On 10/12/2014 08:49, Martin Brown wrote:

Clueless brandname snobbery is a great way to ensure that you get ripped
off at every turn. Dell are an overpriced US vendor to corporate types
whose main aim originally was to be slightly cheaper than IBM.

Compaq was another player in the dim and distant past and theirs were
faster. It was interesting to note that COCOM rules were such that IBM
could sell into Russia but Compaq PC and Acorn's BBC Micro could not.
(Compaq was 8MHz vs IBMs 4.7MHz and Acorns graphics were "too good")

Compaq are still going under the HP name.

There are plenty of reputable makers or even secondhand PC models
available that would be perfectly adequate for an ordinary home user.
This lot for instance (although they are not as good as they were)

http://www.morgancomputers.co.uk/

I'm generally impressed with the corporate Dell and HP hardware,
including servers, desktops and laptops - it's solid, reliable, well put
together and nice to work on.

For a home user, an old corporate dell or HP desktop is often an
excellent and cheap choice.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Well, yes. But if they buy a machine with installed OS I'd rather
expect they'd do the same again with a new one.

I guess some people must update/upgrade windows at some point.

I'd say it would depend on what they've bought. They might get a cheap
deal on an upgrade. So can't really expect that to do a fresh load to a
brand new empty machine.



I assemble my own PCs. So bought my own copy of Win 7 Home Premium. No
problem in loading that into a new machine.

I would hope not. Ther'es 6 differnt win 7 products.

I bought the one which gave me the things I wanted.

I hope you're not planing on going about 16GB RAM.

I expect to buy a later version if I ever upgrade the PC anyway. But I'm
happy enough with Win 7 for what I use it for. Which is not a lot.

--
*I started out with nothing, and I still have most of it*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 09/12/2014 20:47, Rod Speed wrote:



There are a few things Linux does better like looking
at a drive Win turns its nose up at. **** all else tho.

There may be an open source application that does that, but there are
also windows applications that do, including most of the diagnostic
stuff the disk manufacturers provide.

On 10/12/2014 11:14, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 December 2014 19:30:24 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message


You don't have to be rich to buy a Mac.

True.

PCs cost more NOT less.

Like hell they do.

it obviously depends on what you want.
I've got a retina Mac at the monment what PC can you buy that is similar enough to make it worth comparing ?

Any PC with HD at a sensible viewing distance.
Retina is just a marketing trick, any display viewed from far enough
away is a retina display. It appears that apple users fall for the trick.

On 10/12/2014 11:26, Tim w wrote:
On 09/12/2014 10:09, Peter Crosland wrote:
On 08/12/2014 22:52, Andrew Mawson wrote:
[...]

Thanks a bunch Microsoft - love you to bits
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The fault is your's not Microsoft's. You broke the terms of the licence.


What nonsense. A consumer isn't expected to read a license and even if I
read it I couldn't remember it or understand it for long. If MS sell an
OS then the consumer has a legal and moral right to expect it to work
and to be able to use it in a normal reasonable way. That would include
changing a hard drive and would include transferring it to another PC.

Tim W

If you do buy an OS from M$ you can transfer it and upgrade the
hardware, etc.
However if you are buying it from an OEM on a machine you don't get the
same options and you don't pay as much.
If you need to upgrade, transfer then buy from M$.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

You don't have to be rich to buy a Mac.

True.

PCs cost more NOT less.

Like hell they do.

it obviously depends on what you want.

Nope.

I've got a retina Mac at the monment what PC can you
buy that is similar enough to make it worth comparing ?

**** all want something like that and
you can see that from the sales of those.

(unless you get a real crappy one of course)

Even sillier than you usually manage.

"The Nomad" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:26:03 +0000, Tim w wrote:

On 09/12/2014 10:09, Peter Crosland wrote:
On 08/12/2014 22:52, Andrew Mawson wrote:
[...]

Thanks a bunch Microsoft - love you to bits
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The fault is your's not Microsoft's. You broke the terms of the
licence.


What nonsense. A consumer isn't expected to read a license and even if I
read it I couldn't remember it or understand it for long. If MS sell an
OS then the consumer has a legal and moral right to expect it to work
and to be able to use it in a normal reasonable way. That would include
changing a hard drive and would include transferring it to another PC.

Agree 100% but I fear you have not bought the OS ...

Legally you have.

You have, I think, purchased the right to use it on loan from M$.

Legally that is not correct.

The only winblows here is on a VM for extremis use - a work citrix based
thing that won't play nice with *nix (and that is XP with all the bits
turned off).

