4K is great, but two problems: it's not "Retina" resolution at 32" (and definitely not at 39", though that's too big for a monitor), and the display ports that exist today do not support it well at all.
DisplayPort 1.2 can do it, if the monitor pretends it's two half-size monitors next to each other. This causes major problems for OSes, though I did eventually manage to work around it on Linux. (On an nVidia card, enable Xinerama. Due to a bug, this turns Xinerama and RandR off, making the window manager think you only have one monitor. Perfection.)
HDMI 1.4 can do it, but only at 30Hz, which is ugly. It's actually not unusable, but you'll be aware of what's going on.
As for the resolution issue: you're still not getting very good density. Your phone can do 440ppi. The Chromebook Pixel is 240ppi. 32" at 4k is 140ppi. Mind you, it looks great at 200%, but things are a little big. (I ended up liking this and my normal monitors now run at 125%.)
You really want 8K for a big monitor.
You also want 120Hz refresh, if only so that movies play each frame at a constant speed. 24 doesn't divide 60 (or 30!), but it does divide 120.
So until there is some transport layer that can do 8K at 120Hz, we're taking a step backwards. (4K at 120Hz is fine for TVs, though. Perhaps even HD is enough there.)
> So until there is some transport layer that can do 8K at 120Hz, we're taking a step backwards
Author here. I certainly do want 8K (or even more) on the desktop, but I disagree that the current crop of 4K displays are a step backwards versus recent history. Until these displays became available, we had a 7+ year stagnation where 2560x1600 was the pinnacle of semi-affordable desktop computing displays. Finally, after this years-long agony of lethargy, we have vendors selling televisions that in many ways exceed the capabilities of our desktop monitors.
I write this comment from my home workstation, which is equipped with three Dell U3011 30" monitors. I love these monitors. But each of them cost me $1,100 and that's the same price I paid for my first 30" monitor several years prior, a Dell 3007WFP. The pricing is asinine. But because I am satisfied with this configuration, I'll be waiting for a 60Hz 4K for my home workstation. If I were using a lesser configuration, I'd seriously consider dropping $500 (or at times, <$400) at Amazon to get a Seiki to tide me over until the second or third-generation 4K displays, or better, arrive.
I think you and I agree on just about everything except that point. I rejoice that there is something stirring in the display industry, even if it's coming from the television side of the aisle. I hope the display manufacturers feel encouraged to move as rapidly as possible on the desktop computing side. I'm trying to get the message out to them in my own way. :)
I have an Asus PQ321, and I will agree with you: the LCD panel is a huge step forward. But we shouldn't look at that and say the problem is solved, we need to be developing the next generation.
What I see limiting progress is the link layer between the GPU and the LCD panel. 4K@60Hz requires about 15Gbps of bandwidth. 8K will require 60Gbps. 8K@120, which is what I want, will require 120Gbps. We need a standard for that, so when panels become affordable, you can just buy one and hook it up. In the mean time, you have to suffer with text that's not quite as clear as what you get on your laptop or phone, and with video that "judders".
>In the mean time, you have to suffer with text that's not quite as clear as what you get on your laptop or phone
This is really noticeable when you have been working on your desktop screen for some time, then pick up your phone or tablet to read something. You get this instant: "Wow! This is SO much sharper" feeling. Then after reading on that device for 5 minutes you get used to it and don't explicitly experience it as sharp anymore.
But then you go back to working on your desktop screen and you get the opposite experience: "Wow! This IS fuzzy! WTF!?"
I totally agree that we need display manufacturers to keep innovating and pushing forward. I'm not certain what I wrote that implied I am satisfied. I am the furthest thing from satisfied with desktop displays. The other rants on my blog should establish that if you have the stomach to read more ranting. :)
I very much want high-DPI in my desktop display. I've repeatedly echoed the point made by henk53 elsewhere in this thread that holding a modern mobile device up to a desktop display shows how divergent the technologies have become.
All that said, I value usable real-estate foremost. So for now, I want my 4K display to be about 40 inches. I don't want to zoom. While I would certainly like high-clarity text and user interface controls, if I am forced to choose between that and real-estate, as I am presently, I will go with real-estate without hesitation.
Both, though? I am sold, where do I send my money?
You know some of us don't care about having retina density display. I just want tons of big ass text. I'm mid thirties and still have very good vision but I'd rather have super easy reading of large text on a gigantic ass monitor with tons of pixels than super crisp anti-aliased fonts on my normal sized monitor. Hell, i've considered one of the 50" tvs for my desktop and just standing slightly further back.
In general with these monitors I can stand back in a more comfortable position than lean forward like I did when I was 24 with my ~2500x???? 30" crt I had back then. Sure I could get tons of stuff on that screen but I can get more on a bigger one here.
In fact I remember what I really wanted back then was that same resolution on my 12' projector image. That would have been amazing.
I run my 4K monitor at 200% scaling, and I can still see font aliasing artifacts. You definitely can't turn antialiasing off yet, even on a "retina" display. We still have a ways to go before computer terminals are as readable as papaer.
Unfortunately on many sites with a supposed tech savvy public "everyone" will start to yell that it's just a conspiracy of vendors and that even 4K is nonsense because your eyes can't possibly see it. They'll show fancy graphs and link to wikipedia articles that supposedly prove that 4k, let alone 8k on desktop screen sizes (roughly 20" to 30") is completely nonsense.
Maybe vendors are picking up some of these sentiments and maybe this is in part holding back progress.
I find this luddite attitude offensive. I think that display technology should follow the path to eventually making the view look like any other material in nature, that means achieving the size of the pixel = size of the molecule - isn't that the pinnacle of video technology?
DisplayPort 1.2 can do it, if the monitor pretends it's two half-size monitors next to each other. This causes major problems for OSes, though I did eventually manage to work around it on Linux. (On an nVidia card, enable Xinerama. Due to a bug, this turns Xinerama and RandR off, making the window manager think you only have one monitor. Perfection.)
HDMI 1.4 can do it, but only at 30Hz, which is ugly. It's actually not unusable, but you'll be aware of what's going on.
As for the resolution issue: you're still not getting very good density. Your phone can do 440ppi. The Chromebook Pixel is 240ppi. 32" at 4k is 140ppi. Mind you, it looks great at 200%, but things are a little big. (I ended up liking this and my normal monitors now run at 125%.)
You really want 8K for a big monitor.
You also want 120Hz refresh, if only so that movies play each frame at a constant speed. 24 doesn't divide 60 (or 30!), but it does divide 120.
So until there is some transport layer that can do 8K at 120Hz, we're taking a step backwards. (4K at 120Hz is fine for TVs, though. Perhaps even HD is enough there.)