Every Monitor Sucks

The AW55 is excellent if you can manage not to get ass raped by Dell. Its slightly too big (thats what she said) and a 32" version would be better (also what she said).....but its the only game in town with no BLB, IPS Glow, VA Smear, Shitty TN angles, etc, etc.

Playing games on it is something else. Some next level shit IMHO.
 
Every monitor is some sort of compromise.
No. “Some sort of compromise” implies that there are several strengths, and one weakness. The different panel types (TN, VA, IPS, OLED) are like this.

Today’s monitors are one strength, and the rest compromises.
 
OLED is God Tier, blessed flawless beauty of the PC Master Race!

The display makers will not give us a perfect 32" 4k120VRR OLED for fear that we will never buy another monitor again. So they just keep pump and dumping the same old cheap LCD trash year after year.

I got the AW55 to get out of the shitty LCD racket until we get a 32" blessed beauty, and if it were not for Dell raping me in the ass over the price on the 32nd day, I would be totally happy....but its OK, I raped them in the ass right back.
 
OLED is God Tier, blessed flawless beauty of the PC Master Race!

The display makers will not give us a perfect 32" 4k120VRR OLED for fear that we will never buy another monitor again. So they just keep pump and dumping the same old cheap LCD trash year after year.

I got the AW55 to get out of the shitty LCD racket until we get a 32" blessed beauty, and if it were not for Dell raping me in the ass over the price on the 32nd day, I would be totally happy....but its OK, I raped them in the ass right back.

Wrong.

32" is too big, 4K is too many pixels, 120Hz is too low and 16:9 is too narrow.

"Every monitor sucks" compared to what?

Reality?

What kind of "upsides only" world do you think you live in?
 
Wrong.

32" is too big, 4K is too many pixels, 120Hz is too low and 16:9 is too narrow.

None of those metrics are objective (Personally 32” is the right size, I would be happy with even more pixels than 4K but 4K is okay, 120Hz is plenty when coming from 60Hz [and I game at 4K and have zero hope right now of even reaching 120Hz anyway] and I don’t want an ultra wide for anything other than gaming which is a very small percentage of what I do in front of a computer).

Subjectivity is kind of the problem with this thread in the first place. Granted there is a lot of garbage. But then manufacturers do create high end displays and every in this forum bitches about the cost. The X27 had some compromises but costed 2k. The xb273k brought the cost variable down but people still complain about it. Dell created an OLED monitor but no one bought it at $5k or whatever dollars it was.

So whatever. Be unhappy I guess if it suits you (the proverbial you not specifically you). I’m okay with the compromises that have to be made to get what I need. If I wasn’t I should more or less be prepared to spend $2k-$10k.

For reference, right now I’m on the LG 31mu97 and it’s basically perfect. True 10-bit, DCI-4K. Excellent color reproduction, 97%+ DCI-P3. Awesome uniformity. I’m also a video editor, cinematographer, and photographer so for this application it doesn’t get much more perfect than this. The only compromise is of course it’s not designed for gaming. Still it does just fine for the occasional game and this compromise doesn’t bother me in the slightest when it does so well for its intended work purpose as a basically reference spec monitor.

Edit: I should also note that every time someone says “change my mind” they really just want an argument and have no intention of their mind being changed. Change my mind.
 
Last edited:
43 curved is perfect for me. It's just now my TV is 2 generations old and they currently aren't doing curved any longer and the 43" space in the TV market has dwindled in general. But yeah, every "monitor" does suck, not even sure if I could ever go back to a non TV display.
 
I just got a 43" 4K Samsung QLED TV. It's easily the best computer monitor I've ever used. The only improvements that could elevate this TV to perfect status are curved and OLED. But, I know that ain't ever gonna happen.
 
None of those metrics are objective (Personally 32” is the right size, I would be happy with even more pixels than 4K but 4K is okay, 120Hz is plenty when coming from 60Hz [and I game at 4K and have zero hope right now of even reaching 120Hz anyway] and I don’t want an ultra wide for anything other than gaming which is a very small percentage of what I do in front of a computer).

