Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #17255 > unrolled thread

[Link Posting] There's a simple reason your new smart TV was so affordable: It's collecting and selling your data

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  [Link Posting] There's a simple reason your new smart TV was so affordable: It's collecting and selling your data Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-01-14 19:09 +0000
    Re: [Link Posting] There's a simple reason your new smart TV was so affordable: It's collecting and selling your data Batchman <batchman@dosville.foo> - 2019-01-14 20:56 +0000
    Re: [Link Posting] There's a simple reason your new smart TV was so affordable: It's collecting and selling your data not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-01-14 21:38 +0000
      Re: [Link Posting] There's a simple reason your new smart TV was so affordable: It's collecting and selling your data Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-01-14 22:01 +0000
        Re: [Link Posting] There's a simple reason your new smart TV was so affordable: It's collecting and selling your data joecool <joecool@this.is.invalid> - 2019-01-16 17:50 +0000
          Re: [Link Posting] There's a simple reason your new smart TV was so affordable: It's collecting and selling your data RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2019-01-17 18:48 +0300
            Re: [Link Posting] There's a simple reason your new smart TV was so affordable: It's collecting and selling your data Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2019-01-17 11:24 -0500
              Re: [Link Posting] There's a simple reason your new smart TV was so affordable: It's collecting and selling your data Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-01-17 16:30 +0000
                Re: [Link Posting] There's a simple reason your new smart TV was so affordable: It's collecting and selling your data Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2019-01-17 16:56 -0500
                  Re: [Link Posting] There's a simple reason your new smart TV was so affordable: It's collecting and selling your data not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-01-17 22:21 +0000
                    Re: [Link Posting] There's a simple reason your new smart TV was so affordable: It's collecting and selling your data Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2019-01-17 23:18 +0000
                      Re: [Link Posting] There's a simple reason your new smart TV was so affordable: It's collecting and selling your data not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-01-18 22:33 +0000
                      Re: [Link Posting] There's a simple reason your new smart TV was so affordable: It's collecting and selling your data Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2019-01-18 18:35 -0500
                        Re: [Link Posting] There's a simple reason your new smart TV was so affordable: It's collecting and selling your data Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2019-01-19 00:34 +0000
                          Re: [Link Posting] There's a simple reason your new smart TV was so affordable: It's collecting and selling your data Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2019-01-18 21:30 -0500
                  Re: [Link Posting] There's a simple reason your new smart TV was so affordable: It's collecting and selling your data Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-18 10:59 +1100
                    Re: [Link Posting] There's a simple reason your new smart TV was so affordable: It's collecting and selling your data Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2019-01-17 19:56 -0500
                      Re: [Link Posting] There's a simple reason your new smart TV was so affordable: It's collecting and selling your data Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2019-01-18 01:28 +0000
                  font sizes Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.net> - 2019-01-18 15:15 +0000
              Re: [Link Posting] There's a simple reason your new smart TV was so affordable: It's collecting and selling your data scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2019-01-25 16:43 +0000
                Re: [Link Posting] There's a simple reason your new smart TV was so affordable: It's collecting and selling your data Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-01-25 17:31 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#17255 — [Link Posting] There's a simple reason your new smart TV was so affordable: It's collecting and selling your data

      ####################################################################
      # ATTENTION: This post is a reference to a website.  The poster of #
      # this Usenet article is not the author of the referenced website. #
      ####################################################################

<URL:https://www.businessinsider.com/smart-tv-data-collection-advertisin
g-2019-1>

The text below is a quotation from the URL above:
>
>  The vast majority of televisions available today are "smart" TVs, with
>  internet connections, advertising placement, and streaming services
>  built in. Despite the added functionality, TV prices are lower than ever
>  - especially from companies like TCL and Vizio, which specialize in
>  low-cost, high-tech smart TVs. There's a simple reason that smart TVs
>  are priced so low: Some TV makers collect user data and sell it to third
>  parties.
>
>  Massive TVs with razor-thin frames, brilliant image quality, and
>  built-in streaming services are more affordable than ever thanks to
>  companies like Vizio and TCL.
>
>  If you want a 65-inch 4K smart TV with HDR capability, one can be
>  purchased for below $500 - a price that may seem surprisingly low for
>  such a massive piece of technology, nonetheless one that's likely to
>  live in your home for years before you upgrade.
>
>  But that low price comes with a caveat most people probably don't
>  realize: Some manufacturers collect data about users and sell that data
>  to third parties. The data can include the types of shows you watch,
>  which ads you watch, and your approximate location.
>
>  ...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#17256

