Because you don't need to do this if you're not using a buggy operating system? You recommend against using a 4k display due to the general font issue in win8/10 - I get that - but why not just say "beware of 4k displays on windows 8 and 10" and simply leave it at that? 4k displays aren't even that crazy - the better screens are the ones in that Dell 5k or the iMac 27" Retina (which has a great screen and solid OS support for it).
And how do you read anything on those 4k or 5k displays and how is the eventual size fonts you read text in any way better rendered than on a 2560x1600 display? Sorry but I still do not follow you. 4k displays are great on >40 inch screens. Anything below a 4k display makes very little to no sense for reasons I explained above.
Completely false man. Have you ever used a Macbook Pro Retina? Try using one and then try using a non-Retina and you'll immediately see what I mean. 200+ ppi displays are not only very sharp but the OS is distinctly aware of this and fonts are rendered appropriately. Font size doesn't even typically change - just more pixels are used for the same space resulting in higher resolution. Of course many people, including myself, run the things at max resolution to reduce the size of UI elements giving us more effective real estate while still retaining clarity. Windows 10 will get it's act in gear eventually - but until then people can run Windows 7 or figure out work arounds to make things look sane. Or you could just do as I said before and run a Fusion VM with Windows 7 and have MacOS for non-trading stuff. Great combo IMO.
dude, you make zero sense: A 4k display has a resolution of 3840 X 2160 (consumer format, UHD). Unless you increase the font size/scale up text is hardly legible. That is one issue; The other issue you talk about is vector based fonts that scale well with different resolutions and different dpi. Now, the problem to start with is that most apps today do not peruse vector based fonts but most apps are bitmap based. That means to increase the size of text or graphics they need to be scaled up. This is the problem when you now throw an app that is bitmap based on a 4k display. You need to scale up the fonts or graphs or all together in order to read the otherwise incredibly small font size. If you are saying that you see a difference between a 2560x1600 and 4k resolution when it comes to font clarity on vector based fonts or UI elements that scale well, a difference that you perceive as large enough to spend 2000 USD vs 300-500 dollars then that is your choice of course. I am sure there are people that swear by 20,000 usd audio components that a normal human being cannot perceive any difference between such and a 200 dollar component. But fact remains that unless your fonts or UI are purely vector based you MUST scale up to increase font size or the size of graphical elements. And then you end up with unclear/blurry content and eventually the same real estate than a display with a lower resolution. I still claim a 27 inch or even 30 inch 4k display is total nonsense. But hey, I heard your story million times before. When people swore by the new Retina mobile phone displays I already thought that was a totally ridiculous claim. Now the same story with slightly larger displays that people stare at from a 50cm distance. I do not know Apple space and could not care less (given most Apple enthusiasts all run Windows VMs anyway begging the question whether they just need to show off hardware or are actually dumb enough to switch between the Windows VM for app use and then Mac OS so they have bragging rights to browse internet on a Mac), but fact is Windows and Windows apps are not ready for 4k displays until all fonts and graphical elements are vector based. By the way, research has shown that the human eye can recognize only up to 150 dpi from a distance of 24 inches. That is what a 28 inch 4k display offers (meaning any smaller displays, 27 inch for example at 4k make no sense at all). Hence my whole talking that I do not think we will see much higher res displays in the future. Take a look at this report (I think it is independent and quite honest, make sure you do not miss the "conclusions" section: (July 2015 report) https://pcmonitors.info/articles/the-4k-uhd-3840-x-2160-experience/#!prettyPhoto I do not even know why we discuss back and forth do a google search mate, many people clearly disagree with you: https://www.google.com.hk/webhp?sou...&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=windows+4k+displays+blurry https://www.google.com.hk/webhp?sou...v=2&ie=UTF-8#q=windows+4k+does+not+scale+well https://www.google.com.hk/webhp?sou...ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=windows+4k+eye+strain
quick and dirty answer for you: You are the one who is incorrect: Average Eyes (with 20/20 vision) from a distance of around 24 inches (recommended distance for work in front of computer) can only recognize up to 150ppi. Hence retina displays or 4k displays of smaller than 28 inch size are a complete waste for most consumers. ( a 28 inch 4k display has a bit more than 150ppi). Please check up on your facts before you shoot down others.
