From: nospam@needed.invalid   
      
   On Mon, 10/20/2025 4:42 AM, Edmund wrote:   
   > On 10/20/25 06:51, Paul wrote:   
   >> On Sun, 10/19/2025 9:36 AM, Edmund wrote:   
   >>> Dual monitiors different resolutions, expert needed.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Monitor 1080, TV 2160   
   >>>   
   >>> Now I want to use streams and movies in 4k on my TV   
   >>> and a READABLE!!! start menu displayed on the TV in order to start   
   >>> applications. This and other texts in a readable size, so it must be   
   >>> resized on the TV only, not on the monitor.   
   >>>   
   >>> So it would look like in the screen mirror option.   
   >>> Is this even possible?   
   >>>   
   >>> I found "scale" in the display setup, but what does it do?   
   >>> Does it resize or changing ( wasting ) the resolution?   
   >>   
   >> There is a reference to "fractional scaling" and some   
   >> capability to control individual monitors. This may require   
   >> settings not seen in the Display panel. More research needed.   
   >>   
   >> https://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?t=377737   
   >>   
   >>     Paul   
   >>   
   > Thanks, it is terrible.   
   > I am considering buying a 4k monitor increase the DPI and mirror it with my   
   TV. That should work I guess.   
   >   
      
   Well, yes and no. They claim that if a PC monitor is too small   
   when at the 3840x2160 native resolution mark, that the user   
   is pretty well forced to run it at 200%. If the TV is big enough,   
   you may not feel inclined to be limited to that choice, and   
   maybe the TV looks OK at 100% setting if it is a 75" diagonal set.   
      
   So while, yes, you can buy a 4K monitor, it should bear   
   some physical similarities to the TV set. Mixing a 27" 4K   
   computer monitor, with a 75" 4K TV set, may still have   
   some "satisfaction issues" with the results. I'm told   
   (I have no evidence of this particularly), that a 32" 4K   
   is "the smallest 4K you should buy". Whether the difference   
   between a 27" and a 32" is that dramatic, who really knows.   
      
   Just a guess.   
      
   I know when I bought my 4K monitor, I was not sufficiently   
   educated on the issues they bring with them. One of my   
   monitors died, so it wasn't a "discretionary purchase"   
   I was willing to wait weeks to complete. I was trying to buy   
   some monitor, as a replacement. And the selection at the   
   store, was a lot different than I was expecting.   
      
   I wanted to buy a 1440x900 monitor, so it would fit into exactly   
   the same space on my desk. There were none to be had. The   
   lowest resolution on offer was 1920x1080. The 3840x2160 didn't   
   cost that much more, but of all the models, only one model   
   at that resolution was in stock, so that's the one I got,   
   an Acer. There were no 32" 4K monitors in stock, and to buy   
   one of those, I had to "accept a demonstrator model". No,thankyou.   
      
   At another store, they had monitors sitting on tables over   
   by the wall. The wall had no electrical power outputs. The   
   demo models just sat on the table, as "dark lonely slabs".   
   How exactly was I supposed to shop there, if there weren't even   
   any cards announcing the brand, the name and the price ?   
      
   The monitor I got, isn't bad. But I had to turn the intensity   
   down to 7 of 100, to make the light bearable and not burn   
   a hole in my eyeball. The starting intensity was pretty high.   
      
   The monitor is slow to start - it might take eight seconds   
   from presenting a valid HDMI signal, until the monitor lights up.   
   It's not like any of my other monitors, in terms of "boot time".   
      
      Paul   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)