On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 19:09:36 +0000, Rich wrote:
> 
> <URL:https://www.businessinsider.com/smart-tv-data-collection-advertisin
> g-2019-1>
> 
Thanks again for the heads up!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17257

Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>      ####################################################################
>      # ATTENTION: This post is a reference to a website.  The poster of #
>      # this Usenet article is not the author of the referenced website. #
>      ####################################################################
> 
> <URL:https://www.businessinsider.com/smart-tv-data-collection-advertisin
> g-2019-1>
> 
> The text below is a quotation from the URL above:
>>
>>  If you want a 65-inch 4K smart TV with HDR capability, one can be
>>  purchased for below $500 - a price that may seem surprisingly low for
>>  such a massive piece of technology, nonetheless one that's likely to
>>  live in your home for years before you upgrade.
>>
>>  But that low price comes with a caveat most people probably don't
>>  realize: Some manufacturers collect data about users and sell that data
>>  to third parties. The data can include the types of shows you watch,
>>  which ads you watch, and your approximate location.

Sounds great to me. Buy the TV, don't give it a direct connection to
the internet, and you get it on the cheap. Although you probably also
get a borderline unusably slow and poorly designed software interface
as another approach to getting the cost down.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17259

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>      ####################################################################
>>      # ATTENTION: This post is a reference to a website.  The poster of #
>>      # this Usenet article is not the author of the referenced website. #
>>      ####################################################################
>> 
>> <URL:https://www.businessinsider.com/smart-tv-data-collection-advertisin
>> g-2019-1>
>> 
>> The text below is a quotation from the URL above:
>>>
>>>  If you want a 65-inch 4K smart TV with HDR capability, one can be
>>>  purchased for below $500 - a price that may seem surprisingly low for
>>>  such a massive piece of technology, nonetheless one that's likely to
>>>  live in your home for years before you upgrade.
>>>
>>>  But that low price comes with a caveat most people probably don't
>>>  realize: Some manufacturers collect data about users and sell that data
>>>  to third parties. The data can include the types of shows you watch,
>>>  which ads you watch, and your approximate location.
> 
> Sounds great to me. Buy the TV, don't give it a direct connection to
> the internet, and you get it on the cheap. Although you probably also
> get a borderline unusably slow and poorly designed software interface
> as another approach to getting the cost down.

In this case, one also has to be careful to verify that the device will 
function as a TV without an internet connection.

I can see some makers building the device to do only one thing when 
it has no internet connection:

   +-----------------------+
   |Please connect to      |
   |the internet - without |
   |internet your TV will  |
   |not function properly  |
   |                       |
   |    |connect now|      |
   +-----------------------+

To cut off exactly that which you suggest.  Getting a tv at cost, but 
not providing them with their after-purchase revenue stream.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17279

Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>> Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>> ####################################################################
>>> # ATTENTION: This post is a reference to a website.  The poster of #
>>> # this Usenet article is not the author of the referenced website. #
>>> ####################################################################
>>> 
>>> <URL:https://www.businessinsider.com/smart-tv-data-collection-advertisin
>>> g-2019-1>
>>> 
>>> The text below is a quotation from the URL above:
>>>> 
>>>> If you want a 65-inch 4K smart TV with HDR capability, one can be
>>>> purchased for below $500 - a price that may seem surprisingly low for
>>>> such a massive piece of technology, nonetheless one that's likely to
>>>> live in your home for years before you upgrade.
>>>> 
>>>> But that low price comes with a caveat most people probably don't
>>>> realize: Some manufacturers collect data about users and sell that data
>>>> to third parties. The data can include the types of shows you watch,
>>>> which ads you watch, and your approximate location.
>> 
>> Sounds great to me. Buy the TV, don't give it a direct connection to
>> the internet, and you get it on the cheap. Although you probably also
>> get a borderline unusably slow and poorly designed software interface
>> as another approach to getting the cost down.
> 
> In this case, one also has to be careful to verify that the device will 
> function as a TV without an internet connection.
> 
> I can see some makers building the device to do only one thing when 
> it has no internet connection:
> 
>    +-----------------------+
>    |Please connect to      |
>    |the internet - without |
>    |internet your TV will  |
>    |not function properly  |
>    |                       |
>    |    |connect now|      |
>    +-----------------------+
> 
> To cut off exactly that which you suggest.  Getting a tv at cost, but 
> not providing them with their after-purchase revenue stream.
> 
> 

I just bought a large monitor to use as a tv. No 'smart' features. This
one: https://www.amazon.com/Philips-BDM4350UC-43-Inch-IPS-LED-Monitor/dp/B01E18XRY2