Subjectivity is kind of the problem with this thread in the first place. Granted there is a lot of garbage. But then manufacturers do create high end displays and every in this forum bitches about the cost. The X27 had some compromises but costed 2k. The xb273k brought the cost variable down but people still complain about it. Dell created an OLED monitor but no one bought it at $5k or whatever dollars it was.

Subjectivity is at the root of the problem but people use their monitors for very different purposes even within the same use case, preferences vary wildly.

Look at all the threads for any of the unique form factors like the 32:9 Samsungs or the LG 38" Gsync. You will always find people who say "This double wide monitor is interesting, but let me know when they make a version just like it but twice as tall" or one of about 5 other flavors of cranks: "where is MICRO LED!" or "Call me when they make a gaming OLED!"

The entitlement and unrealistic expectation would be recognizably absurd in any other product domain.
 
Wrong.

32" is too big, 4K is too many pixels, 120Hz is too low and 16:9 is too narrow.

"Every monitor sucks" compared to what?

Reality?

What kind of "upsides only" world do you think you live in?

Wrong, wrong double wrong!

-32" is Holy Spirit Baby Jesus ordained size by the Gods.
- 4k is not too many pixels, layoff the moonshine!
-120hz + OLED is not the same as LCD 120hz shit
- 16:9 is too narrow @ 27" thus the sweet baby jeebus land god ordained 32" blessed based size of zeus kock!
 
Subjectivity is at the root of the problem but people use their monitors for very different purposes even within the same use case, preferences vary wildly.

Look at all the threads for any of the unique form factors like the 32:9 Samsungs or the LG 38" Gsync. You will always find people who say "This double wide monitor is interesting, but let me know when they make a version just like it but twice as tall" or one of about 5 other flavors of cranks: "where is MICRO LED!" or "Call me when they make a gaming OLED!"

The entitlement and unrealistic expectation would be recognizably absurd in any other product domain.

Absolutely. After finding a 32:9 monitor absolutely excellent for work and really good for gaming depending on the game, I now would just like a big, higher res 21:9/32:9/32:10 version to give me similar real estate but also higher PPI. 38-43" 5120x2160, 120+ Hz displays are going to be glorious when they hopefully come to market sooner rather than later. I made a small gallery of some super ultrawide screenshots here: Hope to add some from Red Dead Redemption 2 tomorrow.

I remember buying my first LCD, a 20 something inch Viewsonic because the CRT displays I had bought and returned had severe issues with geometry and sharpness as GPUs started transitioning to having worse DA converters for VGA. I had to exchange that LCD for two different models because the first one broke, the second one had black crush and was impossible to calibrate correctly (early VA panel) while the third one was Viewsonic's top model at the time and worked well. From that I moved to the 30" Dell 3008WFP which was a tad large for its 2560x1600 resolution and probably had a ton of input lag but I was happily gaming on it. It even scaled 1080p well, much better than Nvidia GPUs at the time. Then I bought the ASUS PG278Q which was one of the first high refresh rate G-Sync 1440p monitors. I was surprised that I was not bothered by the 8-bit TN panel (coming from a wide gamut IPS) on that and used it until this year without issue. It still has a great response time, refresh rate and ULMB even if it does not hold a candle in contrast and colors to my Samsung CRG9 QLED.

The moral of the story is that nothing has changed in displays, they are all compromises and you have to pick the best for your needs from what's available at the time and just deal with any shortcomings it may have. There will always be something better coming "soon". At least in a few years we will have a bit of stability as we have high bandwidth DP 2.0 and HDMI 2.1 so we hopefully see less 60 Hz monitors. Then in a few years from that there will be people going "Psh, it's not even 8K Micro-LED 480 Hz, take that trash out of my face!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panel
like this
I would probably stick with my 3x PG279QZs for a while if I could just get something to push them. 7680x1440 is a hell of a lot of pixels for a single 1080Ti.