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 11:26:05 UTC, Tim w wrote:
On 09/12/2014 10:09, Peter Crosland wrote:
On 08/12/2014 22:52, Andrew Mawson wrote:
[...]

Thanks a bunch Microsoft - love you to bits
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The fault is your's not Microsoft's. You broke the terms of the
licence.


What nonsense. A consumer isn't expected to read a license and even if I
read it I couldn't remember it or understand it for long.

Forgot to say that isn't exactly true, as with MS you have options.
When I last looked you had a home edition a buisness edition
and a pro edition at the very least all being differnt in their own way.
Buying the home edition meant you couldn't transfer it to a new PC.

You've utterly mangled that as well. You're talking
about OEM editions as opposed to the retail OSs.

And that restriction on the OEMs has no legal basis anyway.

As MS hints at in the 'license' which is in fact nothing of the sort
legally.

It clearly says that nothing in that applys when it contravenes the law.

But there were ways around it or so someone told me. ;-)
Might be differnt with 8.x

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 13:21:35 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Buying the home edition meant you couldn't transfer it to a new PC.

I've got news for you...

as you snipped the important bit, in that case then change my line to
..............you [sh]ouldn't transfer it to a new PC.

You're just plain wrong legally.

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 10/12/2014 13:33, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 13:21:35 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:

Buying the home edition meant you couldn't transfer it to a new PC.

I've got news for you...

as you snipped the important bit, in that case then change my line to
..............you [sh]ouldn't transfer it to a new PC.

That isn't true either. The ones you cannot move to another PC are OEM
versions "not for resale" that are bound to the manufacturer of the PC.

Legally they aren't bound to anyone.

You can only run one copy if you only have one licence but you can move it
to another PC if you have a full Home licence rather than an OEM one.
Various third party tools exist to recover the registration code for when
you have lost the crucial package with the magic key on it.

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 10/12/2014 13:55, Andrew Mawson wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message ...

On 10/12/2014 13:33, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 13:21:35 UTC, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:

Buying the home edition meant you couldn't transfer it to a new PC.

I've got news for you...

as you snipped the important bit, in that case then change my line to
..............you [sh]ouldn't transfer it to a new PC.

That isn't true either. The ones you cannot move to another PC are OEM
versions "not for resale" that are bound to the manufacturer of the PC.

You can only run one copy if you only have one licence but you can
move it to another PC if you have a full Home licence rather than an
OEM one. Various third party tools exist to recover the registration
code for when you have lost the crucial package with the magic key on
it.


Well it is the 'professional' version and not and OEM version, and is
legally licenceable to three PCs (yes 3 - I checked with Microsoft when
I got it), and I'm fairly sure that the two PCs in question were loaded
from the same disc originally - though as I've bought two full copies of
Win 7 pro this possibly isn't the case.

All you need then is to talk to them explaining what has happened and they
should provide you with a suitable product validation code.

TBH if you swapped system disks between two radically different machines I
am surprised that you aren't having all sorts of strange driver conflicts
in addition to your other woes. Perhaps Win7 is a bit smarter than earlier
versions of 'doze in this department.

I had this hardware changed problem happen with another product fairly
recently when I tried to install it on an SSD based netbook and it took
exception to the very different hardware. The machine it was installed on
had expired with a puff of smoke. They were surprisingly good about it
too - I was expecting more of a Spanish inquisition.

Nothing good about it, that is what they are legally required to do.

You paid for the OS, you are legally entitled to run it on anything
you like, just on only one collection of hardware at a time.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 13:45:21 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 10/12/2014 13:33, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 13:21:35 UTC, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:

Buying the home edition meant you couldn't transfer it to a new PC.

I've got news for you...

as you snipped the important bit, in that case then change my line to
..............you [sh]ouldn't transfer it to a new PC.

That isn't true either. The ones you cannot move to another PC are OEM
versions "not for resale" that are bound to the manufacturer of the PC.

Which is what most people buy as individuals.
Most PCs come with the OS

Irrelevant to his situation.

You can only run one copy if you only have one licence but you can move
it to another PC if you have a full Home licence rather than an OEM one.

Which most people wouldn't have, I notice you said the full home
licence that would imply thre are other options and if a person IS
going to buy teh OS as a seperate item there's an advantage to
understandiong the licencing agremnet you are buying.

There is no licensing agreement, you are buying something
at retail and what legal rights you have on what you can do
with that are established by law, not by MS.