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17283

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 17:50:25 GMT
joecool <joecool@this.is.invalid> wrote:

> I just bought a large monitor to use as a tv. No 'smart' features. This
> one: https://www.amazon.com/Philips-BDM4350UC-43-Inch-IPS-LED-Monitor/dp/B01E18XRY2

Looks lovely.  It'd be hilarious using it with a desktop enviro that
insists on running all applications in full-screen mode.  I can imagine
running 20+ terminals on it with i3 though!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17285

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> writes:

> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 17:50:25 GMT
> joecool <joecool@this.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I just bought a large monitor to use as a tv. No 'smart' features. This
>> one: https://www.amazon.com/Philips-BDM4350UC-43-Inch-IPS-LED-Monitor/dp/B01E18XRY2
>
> Looks lovely.  It'd be hilarious using it with a desktop enviro that
> insists on running all applications in full-screen mode.  I can imagine
> running 20+ terminals on it with i3 though!

Recently got one of these:

http://tinyurl.com/ybou6zbt

(Dell.com 28" 3840x2160)

Took me a few days to find solutions for all the programs that ended up
with tiny unreadable fonts.

Still not quite sure what to do with all the extra screen real estate.
Web browsers in full screen look pretty silly since most sites confine
text to what they think are normal screen widths.  But videos
look great.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17286

On 2019-01-17, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 17:50:25 GMT
>> joecool <joecool@this.is.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I just bought a large monitor to use as a tv. No 'smart' features. This
>>> one: https://www.amazon.com/Philips-BDM4350UC-43-Inch-IPS-LED-Monitor/dp/B01E18XRY2
>>
>> Looks lovely.  It'd be hilarious using it with a desktop enviro that
>> insists on running all applications in full-screen mode.  I can imagine
>> running 20+ terminals on it with i3 though!
>
> Recently got one of these:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ybou6zbt
>
> (Dell.com 28" 3840x2160)

Nice. I just got the 27" version. Moving my "stuff" from my old machine
and Mint 17 Mate to the new one and Mint 19 Cinnamon was what prompted
my comments about the Mint developers (to whom I have nonetheless sent money)
concentrating on bells and whistles when there are fundamentals that
don't work properly. Still can't get my scanner to work, after several
days tinkering.

> Took me a few days to find solutions for all the programs that ended up
> with tiny unreadable fonts.

+1

What moron thought that specifying the sizes of things in pixels was a good
idea?

> Still not quite sure what to do with all the extra screen real estate.

Just have lots more windows open.

> Web browsers in full screen look pretty silly since most sites confine
> text to what they think are normal screen widths.  But videos
> look great.

+1


-- 
Today is Boomtime, the 17th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3185
                      ~ Stercus accidit ~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17288

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:

> What moron thought that specifying the sizes of things in pixels was a good
> idea?

Just about every GUI developer born so far.

How to size things is admittedly a hard problem.
Lots of web sites fail with fonts set too large.
Most GUI languages lay out screens in pixels.

HTML supports sizes in mm, but lots of sites use px
anyway.  You still need to consider resolution and screen
size to figure out the ideal size.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17290

Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> HTML supports sizes in mm, but lots of sites use px
> anyway.  You still need to consider resolution and screen
> size to figure out the ideal size.

Not in HTML 4 (at least for things that I can think of). How does the
browser know what size screen you have? I don't think mine does.

Also, specifying rastor image sizes in mm would be a disaster (at
least for anyone on a slow internet connection).

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17292

In comp.misc, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> Not in HTML 4 (at least for things that I can think of). How does the
> browser know what size screen you have? I don't think mine does.

What kind of computer do you have? Browser probably just asks the OS
which likely has a good idea.

I've got a random Dell box here connected to a random LG monitor by a
traditional 15 pin (?) VGA cable, but Centos knows roughly how big the
screen is:

$ xdpyinfo | grep -A2 ^screen
screen #0:
  dimensions:    1920x1080 pixels (508x285 millimeters)
  resolution:    96x96 dots per inch
$ xrandr |head -n2
Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 1920 x 1080, maximum 8192 x 8192
VGA1 connected 1920x1080+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
480mm x 270mm
$ 

In cases like this, xrandr is likely to have the more accurate value
and xdpyinfo has a size which assumes 96x96 dots per inch unless
configured otherwise. Lacking a ruler at hand, I can't tell if the
screen is 480 or 508 mm across, both are in the right ballpark. But in
previous cases where I have measured, xrandr was within 5mm.