What I'm telling you is that I used a 15" non-retina MBP for *years* and was then upgraded to an 15" MBP Retina and the difference was IMMEDIATELY OBVIOUS. So regardless of what your theory says I have the actual pragmatic evidence to back it up. It really is apparent and one has a hard time going back to a non-retina display afterward. Your points about "people disagreeing with me" are really about Windows and shitty support for high-DPI. Has nothing to do with high DPI monitors and OSes that actually support it sanely - so strawman there bro. Why are you vehemently arguing this with me? I've used both normal DPI and high DPI monitors and the latter are clearly superior. Additionally, if you do anything even remotely unrelated to trading like let's say, photographic editing, it's an absolute given that high DPI is superior. I use an MBP for general day to day stuff and run a windows VM for my charting app and TWS - as the former (Sierra Chart) is written for Windows and I don't exactly have a choice there. It's not a "look at me and my 1500$ laptop with a VM running on it." Guess what? They are! And when there's bitmap concerns the app developers provide higher resolution bitmaps and the OS does the right thing. Your beefing about high DPI monitors because you use an OS (Windows) that does big dumb animal behavior like not supporting them appropriately or envisioning their mainstream use ahead of time (when that is clearly where we're headed). For fuck sakes I've used both in the exact same format at small 15" size! I can recognize and see the difference immediately. It's not going to make or break someone's usage of a monitor - but it definitely helps (and surely helps in the real estate department).
lol, sure if Adobe Products alone would be able to scale properly, they **dont**. Skype does not, and thousands of other apps. You are the one in the dark brother, please inform yourself, your claims are simply unfounded and unsupported. Most apps today do not scale well. Now this may change in just 1-2 years but that is simply not the fact today. I rest my case, you find that you are clearly in the minority opinion here if you just surf and search for 10 minutes. Even die hard Apple fans have issues with their desktop Retina displays. You are joking if you insist I pull this out of my arse. Apple users have complained for years about eye strain and issues with their Retina displays (not tablet but larger monitors). And of course does Mac OS provide or force app developers to use vector based fonts and graphics. After all what is out there for you to choose from, lets see: 3 browsers, MS Office, couple other apps and that is about it. That is not even 1% of the software out there targeting Windows (windows app store alone has over 50k apps, vs 14k apps for Apple App Store, though that is not counting all the apps outside the windows app store). So with all due respect, I claim you do not seem to know what you are talking about. Fact is that today most Windows apps are not vector based and hence do not scale properly. Ergo, 4k displays do not make sense for Windows users today, and 4k displays or Retina displays make no sense at all for anyone using smaller than 28 inch monitors because the human eye cannot appreciate >150 ppi anyway. What part of the whole line of argument are you still not following?
Mate, we are talking about large monitors not iPads or tablets. I have a 4k monitor and hence speak out of experience and the experience by huge majority of all other users on Windows SUCKS. And it is medically proven that from 24 inches apart the normal human eye cannot make a difference between 150ppi and 200 or 300 ppi on the screen. This is not my idea or what someone feels but a wide agreement of ophthalmologists. For most everyone Retina displays are a marketing gag and that is it. Say whatever you want, but the facts are clearly speaking against your points. I supported all my points with facts, research, and links of others sharing the same experience. Please know, I do not try to win an argument with you here, you can use whatever damn display pleases you. I simply try to inform those that have not yet used 4k displays to be careful and knowledgeable of the drawbacks. Same bullshit goes on with TVs where salesmen try to convince unassuming consumers to get 4k displays when no movies or streaming service supports it, heck, Netflix would not even be able to stream such amount to most consumers. Same goes on with beer, if you blindfold people 99% of people cannot taste a difference between a Lager and a "Hefeweizen" alone. In the end people still choose their own products, but at least they should make an informed decision, not because you swear by your Retina display on a 15 inch laptop or tablet or whatever.
Retina is just an Apple brand name, it's actually an IPS display. It's quite amazing how Apple invents a name for something and charges more than double compared to competition, plenty of suckers I guess.