That said, the other day, I made a custom NV Surround resolution 5760x1080 (triple 1080 running on three 1440 monitors).

Anyway, it's very slightly fuzzy and there are some weird shading anomalies in the distance but I get a pretty smooth and solid 100fps in Modern Warfare using 3 screens.

It's been so long since I've been able to push a modern fps game on 3 screens that I forgot how much I love it.

I'll probably still go with the 38" LG just because 3 monitors is a hassle - three times the cables (3 DP, 3 HDMI), three times the mounts, three times the input switching, and when you end up playing on just the center screen most of the time, it starts to wear on you.
 
normal gamers: monitor looks good, I’ll buy it


This forum: “no, instead Spend $2000 on the Asus even though it sucks. how hard is it to make a 4K 240hz variable refresh OLED display? Why can’t they make my dream monitor?”



:rolleyes:

I mean there’s [H] and then there’s whining.
 
I should also note that every time someone says “change my mind” they really just want an argument and have no intention of their mind being changed. Change my mind.
The reason I posted this thread wasn't to argue. Rather, I was hoping that people would fill the thread with enough positivity to counteract the pessimism that I've developed towards the current display market.

In other words, it was to make myself feel better. And so far, it's somewhat worked.
normal gamers: monitor looks good, I’ll buy it


This forum: “no, instead Spend $2000 on the Asus even though it sucks. how hard is it to make a 4K 240hz variable refresh OLED display? Why can’t they make my dream monitor?”

:rolleyes: I mean there’s [H] and then there’s whining.
I'm fine at 60 Hz and non-ultrawide. I just want ANY OLED monitor. There's no reason it shouldn't exist. Most tech heads who aren't display orientated have noticed that their laptops and TVs and phones are OLED, and some are even high refresh, but their monitors looks the same they did 10 years ago, with a few ultrawides and high-refresh ones thrown in the mix.
"Call me when they make a gaming OLED!"

The entitlement and unrealistic expectation would be recognizably absurd in any other product domain.
Are we really acting as if this is what people have been asking for? There's a difference between wanting a dream display and asking for someone to make an OLED monitor because it's been a decade since the technology's existed. People are pissed because the tech is clearly there, but they're purposely moving at snail speed. It's deliberate, and it's malicious, and that's obvious.
 
Subjectivity is at the root of the problem but people use their monitors for very different purposes even within the same use case, preferences vary wildly.

Look at all the threads for any of the unique form factors like the 32:9 Samsungs or the LG 38" Gsync. You will always find people who say "This double wide monitor is interesting, but let me know when they make a version just like it but twice as tall" or one of about 5 other flavors of cranks: "where is MICRO LED!" or "Call me when they make a gaming OLED!"

The entitlement and unrealistic expectation would be recognizably absurd in any other product domain.

Entitlement? This is a free market. Someone saying "I don't like your products, make a better one and I'll buy it" is not entitlement. It's market pressure. I haven't bought a new display in 5 years, even though I don't like my current one that much: not because I can't afford or refuse to pay for a the one that suits me, but because I can't see any display on the market worth paying for. a screen that ticks all my boxes does not exist, therefore I'm not opening my wallet. That's not entitlement. That's having the godamn right to what I want with my godamn money. These days people think ANY form of opinion is entitlement.
 
Entitlement? This is a free market. Someone saying "I don't like your products, make a better one and I'll buy it" is not entitlement. It's market pressure. I haven't bought a new display in 5 years, even though I don't like my current one that much: not because I can't afford or refuse to pay for a the one that suits me, but because I can't see any display on the market worth paying for. a screen that ticks all my boxes does not exist, therefore I'm not opening my wallet. That's not entitlement. That's having the godamn right to what I want with my godamn money. These days people think ANY form of opinion is entitlement.

It's not market pressure when the people who have not bought a display in 5 years don't want to buy any displays.

