having a huge monitor, what, now that I use
Rob Pike's acme as a text editor at times. The screen gets a little
crowded once you get beyond seven or eight panes. On the other
hand, that's the number beyond which most humans have trouble
keeping track of things so maybe not so useful. It would be like
having a larger apartment.  I'd spend more time looking around this
vast screen trying to find where I (or acme or a window manager)
put things.

-- 
Mike Small
smallm at sdf.org