Why not buy a small 4K TV instead of a large 4K monitor?

The Pool Man said:

(snip)

HERE'S THE QUESTION -- Why wouldn't someone just by the 4K TV instead? Is there a spec thing I'm not considering? Is it that if I sat 3 feet away from a 4K set it would look all pixelated?

People do it.

Rule of thumb: if the spacing between the TV and the eye is about equal to the diagonal of the TV, the pixels will just be resolved by someone with good vision.

I suggest not getting an OLED TV because of potental burn-in issues. The smallest OLED is 55", anyway - a bit large for a desktop monitor.

Bigger screens require much more effort to do work that would be easier on smaller screens. That's why most offices you see have regular monitors setup for their staff. Most pro gamers utilise a single regular sized monitor. Most people use regular sized monitors. If having big screens worked for us we would all be using big screens. It's just more information to process all at once which interferes with our productivity and our efficiency. When you can do something twice as fast on a smaller screen why get a bigger one and then that speed potentially slowing? Bigger is not always better. Bigger can sometimes be a burden.

Also, I think the lines have been blurred between TV and monitor over the years. Is there much of a difference? I personally think not. However, monitors are and always will be the de facto universal display device for computer systems. You can be guaranteed to connect a monitor to a computer and without a hitch output the display of the computer onto the screen due to the standards set over the decades which give monitors capital over being the default output device. Just plug in and away you go!
A TV doesn't have that real estate. The driver would in some situations need to be installed before it would work. And in scenarios where the computer perhaps doesn't recognise the TV you're in a sticky spot, especially at boot-up and at stages of your computer operating where drivers have not been loaded. A TV is not programmed to operate in such a way although today it could be argued they have this compatibility baked into their hardware/software. A monitor though? It works out of the box. No questions. It was designed to work with computers, a TV wasn't.

So it's a usage based question. And one which I think has more purist roots than anything else. With more and more people using multi-use technology these days ie phones that also work as wireless tethering devices, contactless payment devices, projectors etc and TVs that are now effectively computers in and of themselves with their own operating system and mobile processor it has become confusing as to what really is the difference. But... if you were to ask someone who was true to the roots of the history of computing and the history of the devices used and their integration into modern computers and operating systems you would be informed of the importance of monitors as opposed to TVs.

supermammalego said:

Just plug in and away you go!

I plugged this sad little $199 Beelink Celeron Mini PC into my 55 inch Samsung and it just works. Is that because it was likely intended as a TV PC or because Windows 10 just works?

Thanks for excellent post, by the by.

It will likely be Windows 10. Ever since Windows 95 Microsoft have been on a mission to ensure all devices are compatible with Windows operating systems. It's one of the reasons people gravitate to Windows more than any other OS because this culture of devices always seeming to work with Windows has been developed over several decades. Now people just assume everything works. And it's probably true today, everything DOES work with Windows.

I can remember when Windows 95 and 98 were first rolling out this plan. Many devices were hit and miss. You'd get the infamous circle with the white X in it telling you there has been a critical error. Something has corrupted and now your version of Windows is heading for the scrapheap, or so it felt anyway! You'd restart, you'd have to manually configure something which today you simply plug in and it installs the necessary drivers within seconds of connecting to the system. Today that progress made by Microsoft now ensures that companies globally manufacture products that by default work with Windows before anything else. And so you just plug the device in and it very likely has some sort of compatibility with the Windows operating system, at least if it has some sort of purpose as a device usable on a computer running Windows.

Much of the universal compatibility stretches back before Windows though. Your very first terminal based computers had to instinctively recognise and trust the output display device ie the monitor. This was because we didn't have the sort of technology we have today and the ability to operate computers in myriad infinite ways. The OS by default output data to the terminal and well, the terminal was being displayed on a monitor. You simply had a big computer that was otherwise devoid of purpose if it couldn't output information to the monitor. And so this universality had to be instilled into the future of computers so that a monitor was always recognisable in order for it to be used to display the contents of the terminal.

Still to this day on the hierarchy of trusted devices the monitor is right up there close to the top position, alongside the likes of your mouse, keyboard etc. Without these standards in place our communication with computers would be much less effective and much more troublesome. We need the relationship to be solid in order for us to use these devices universally and without setbacks.

You certainly can use a TV instead of a monitor. The things to consider:
1). does the TV have the input you need. They obviously have HDMI, but they probably don't have a display port if you need that.
2). do you have the space on your desk for your TV and how close will you be sitting to it.
3). TV's have speakers, so that is nice
4). TV's have smart features such as apps and things like AirPlay which provide great functionality.

I still use a monitor as 24"-27" seems to be ideal for me in terms of size. I'll have to try hooking up my desktop at some point to my 75" TV in my living room to see how it feels. That's what I have my Xbox One X connected to for my video gaming.

I've pretty much gone the other way.

4 years ago, I bought a Roku device, planning to upgrade my overall "TV" experience. I gave up cable TV entirely, but still had a pretty high quality Samsung TV and intended to go Roku crazy, in combination with "over the air" reception of local digital TV signals.

I did for maybe 2 years.

Then, about 2 years ago--out of curiosity and a whim: I got a Sling subscription and bought a $70 external Hauppage TV tuner and began watching TV on my PC monitor. The Hauppage plugs directly into my TV antenna (tacked to a wall) and is connected directly the PC, where it is then routed to the monitor. I had zero experience with TV tuners and bought the external only because I didn't want to open the PC case and use an internal tuner.

Works very well so far. Maybe 40 channels via Sling and another 30 or so local via the Hauppage tuner.

The PC monitor (with speakers) at about a 24 inch distance is a considerably better experience than a "large screen" TV at 10 or 12 feet.

The Roku is largely unused anymore. I haven't turned my TV on in a year or more.

I've just a month ago changed to using a brand new Sony 43" UHD 4k TV as my main monitor. I also have a Dell 27" 1920 x 1080 in portrait mode as a second monitor. Overall I'm glad I'm made the change it has worked well for me.

The viewing distance to the TV is 1 meter which works well for me. I do think as noted above the viewing distance when using a TV in this manner is important. I wouldn't want to get too close to the TV as it would be hard on the eyes. Also 43" inches is as large as I would want to go to for a TV as a computer monitor. I've seen plenty of people on videos on YouTube with 55" TV's as computer monitor. Seems to be overkill unless there is a sound use case for doing so.

There are sound arguments both ways re using a standard monitor vs TV. For me one was the cost of upgrading. I was going to buy a decent quality 34" ultra wide screen monitor but in New Zealand where I live are double the cost of the Sony TV I purchased.

I dumped out 3x 27" HP Elite i -series displays and bought a 40" Samsung UHD. I play quite a lot and i dont mind about 60Hz. Also I do same amount of drawings and designs so this is win-win-win, cause I have built-in netflix and TV when I hit the sofa.