I've bought 8 displays in the last 5 years plus a QLED TV. (3X S2417DG, 1X AW3418, 3X PG279QZ plus two 60Hz 1080P accessory monitors.)

The monitor market is not going to make quantum leaps, they are going to get there incrementally.

Also, OLEDs look weird.
 
Also, OLEDs look weird.

giphy.gif
 
The Asus Strix XG438Q would be a pretty good unit too if you have the real estate. https://www.asus.com/Monitors/ROG-Strix-XG438Q/
- 4K 4:3 VA Panel
- 120 refresh rate Freesync 2
- HDR 600
I was so hopeful for this one, but they screwed it up by giving it an asinine BGR sub-pixel array. On top of that, it's overdrive implementation isn't great, and it gets pretty bad black smear.

Of course, the worst black smear I've ever seen is on OLED (it's like moving jelly), but that's besides the point.
 
It's like some kind of cosmic law that monitors have to suck.

Take the LG 27GL850. Hey, an IPS panel that's almost as far as a TN panel! Some progress, finally!

Except ops, the contrast sucks. One step forward, one step backwards, and nothing ever changes.
 
I think the real enemy here is - economy and inflation. There are great monitors out there, but they're more than we would like to spend on them, is probably what it really boils down to.

I paid $252 for my monitor. In 1999 dollars, that's $163.51. I'm using 1999 as that's when the GDM-FW900 was first manufactured. Dell now has the Alienware 55 inch OLED on sale for $2800. In 1999 dollars, that's $1816.80 - almost $700 less than an FW-900 at the time ($2499 brand new).

So yeah, we don't have those nice 32-inch OLED monitors, but we do have something that will hands-down beat the previous king of the hill in pretty much every metric you throw at it. Surely that monitor doesn't suck right? :)

I also think that the problem also is this. CRT kicked a lot of ass and achieved a LOT when it came to outright display quality. Hell, the best monitor I ever owned still is the FW-900 (or F520 - depending on the day). I recently got rid of them so this isn't nostalgia talking. When I got my FW-900 in 2013, I paid $350 shipped for it. I learned to calibrate it and dialed it in to perfection. No monitor at the time, for $350 (or any price really) could touch it. For a while, top end PC CRT monitors could be had for literally nothing but your time and muscle strength. No LCD monitors could even come close in display quality. That's how good we videophiles have had it these years. LCD's are finally catching up, and are even surpassing CRT's in certain measures (through no fault of CRT, I might add - standards - like color gamut - do change with time).

Long story short. Not every monitor sucks. Our buying power, over time, has lessened. And instead of keeping more quality electronics in the supply chain, manufacturers have been trying to keep prices about the same or lower as they have been in the past. There's gonna be some corners cut from this. It's too bad, but it is what it is. After all, manufacturers aren't going to make things we won't buy. Doesn't matter how good said things are. For most people, it comes down to price and "is it good enough?"
 
I also think that the problem also is this. CRT kicked a lot of ass and achieved a LOT when it came to outright display quality.
I'm the opposite. All of my CRT memories are terrible, but maybe my CRTs weren't that great? Terrible blacks, Annoying fish bowl shape, flickering refresh rate (although 85hz was nice at the time), enormous and bulky. Resolution was okay i guess, obviously crap compared to resolutions we have today. I had a viewsonic 17" generic CRT, and a couple SONY 21" trinitrons.

The first LCDs were terrible, but at some point around 2007 I decided the ghosting and input latency had dramatically gone down, and the colors were okay. I definitely do not miss any of the CRTs i owned.

These days I walk into costco and am just blown away by the quality of the TVs.
 
No. “Some sort of compromise” implies that there are several strengths, and one weakness. The different panel types (TN, VA, IPS, OLED) are like this.
Today’s monitors are one strength, and the rest compromises.
Compromise is not a synonym for weakness or con. A compromise does not imply one weakness. A compromise means giving up some thing(s) you wanted for some other thing(s).
 