And of course, on an all-in-one device like a phone or a laptop, the
system having an accurate notion of the screen size is less remarkable.

Elijah
------
not many people swap laptop screens out with different spec ones

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17298

Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
> In comp.misc, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>> Not in HTML 4 (at least for things that I can think of). How does the
>> browser know what size screen you have? I don't think mine does.
> 
> What kind of computer do you have? Browser probably just asks the OS
> which likely has a good idea.

OK I'm being a bit cheeky because the computer I use for Usenet is an
old Pentium I with a 16" CRT monitor, but I was thinking that I would
have seen some reference to it when poking around Firefox on modern
PCs. I knew it passed on resolution info, but I thought I would have
noticed something measures in "mm" and taken note.

> I've got a random Dell box here connected to a random LG monitor by a
> traditional 15 pin (?) VGA cable, but Centos knows roughly how big the
> screen is:
> 
> $ xdpyinfo | grep -A2 ^screen

Ah, I didn't know that one:

screen #0:
  dimensions:    800x600 pixels (271x203 millimeters)
  resolution:    75x75 dots per inch

xrandr "command not found" (this is a PI sized install).

> In cases like this, xrandr is likely to have the more accurate value
> and xdpyinfo has a size which assumes 96x96 dots per inch unless
> configured otherwise. Lacking a ruler at hand, I can't tell if the
> screen is 480 or 508 mm across, both are in the right ballpark. But in
> previous cases where I have measured, xrandr was within 5mm.

My "Samtron" 76E screen measures 327x242mm, so xdpyinfo is a fair way
out, but possibly not so bad as to be noticed by the average user if
a web page based its layout on that.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

Has two rulers and a miniature tape measure near his computer. :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17299

Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes:

> In comp.misc, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>> Not in HTML 4 (at least for things that I can think of). How does the
>> browser know what size screen you have? I don't think mine does.
>
> What kind of computer do you have? Browser probably just asks the OS
> which likely has a good idea.
>
> I've got a random Dell box here connected to a random LG monitor by a
> traditional 15 pin (?) VGA cable, but Centos knows roughly how big the
> screen is:
>
> $ xdpyinfo | grep -A2 ^screen
> screen #0:
>   dimensions:    1920x1080 pixels (508x285 millimeters)
>   resolution:    96x96 dots per inch
> $ xrandr |head -n2
> Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 1920 x 1080, maximum 8192 x 8192
> VGA1 connected 1920x1080+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
> 480mm x 270mm
> $ 
>
> In cases like this, xrandr is likely to have the more accurate value
> and xdpyinfo has a size which assumes 96x96 dots per inch unless
> configured otherwise.

I definitely have not configured my DPI.

My monitor measures 24 3/8" x 13 3/8".

xdpyinfo reports:

  dimensions:    3840x2160 pixels (621x341 millimeters)
  resolution:    157x161 dots per inch

the dimensions in millimeters are within a 1/4" of my measurements.
Nothing assumed 96x96.

Modern monitors self report their size with EDID information.
If you've got a very old monitor the system may have a problem
reading it's size and then use a default.

I see no reason for xdpyinfo and xrandr to report different numbers,
they both use the same source.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17300

In comp.misc, Dan Espen  <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes:
>> In cases like this, xrandr is likely to have the more accurate value
>> and xdpyinfo has a size which assumes 96x96 dots per inch unless
>> configured otherwise.
...
> I see no reason for xdpyinfo and xrandr to report different numbers,
> they both use the same source.

If the two programs have significant differences, xrandr should be
considered correct because xdpyinfo may be broken for stupid reasons.

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23705

Opened 2009 and many years of "this is not a bug" / "yes it is".
Maybe the developers have recanted?

I tested on a computer with a really old OS, selected because it matches
the one used for servers at $JOB.

Elijah
------
not the the servers at $JOB use X windows

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17301

Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes:

> In comp.misc, Dan Espen  <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes:
>>> In cases like this, xrandr is likely to have the more accurate value
>>> and xdpyinfo has a size which assumes 96x96 dots per inch unless
>>> configured otherwise.
> ...
>> I see no reason for xdpyinfo and xrandr to report different numbers,
>> they both use the same source.
>
> If the two programs have significant differences, xrandr should be
> considered correct because xdpyinfo may be broken for stupid reasons.
>
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23705

Seems like xdpyinfo is only broken because it accepts user
overrides.

> Opened 2009 and many years of "this is not a bug" / "yes it is".
> Maybe the developers have recanted?

