32" is an extremely common size for 4k at 100% scaling so I can see the desire for 8k using 200% scaling at the resolution. 225-250% would probably be more "proper" densities for such a display but many like to go a bit under standard scale.
I have a 32" monitor with 4k resolution. With macOS, it's unusable at 100% scaling. It's far too dense. Sure, you can change fonts in many applications, but not all.
Many would disagree with you is the the point I was making, not that everyone should agree. Some don't think 32" 4k at 200% scaling is large enough while others don't think running a ~4k 16" MacBook at 100% scaling is too small to use. What's relevant is that 4k 32" at 100% scaling remains popular and should not be surprising to read about as a use case, despite whatever one's personal preference is.
Some of this comes down to visual acuity, viewing distance, and what one is used to as feeling normal. Things like changing font sizes are just another way at upping the scaling factor though.
It's quite popular, but I personally don't get it. It's too low density for text to look good on it, 24-27" is around the maximum. It's too small to be a single monitor, while being too big to comfortably fit in multi-monitor setups.
I guess it's popular because 32" 4k TVs make the panels cheaper?
What would be more proper in this case is to make it 64" display. Otherwise it is just a waste of resources. But one can not sit in front of 64" monitor at a normal viewing distance. I would guess except some very limited niches 8K PC monitor makes little sense
I don't think so. From where I'm sitting, I can see the rainbow effects of antialiasing on my 4k 32" monitor. The easiest way to observe this is some skinny light text on a dark background.
Other than that, I'm quite happy with my screen real-estate. So, I would indeed love it to have a higher resolution. I could probably use a somewhat bigger screen, a bit further away, that would do a better job as a TV the rare times I use it as such (don't have an actual TV). But all in all, I just want smaller pixels.
Others are talking about higher refresh rates, but for my use case it wouldn't be as useful since I rarely drag things around (I use a TWM) and don't use smooth scrolling in apps.
> I can see the rainbow effects of antialiasing on my 4k 32" monitor
Are you talking about subpixel rendering?
Leveraging individual R G and B dots needs knowledge of the layout to achieve increased resolution, and the algorithm should be adjusting (best effort) to compensate for human colour perception with knowledge of the subpixel layout + subpixel size.
But usually it might be that the screen has a different layout than the OS picked, e.g RGB vs BGR, vertical vs horizontal, or it has a peculiar layout like RGBG. See down the page for an example when it doesn't match, which usually gives the perceptual effect you described https://www.grc.com/ctwhat.htm
At some point though I found with increasing DPI there's diminishing returns to go subpixel and it's simply easier and just as good to go grayscale AA and be done with it.
I'm familiar with the subpixel arrangement issues. My display is RGB, according to its specs and to some review I've seen before buying it (I made a point of avoiding "non-standard" panels). I only notice this with very thin fonts, since sometimes the vertical lines end up "in between" pixels.
I agree that at some point grayscale AA is good enough. But I've found that that point is at a higher DPI than I get on a 4k 32" screen. On my 24" 4k screen grayscale is good enough, so the limit is somewhere in between for me.