I'm the opposite. All of my CRT memories are terrible, but maybe my CRTs weren't that great? Terrible blacks, Annoying fish bowl shape, flickering refresh rate (although 85hz was nice at the time), enormous and bulky. Resolution was okay i guess, obviously crap compared to resolutions we have today. I had a viewsonic 17" generic CRT, and a couple SONY 21" trinitrons.

The first LCDs were terrible, but at some point around 2007 I decided the ghosting and input latency had dramatically gone down, and the colors were okay. I definitely do not miss any of the CRTs i owned.

These days I walk into costco and am just blown away by the quality of the TVs.

I'm thinking your CRT's weren't that great. My CRT monitors were measurably better than my LCD monitors - even the newest VA gaming monitor that I just got. Then again, I calibrated mine too, which can make a huge difference.

TV's are one thing... I'm not really sure what's going on here. But for some reason, VA televisions easily achieve over 5,000:1 native contrast ratio, without resorting to backlight dimming or FALD. Not sure why VA monitors can't achieve this. The best measured monitor I've read about was the AOC C24G1 VA gaming monitor. That one got over 3000:1 native contrast. Actually - I take that back. I have a Viewsonic VA monitor that also does better than 3,000:1 contrast too. But nowhere near the 6,000:1 you regularly see with TV's (EDIT - and these TV's don't have dimming or FALD). So I don't know what they're doing differently than the monitors to achieve that.

Double Edit - I forgot about the Eizo Foris FG2421. How could I?! :D That one actually did a hair over 5000:1 static contrast if I remember correctly, but it had some quality control issues that ultimately made Eizo pull the plug. That's the only VA panel that I know of that reaches TV territory.
 
Last edited:
Wrong.

32" is too big, 4K is too many pixels, 120Hz is too low and 16:9 is too narrow.

"Every monitor sucks" compared to what?

Reality?

What kind of "upsides only" world do you think you live in?

And there's the problem... everyone has a different idea of what a "good" monitor is. Although your 'preferences' seem to roll up every single whacky complaint I've seen over the past decade into one sentence.

Personally, 32", 4k, 120hz, 16:9 would be the dream monitor. I'd happily pay $2,000 for that. Maybe even a bit more than that if it had top notch HDR performance.
 
Lots of interesting opinions in this thread, some whining, a bit of stupidity. I'm very entertained.

There's a difference between wanting a dream display and asking for someone to make an OLED monitor because it's been a decade since the technology's existed. People are pissed because the tech is clearly there, but they're purposely moving at snail speed. It's deliberate, and it's malicious, and that's obvious.

This is probably the best point on this thread. There used to be 5" AMOLED screens. They said making them big was prohibitively expensive. Then 55"+ OLEDs showed up. Suddenly they said making them smaller was too difficult - and every Samsung phone owner was baffled by the nonsensical excuse. Size is no longer an issue then - we can make OLEDs big and small. Forget about an OLED monitor, the excuse will be potential burn-in (how does anyone know how I'll use that "monitor" to judge that?). No monitor then, OK, how about a TV? You only need an HDMI 2.0 connector to use that display for whatever the hell you want, TV or monitor. Display your desktop, or game/watch movies on it, you decide.

So, where are the 40" OLED TVs? The 32" OLED TVs? ***crickets***

It's like some kind of cosmic law that monitors have to suck.

If by cosmic law you mean manufacturers not wanting to make good, smaller sized OLED panels because they'll be picture perfect and last for a bunch of years, meaning they'll lose sales overall... then yes, it's a cosmic law.

Personally, 32", 4k, 120hz, 16:9 would be the dream monitor. I'd happily pay $2,000 for that. Maybe even a bit more than that if it had top notch HDR performance.

While we all want different things, I'd say a 32" 4K 16/9 monitor would satisfy the great majority of users. 120hz would be great, but 60hz would be acceptable to most (specially if we're talking OLED, the ultra-low latency on its own would make it far better than 60hz LCD). However, why on Earth would you pay 2K for that? You can buy a 32" 4K 75hz 16/9 monitor for $300 right now. Adding 45hz to that panel certainly wouldn't cost $1700 more.

