I obtained a 13" 3200x1800 laptop (works out to about 300 PPI) for the purposes of testing our product on such devices. Because we were modifying our software to work well on such modern hardware, my experience was probably not as great as yours (it's better now, but still mot perfect).

The worst experience is on hereogenous multi-monitor setups. Most software behaves very badly when a 22" 96 pixels-per-inch external monitor is connected to a 300 pixels-per-inch internal monitor. A lot of stuff is badly written to always assume 96 pixels per inch (which was never true anyway) in order to render 12-point type as 14-point type at 20", for a perceived 12-point type at 12". Our design department's take on that was to have the value of an inch vary according to the display device. Idjits.

Anyway, I'm old, my eyes grow dim, and most default settings on the HD display are too small. I want 12 point type to render at 12 points regardless of the pixel density, and I want a GUI to scale appropriately. Anything that's using pixel coordinates is broken. I don't want my external monitor scaled up at the same rate. I'd give most software a couple of years before it works well on today's hardware.

Personally, I find that you have to balance resolution against the physical size of the display, and also the type of work you do. At some point, if you deal with a lot of text as programmers do, further increasing resolution isn't going to get you any more text on the screen comfortably. A high-res display almost certainly increases clarity and makes it possible to read somewhat smaller text more comfortably, but beyond a certain point its pixels for pixels-sake.

I use a 30" Dell 2560x1600 monitor flanked by Dell 1600x1200 in portrait (two at home, one at work) -- I don't see much need for more myself, I feel like this is adaquate room for actively working in 3 applications (I write documentation, so I typically have Visual Studio, Word, and a browser pointed at other documentation up front), and I usually share one of the side screens with outlook, our CMS, VM windows, Spotify, etc -- anything I switch to, finish, and leave. I can see how 1080p would be difficult to work with sometimes, just because it bounds the size of your window, and is too small otherwise to share a single screen with multiple UI-heavy applications. My 15.6" laptop is 1080p and that's only really enough for actively using one application.

I have heard of people using this inexpensive 39" 4k LCD television as a computer monitor, which due to its physical size and resolution is basically a replacement for 4 20" 1080p monitors. The Dell's are undoubtedly nicer in terms of panel quality and connectivity, but the DPI on the larger display is much closer to smaller, 1080p displays. Of course, that's a fair amount of head-swivel if you have any more than 1 of them at arm's length.

I think 4k @ 28" isn't terribly practical from a perspective of creating usable desktop area, although I'm sure the clearer text is nice for programmers and the extra pixels are great for artists. But, I guess if I were buying today instead of 12 months ago and if it weren't for the fact that the 30" dell pairs so well with the 16x12s in portrait, I would have looked at those 28" 4Ks.

I have heard of people using this inexpensive 39" 4k LCD television as a computer monitor, which due to its physical size and resolution is basically a replacement for 4 20" 1080p monitors.

I have heard of people using this inexpensive 39" 4k LCD television as a computer monitor, which due to its physical size and resolution is basically a replacement for 4 20" 1080p monitors.

I think I just found my new monitor...

Holy crap! $500 for a 4k TV?

soooo tempted.....

Holy crap! $500 [? Basic iPad, 2011] for a 4k TV?

I have this little Chrome plugin that quantifies things, and I constantly find it makes the web a better (if more confusing) place.

Love the discussion :-)

For me, 28" 4k is a bit too small to rely on pixels. I think 32" would be the sweet spot, but this varies by eyes and age. However, in the mean time, Windows Scaling works well enoguh.

What I like most is that soon, everything will be rendered in real-world measurements, and displays will have sufficient pixels to render properly. We will be able to pick what "size" we want things, and it will just look better on higher DPI devices.

Come on, 5 monitors for programming... I can't even image that.

My work coding setup has a 2560x1440 and a 1920x1080 connected to my desktop, and another 2560x1440 connected to my 1280x720 laptop.

I could see the need for another couple of 2560x1440, if I could convince the company to shell out for them...

Can you elaborate about your coding setup? I am using one VS 2012(rarely 2 or 3 open at the same time), SQL Server management studio and couple of browser instances, very often notepad ++ and git shell are also open, and all this I can handle on a single 22" monitor. Yes I could use another monitor, but I DON'T REALLY need one. So for me 3-5 monitor setup for coding is really out of this world :)

So for me 3-5 monitor setup for coding is really out of this world

Can I ask a potentially dumb question? If you buy super-high-res monitors and then have to scale everything in order to see it, what exactly is the benefit? I have a couple of 21" monitors running 1280x1024 which is about 75dpi. If I wanted more screen space and got 2 28" displays then 1600x1200 would give a similar dpi and at the distance I sit I don't get offended by the pixel size. If you're having to "fix" the problem of the pixels being so small, what are the benefits?