And that is just as true of the copy of the OS
you bought when you bought the hardware too.

Various third party tools exist to recover the registration code for
when you have lost the crucial package with the magic key on it.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 14:55:07 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 13:45:21 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 10/12/2014 13:33, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 13:21:35 UTC, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article
,
whisky-dave wrote:

Buying the home edition meant you couldn't transfer it to a new
PC.

I've got news for you...

as you snipped the important bit, in that case then change my line
to
..............you [sh]ouldn't transfer it to a new PC.

That isn't true either. The ones you cannot move to another PC are
OEM
versions "not for resale" that are bound to the manufacturer of the
PC.

Which is what most people buy as individuals.
Most PCs come with the OS

Well, yes. But if they buy a machine with installed OS I'd rather expect
they'd do the same again with a new one.

I guess some people must update/upgrade windows at some point.

Not very many do, they mostly just replace the hardware.

I assemble my own PCs. So bought my own copy of Win 7 Home
Premium. No problem in loading that into a new machine.

I would hope not. Ther'es 6 differnt win 7 products.
I hope you're not planing on going about 16GB RAM.

Dennis@home wrote
Rod Speed wrote

There are a few things Linux does better like looking
at a drive Win turns its nose up at. **** all else tho.

There may be an open source application that does that, but there are also
windows applications that do, including most of the diagnostic stuff the
disk manufacturers provide.

I didn’t mean that, I meant being able to see the
files and copy them off etc, not diagnostic stuff.

Yes, IMO the SMART apps like Everest are rather
more readable than the linux stuff like smartctl.

On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 18:32:13 UTC, Dennis@home wrote:
On 10/12/2014 11:14, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 December 2014 19:30:24 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message


You don't have to be rich to buy a Mac.

True.

PCs cost more NOT less.

Like hell they do.

it obviously depends on what you want.
I've got a retina Mac at the monment what PC can you buy that is similar enough to make it worth comparing ?

Any PC with HD at a sensible viewing distance.

I notice you didn't site one.

Retina is just a marketing trick, any display viewed from far enough
away is a retina display. It appears that apple users fall for the trick.

So what's the fuss with a 4k monitor/TVs are you saying they aren;t as good as HD ?

On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 19:00:32 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

You don't have to be rich to buy a Mac.

True.

PCs cost more NOT less.

Like hell they do.

it obviously depends on what you want.

Nope.

No one wants 4k TV's either do they.



I've got a retina Mac at the monment what PC can you
buy that is similar enough to make it worth comparing ?

**** all want something like that and
you can see that from the sales of those.

What are the sales of those, and why should I care what others want.
I doubt Ferrari have sold many LaFerrarieither, so what.

On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 19:37:09 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 13:45:21 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 10/12/2014 13:33, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 13:21:35 UTC, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:

Buying the home edition meant you couldn't transfer it to a new PC.

I've got news for you...

as you snipped the important bit, in that case then change my line to
..............you [sh]ouldn't transfer it to a new PC.

That isn't true either. The ones you cannot move to another PC are OEM
versions "not for resale" that are bound to the manufacturer of the PC.

Which is what most people buy as individuals.
Most PCs come with the OS

Irrelevant to his situation.

Very relivent. The software has a licence you havent; brought it.,

Which most people wouldn't have, I notice you said the full home
licence that would imply thre are other options and if a person IS
going to buy teh OS as a seperate item there's an advantage to
understandiong the licencing agremnet you are buying.

There is no licensing agreement, you are buying something
at retail and what legal rights you have on what you can do
with that are established by law, not by MS.

WRONG.

On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 19:45:42 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 14:55:07 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 13:45:21 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 10/12/2014 13:33, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 13:21:35 UTC, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article
,
whisky-dave wrote:

Buying the home edition meant you couldn't transfer it to a new
PC.

I've got news for you...

as you snipped the important bit, in that case then change my line
to
..............you [sh]ouldn't transfer it to a new PC.

That isn't true either. The ones you cannot move to another PC are
OEM
versions "not for resale" that are bound to the manufacturer of the
PC.

Which is what most people buy as individuals.
Most PCs come with the OS

Well, yes. But if they buy a machine with installed OS I'd rather expect
they'd do the same again with a new one.

I guess some people must update/upgrade windows at some point.

Not very many do, they mostly just replace the hardware.

I assemble my own PCs. So bought my own copy of Win 7 Home
Premium. No problem in loading that into a new machine.

I would hope not. Ther'es 6 differnt win 7 products.
I hope you're not planing on going about 16GB RAM.