Personally I'm quite happy with my Philips 328E9FJAB: 32" QHD curved 16/9 VA panel. Great size, definition, colors, 75hz is enough (I got it for way cheaper than the regular $300 on a good deal). The only - notable - gripe? I can't wall-mount it because the idiotic designers put all the ports facing back, and neither HDMI/displayport/power will fit between the monitor/wall on a regular wall mount. Philips's design idiocy baffles me, on an otherwise great monitor.
 
While we all want different things, I'd say a 32" 4K 16/9 monitor would satisfy the great majority of users. 120hz would be great, but 60hz would be acceptable to most (specially if we're talking OLED, the ultra-low latency on its own would make it far better than 60hz LCD). However, why on Earth would you pay 2K for that? You can buy a 32" 4K 75hz 16/9 monitor for $300 right now. Adding 45hz to that panel certainly wouldn't cost $1700 more.

Personally I'm quite happy with my Philips 328E9FJAB: 32" QHD curved 16/9 VA panel. Great size, definition, colors, 75hz is enough (I got it for way cheaper than the regular $300 on a good deal). The only - notable - gripe? I can't wall-mount it because the idiotic designers put all the ports facing back, and neither HDMI/displayport/power will fit between the monitor/wall on a regular wall mount. Philips's design idiocy baffles me, on an otherwise great monitor.

Why on earth would I pay $2k for a 32"/4k/120hz/16:9 monitor? Well, I wouldn't for that specifically, I did leave out some critical details. G-Sync and (ideally) HDR support would be necessary. And of course it would have to be an IPS or *VA panel with excellent picture quality and low input lag, but I think that's a given regardless of your size/res/aspect ratio/refresh rate preferences. The $2k price point is where the Axer X27 and Asus PG27UQ released at; a monitor that ticked every box for me other than being too damn small. As far as the "bargain" (read: junk) 32" Philips you linked... how do you know that "adding 45hz to that panel" would not cost $1700? If 32" 4k 120hz panels existed, let alone without a huge price tag, surely we'd be seeing them for sale.

Anyway, I have a similar 32" 4k panel, the LG 32UD59. I believe I paid $450 for it. It's a mediocre VA panel, only 60hz refresh, and flat. I'm not interested in a curved display (yet another personal preference), and I recall that the 31.5" curved VA panels have worse input lag than the flat ones, at least at the time I bought my monitor. $450 or $300, flat or curved, they're still disappointing. Spending an extra $1550 or $1700 to get a panel with GOOD picture quality, 120hz+ refresh, G-Sync, and HDR would be a no brainer for me. But alas, such a monitor doesn't exist. Until then, I'll stick with playing musical primary displays based on what game I'm playing. 60hz or 75hz for first person shooters is absolutely miserable, so my 32" 165hz 1440p VA panel stays on my desk as well.
 
(snip) As far as the "bargain" (read: junk) 32" Philips you linked... how do you know that "adding 45hz to that panel" would not cost $1700? If 32" 4k 120hz panels existed, let alone without a huge price tag, surely we'd be seeing them for sale.

Ah, I see your point about Gsync and HDR, although a) if displays switch to HDMI 2.1 already, who cares about gsync when you'll have native VRR, and b) HDR is kind of useless until we have microled or at least miniled, so the benefit is negligible at worst to questionable at best if you have no decent number of FALD zones. As for how I know the price tag of said dream monitor, well, because it's already been available for a while at a reasonable price of $1400... though at a bigger 43" size (which still proves my point, a 32" 4K panel is not more expensive to produce than a 43 one, otherwise, those 4K phone screens would cost tens of thousands of dollars).