Wow 2009 - 2018.

Years before that, I had to override dpi (with X-Resources)
because the monitor I had didn't report DPI.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17293

On 18/01/2019 8:56 am, Dan Espen wrote:
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
> 
>> What moron thought that specifying the sizes of things in pixels was a good
>> idea?
> 
> Just about every GUI developer born so far.
> 
> How to size things is admittedly a hard problem.

Yes - if I buy a bigger screen, it's because I want to display more 
stuff on it, not because I want things to be bigger.

Um, except when I realise my eyes aren't so good any more, and buy a 
bigger screen because I want to be able to display the same stuff as 
before, but bigger.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17294

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> writes:

> On 18/01/2019 8:56 am, Dan Espen wrote:
>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> What moron thought that specifying the sizes of things in pixels was
>>> a good idea?
>>
>> Just about every GUI developer born so far.
>>
>> How to size things is admittedly a hard problem.
>
> Yes - if I buy a bigger screen, it's because I want to display more
> stuff on it, not because I want things to be bigger.
>
> Um, except when I realise my eyes aren't so good any more, and buy a
> bigger screen because I want to be able to display the same stuff as
> before, but bigger.

I was looking for more vertical space.  I went from 1600x1200 to
3840x2160.  So, I can see more lines of text at once.

Really too much horizontal space.  I don't like looking at multiple
windows at once.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17295

In comp.misc, Dan Espen  <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was looking for more vertical space.  I went from 1600x1200 to
> 3840x2160.  So, I can see more lines of text at once.

Try mounting it in portrait mode. It's really nice for scenarios like
looking at normal document sized PDFs and fitting the whole page on
the screen (while fitting the page to the screen).

I expect all the modern OSes support portait with just a brief config
setting.

Elijah
------
used to have a monitor with a 90 degree tilt hinge

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17297 — font sizes

>>>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:

	[Cross-posting to news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets,
	as, so far as I can tell, Web styling topics belong there.]

[...]

 > How to size things is admittedly a hard problem.  Lots of web sites
 > fail with fonts set too large.  Most GUI languages lay out screens
 > in pixels.

	Regardless of how it's done, designing a GUI to accommodate for
	the sheer variety of user requirements, preferences and expectations
	out there takes a truly incredible amount of effort.

 > HTML supports sizes in mm, but lots of sites use px anyway.

	However, CSS 2.1 requires for the following equalities to hold:

    72pt = 96px = 25.4mm = 2.54cm = 1in.

	When rendering a document for a high-resolution device (such as
	a 600 dpi printer), one of the "physical" units (mm, cm, in) is
	made true (subject to the user-specified scale) and, e. g., 1px
	effectively becomes 1/96 in.

	Conversely, for a low-resolution device, 1px is one device's
	pixel and 1in is taken to mean "96 pixels" -- irrespective of
	the pixel's physical dimensions.

 > You still need to consider resolution and screen size to figure out
 > the ideal size.

	Yes.

	The CSS "media query" constructs allow for the parts of the
	layout specification to be conditionalized based on the
	currently available screen estate, but it still remains possible
	for the user to use a screen configuration that doesn't fit
	anything the .css author has thought of.

	Personally, I just go with the Gutenberg's example and specify
	"max-width: 72ex" for the "prose" sections of my Web documents.
	(But please ping me when they start printing [non-visual] novels
	in single-column landscape!)

-- 
FSF associate member #7257  np. Troll (Felix Culpa) -- Slaygon and Reyn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17331

In article <q1qa8c$uhk$2@dont-email.me>,
Dan Espen  <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>Recently got one of these:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/ybou6zbt
>
>(Dell.com 28" 3840x2160)
>
>Took me a few days to find solutions for all the programs that ended up
>with tiny unreadable fonts.

I upgraded to 4K about three and a half years ago.  Most programs adapted
without me needing to do much of anything; about the only programs that
didn't are Java apps (not too surprising, given the dumpster fire that is
Java) and Windows apps running under Wine.  Browser tabs usually run at
110-125% zoom.  Both KDE (on Gentoo Linux) and Windows 10 make good use of
4K.

>Still not quite sure what to do with all the extra screen real estate.
>Web browsers in full screen look pretty silly since most sites confine
>text to what they think are normal screen widths.  But videos
>look great.

The larger size has obviated any need for a second monitor at home.  I have
two smaller monitors on my desk at work, but the monitor at home is nearly
as wide as my (admittedly small) desk.

  _/_
 / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/           Top-posting!
 \_^_/                              >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web