Enough do, that's why it's sold in boxes and you choose which you
want.

On 12/12/2014 12:24, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 18:32:13 UTC, Dennis@home wrote:
On 10/12/2014 11:14, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 December 2014 19:30:24 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message


You don't have to be rich to buy a Mac.

True.

PCs cost more NOT less.

Like hell they do.

it obviously depends on what you want.
I've got a retina Mac at the monment what PC can you buy that is similar enough to make it worth comparing ?

Any PC with HD at a sensible viewing distance.

I notice you didn't site one.

I don't need too, and they will be different next week anyway.

Retina is just a marketing trick, any display viewed from far enough
away is a retina display. It appears that apple users fall for the trick.

So what's the fuss with a 4k monitor/TVs are you saying they aren;t as good as HD ?



How far away are you going to sit?
How big is the screen?
The human eye can only resolve about 4 arcminutes (about 0.002 degrees)
so you can work out what's retina once you decide the viewing distance
and the pixel size. That's before you take into account peoples poor vision.

On 12/12/2014 13:21, Dennis@home wrote:
On 12/12/2014 12:24, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 18:32:13 UTC, Dennis@home wrote:
On 10/12/2014 11:14, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 December 2014 19:30:24 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message


You don't have to be rich to buy a Mac.

True.

PCs cost more NOT less.

Like hell they do.

it obviously depends on what you want.
I've got a retina Mac at the monment what PC can you buy that is
similar enough to make it worth comparing ?

Any PC with HD at a sensible viewing distance.

I notice you didn't site one.

I don't need too, and they will be different next week anyway.

Retina is just a marketing trick, any display viewed from far enough
away is a retina display. It appears that apple users fall for the
trick.

So what's the fuss with a 4k monitor/TVs are you saying they aren;t as
good as HD ?



How far away are you going to sit?
How big is the screen?
The human eye can only resolve about 4 arcminutes (about 0.002 degrees)
so you can work out what's retina once you decide the viewing distance
and the pixel size. That's before you take into account peoples poor
vision.

Sorry make that 0.0002 degrees.

On Friday, 12 December 2014 13:21:10 UTC, Dennis@home wrote:
On 12/12/2014 12:24, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 18:32:13 UTC, Dennis@home wrote:
On 10/12/2014 11:14, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 December 2014 19:30:24 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message


You don't have to be rich to buy a Mac.

True.

PCs cost more NOT less.

Like hell they do.

it obviously depends on what you want.
I've got a retina Mac at the monment what PC can you buy that is similar enough to make it worth comparing ?

Any PC with HD at a sensible viewing distance.

I notice you didn't site one.

I don't need too,

I feel the same way when david icke claims that the royal family are lizards.


and they will be different next week anyway.

What about next year ?


Retina is just a marketing trick, any display viewed from far enough
away is a retina display. It appears that apple users fall for the trick.

So what's the fuss with a 4k monitor/TVs are you saying they aren;t as good as HD ?



How far away are you going to sit?

The same distance I always have.

How big is the screen?

it says 27 inches in the ad, arte you saying it isn't

The human eye can only resolve about 4 arcminutes (about 0.002 degrees)
so you can work out what's retina once you decide the viewing distance
and the pixel size. That's before you take into account peoples poor vision.

I can't see teh pixels on the screen without a magnifier, previosuly on my older imac I could.

On Friday, 12 December 2014 13:33:10 UTC, Dennis@home wrote:

How far away are you going to sit?
How big is the screen?
The human eye can only resolve about 4 arcminutes (about 0.002 degrees)
so you can work out what's retina once you decide the viewing distance
and the pixel size. That's before you take into account peoples poor
vision.

Sorry make that 0.0002 degrees.

I suggest you try again.

On 12/12/2014 13:35, whisky-dave wrote:


I can't see teh pixels on the screen without a magnifier, previosuly
on my older imac I could.

I can't see the pixels on either my laptop or my phone.
I can't see them on my daughters four year old laptop either.
So I guess retina displays were around then.
Just as well apple invented a new marketing term for them or nobody
would ever need them.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

You don't have to be rich to buy a Mac.

True.

PCs cost more NOT less.

Like hell they do.

it obviously depends on what you want.

Nope.

No one wants 4k TV's either do they.

**** all are actually stupid enough to buy a Mac.

I've got a retina Mac at the monment what PC can you
buy that is similar enough to make it worth comparing ?

