Too small… I got used to my 4K Philips OLED 42" that I hung directly on the wall in front of my desk (no stand at all)… USB-C cable also charges the MacBook. This size is so good to work with; so much screen estate.

▲

bsimpson 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You're using the pixels for something different than the target audience.

People who want a Studio Display want retina crispness. If you enjoy a 42" 4k, you're more concerned with real estate than image fidelity.

I'm happy with a 65" 4K TV in my living room, but a 4K 27" monitor is borderline too low-res for computer work. Same pixel count, but different use cases.

	▲	agys 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think I’m absolutely the target audience: I’m a designer, programmer, animator. Crispness at 4k is still quite good at 1m distance from my face. I’d buy it without hesitation if it came much, much larger.

▲

jasomill 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I agree, and use a 55" LG OLED TV similarly. Got it on sale for $1,300.

Especially nice in a small apartment where I use the same display for video, gaming, and desktop.

No USB-C, but HDMI works better for long cable runs anyway, so I can keep my (non-laptop) computers in the other room and just "dock" my wireless input devices to a USB-C charger as needed.

Thunderbolt would be even worse, as even if I could somehow get Thunderbolt out of an Nvidia GPU, I'm not aware of any devices that would allow switching between multiple Thunderbolt inputs, and 4 sufficiently long optical Thunderbolt cables would probably cost more than the display itself.

As for crisp text, I'll replace it with a 120 Hz 8K display in a few years if the price is right. In the mean time, I value screen real estate far higher (and dislike multi-monitor setups).

▲

dwayne_dibley 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

42 inches! thats a lot of viewing area.

▲

agys 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Indeed! The big monitor is about 1m from me, the median a bit below my eyes. The laptop on which I type on sits in-between and the two screens align almost perfectly (optically). This setup works well for me and I feel it’s very ergonomic. That's why I can't go back to tiny (<32") screens anymore.

	▲	whynotminot 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You could get something smaller but have it closer to your face than 1m? The sort of “visual impact” a screen can have is mostly a combination of what percentage of your FOV it consumes. People think they’ve got a bunch of screen real estate when they buy a big TV to use as a monitor… and then they use it a twice or more the distance of a regular monitor.