I wouldn't hate on the VA panels though. I much prefer them to IPS because of the higher contrast ratio. To each their own, of course, people have different preferences, but there's no color shift at all (helped by the Philips's curvature in my case) and so is the case with many recent, decent VA panels. Frankly, I've used $1500 LCD panels and they don't look 5 times as good as this humble $300 Philips (other than resolution/refresh rate, color reproduction is similar or in some cases, worse in the expensive models). As you said, all the things you ask for don't truly exist yet in one product, but switch Gsync for VRR and bypass HDR (which works like garbage on PCs anyway, unless you're playing on a console) and that should be a realistic panel NOW at sub-$1000. Should, doesn't mean you'll find it though. But this is not new, or exotic, or hard to make technology anymore. If it were, the couple FALD monitors we have available wouldn't cost $2000, they'd cost $10,000.

Until then, I'll stick with playing musical primary displays based on what game I'm playing. 60hz or 75hz for first person shooters is absolutely miserable, so my 32" 165hz 1440p VA panel stays on my desk as well.

I do feel your pain on this. Musical monitors for you it is for a while, then. That's why I ended up buying this Philips. Offered enough, was dirt cheap, great color reproduction (calibrated professionally at home to improve results), good black level, contrast, decent refresh rate (not great, but passable), good for work (qhd 16/9) and gaming (custom res ultrawide). Am I happy with it? No. Is there anything better I could buy that would satisfy me more? Nope. The name of the game is now WAITING. It'll probably be 3 years, easily, until I can buy what I want.
 
it's already been available for a while at a reasonable price of $1400... though at a bigger 43" size (which still proves my point, a 32" 4K panel is not more expensive to produce than a 43 one, otherwise, those 4K phone screens would cost tens of thousands of dollars).
Wait wait wait… if this thing exists, with 4K 120Hz, what the hell are we all waiting for over in the thread about the 43” Asuses and the upcoming 43” Acer?! Why do those 3 displays matter at all is this thing exists?! I don’t think I’ve been more confused in a good few months…
 
i went from a samsung 22" (i think) crt to crap ofgice minitor when i worked in asia. After that a budget samsung and budget asus 24" before investing in my current dell 27" isp display in my sig. when i have more money, desk space and gpu power i will go 32" 4k 120-144hrz HDR. Until then i will love my slim, attractive dell, especially when looking at my wives 13" macbook pro.
 
If by cosmic law you mean manufacturers not wanting to make good, smaller sized OLED panels because they'll be picture perfect and last for a bunch of years, meaning they'll lose sales overall... then yes, it's a cosmic law.

heh. The cynic in new has been thinking about this for a while. Used to be you’d but a TV and it would last you “forever” - only reason to get a new one was for bigger, or if the old one broke when you threw your controller at it. :)

After the introduction of “smart” TVs this started to change. I’d say it started when LCD/Plasma were introduced but a lot of those, plasmas especially, had a long useful life. I had an early “smart” 1080p Panasonic plasma that I used for a decade, because it had excellent picture and I didn’t care about the other smart nonsense.

but it seems since we started seeing “smart” TVs, there had always been a “next year” feature that the manufacturers push(first it was 1080i to 1080p, then “effective” refresh rates, 3D, 4K, 4K hdr, local dimming, actual refresh rates, and now VRR). we get slightly better LCDs every year, slightly more OLEDs every year, and the transition is stretched out for a decade or more.

TVs are a little too big to be disposable electronics but the manufacturers seem to think otherwise. It bugs me.
 
Wait wait wait… if this thing exists, with 4K 120Hz, what the hell are we all waiting for over in the thread about the 43” Asuses and the upcoming 43” Acer?! Why do those 3 displays matter at all is this thing exists?! I don’t think I’ve been more confused in a good few months…

I'd assume most people are apprehensive about buying a monitor that's made in Korea by a company named spicy fruit, ships from overseas, and is basically only sold via eBay.

Not sure why they fell off in popularity though. I had a UDH400 ~3 years ago I quite liked (other than the input lag). The 40 and 43" 4k 60hz Wasabi Mangos seemed to have a decent following online at the time.
 
Back
Top