**** all want something like that and
you can see that from the sales of those.

What are the sales of those,

Like I said, **** all.

and why should I care what others want.

It does indicate that **** all are actually stupid enough to buy them.

I doubt Ferrari have sold many LaFerrarieither,

Because they are insanely priced like the Macs, stupid.

so what.

So your original stupid claim about price is just that.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 19:37:09 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 13:45:21 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 10/12/2014 13:33, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 13:21:35 UTC, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:

Buying the home edition meant you couldn't transfer it to a new
PC.

I've got news for you...

as you snipped the important bit, in that case then change my line
to
..............you [sh]ouldn't transfer it to a new PC.

That isn't true either. The ones you cannot move to another PC are OEM
versions "not for resale" that are bound to the manufacturer of the
PC.

Which is what most people buy as individuals.
Most PCs come with the OS

Irrelevant to his situation.

Very relivent.

Wrong, as always.

The software has a licence you havent; brought it.,

Wrong, as always. Whatever they claim you have in fact bought
a copy of the OS and can run it on anything you like, legally.

Which most people wouldn't have, I notice you said the full home
licence that would imply thre are other options and if a person IS
going to buy teh OS as a seperate item there's an advantage to
understandiong the licencing agremnet you are buying.

There is no licensing agreement, you are buying something
at retail and what legal rights you have on what you can do
with that are established by law, not by MS.

WRONG.

RIGHT.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:27:47 +0000, "Dennis@home"
wrote:

On 12/12/2014 13:21, Dennis@home wrote:
On 12/12/2014 12:24, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 18:32:13 UTC, Dennis@home wrote:
On 10/12/2014 11:14, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 December 2014 19:30:24 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message


You don't have to be rich to buy a Mac.

True.

PCs cost more NOT less.

Like hell they do.

it obviously depends on what you want.
I've got a retina Mac at the monment what PC can you buy that is
similar enough to make it worth comparing ?

Any PC with HD at a sensible viewing distance.

I notice you didn't site one.

I don't need too, and they will be different next week anyway.

Retina is just a marketing trick, any display viewed from far enough
away is a retina display. It appears that apple users fall for the
trick.

So what's the fuss with a 4k monitor/TVs are you saying they aren;t as
good as HD ?



How far away are you going to sit?
How big is the screen?
The human eye can only resolve about 4 arcminutes (about 0.002 degrees)
so you can work out what's retina once you decide the viewing distance
and the pixel size. That's before you take into account peoples poor
vision.

Sorry make that 0.0002 degrees.

The other way, 0.02 to 0.03 degrees according to wikipedia.
--
J B Good

On 12/12/2014 12:24, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 18:32:13 UTC, Dennis@home wrote:
On 10/12/2014 11:14, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 December 2014 19:30:24 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message


You don't have to be rich to buy a Mac.

True.

PCs cost more NOT less.

Like hell they do.

it obviously depends on what you want.
I've got a retina Mac at the monment what PC can you buy that is similar enough to make it worth comparing ?

Any PC with HD at a sensible viewing distance.

I notice you didn't site one.

CBA to figure out what specification a Retina Mac provides. I assume it
is yet another of those Apple displays you need a magnifying glass for.

Basically you are advertising just how gulllible and susceptable to
slick Apple marketing snake oil and brand image you have become.

Retina is just a marketing trick, any display viewed from far enough
away is a retina display. It appears that apple users fall for the trick.

So what's the fuss with a 4k monitor/TVs are you saying they aren;t as good as HD ?

They are cute if you have room and can find some worthwhile content
encoded in the format you want to watch but you need a screen of at
least 2m for the extra resolution to be worthwhile at a comfortable
viewing distance. The limtations of the cameras and cameramen already
show up on HD broadcast material so good luck with 4k quality. A handful
of short demonstration disks exist at present that carefully pan around
so as not to display any artefacts (ditto for early HD).

Human eye resolution at best is 1' arc or about 0.0003 rad so a 4k pixel
screen has to subtend 1.2 radians before the pixels become visible. Put
another way about 3 pixels/mm at 1m viewing distance.

There is so little broadcast material available in that 4k format for a
sensible price that they are more white elephant than anything else -
although I expect some brandname led suckers will buy them.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 14/12/2014 18:26, Johny B Good wrote:

Sorry make that 0.0002 degrees.

The other way, 0.02 to 0.03 degrees according to wikipedia.


My calculator says 0.06 for 4 arc minutes now I am sober so you are
correct, note, must stop posting while on the booze, people might
mistake me for TNP.