Microsoft’s Windows 10 will support up to 8K displays

[robzyb]

Why is support limited at all?

I would have thought that displaying up to N pixels - where N is much higher than the number of pixels in an 8K display - would generally be possible.

[seanmcdirmid]

My guess is that the OS assets would have to be redone after that. We are still stuck using pixel art for lots of things, and it is nice to have some standards until vector is good enough for everything.

[okasaki]

I guess it's for similar reasons that different Windows editions support different amounts of memory and CPUs and XP didn't get DirectX 10

They limit features so there's reason to buy new versions.

[madeofpalk]

I think this is more for 8k displays that scale down to sub-8k resolutions. Basically supporting higher DPI devices.

[higherpurpose]

Probably because Windows already has the worst resolution scaling system of all operating systems, and developers basically have to support every single resolution that would appear in hardware. So they try to limit the resolutions to make it somewhat more manageable (even if it still remains the OS with the worst resolution scaling system).

[wtallis]

As depicted in the chart in the article, 8k resolution only makes sense for displays that are very large or very close. 8k is where we stop increasing resolution and start increasing field of view, which is going to require some UI changes: games and movies will be about the only thing that should take up the full screen, popup notifications in the corner of the screen might not even catch the eye if you're working in a window on the other side of the screen, and eye/head tracking might become really useful.

[seanmcdirmid]

4K on a 28" monitor is only 150 DPI. It is a step up, but not as nice to look at as a rMBP 220 DPI screen (you can see the pixels everywhere!). The retina iMac has to go to 5K to look as nice as an rMBP.

After we go to 5K, why not 8K on a 27" screen?

[proveanegative]

8K is unlikely to surface in consumer desktops and laptops within the duration of Microsoft's usual OS upgrade cycle. Does this imply Windows 10 will be supported for longer? I supposed it's either that or Microsoft finally intends on pushing the resolution envelope.

[Macha]

Or its some cheap future proofing like when they added support for 4k sector drives in Vista, or 256TB drives in Windows XP?

[jobigoud]

I'm more baffled by the 768 x 768 icons. That's more than the entire VGA resolution.

[kristofferR]

Apple has required 1024x1024 icons for all apps in the App Store since 2012: http://www.cultofmac.com/179738/apple-now-requires-high-res-...

So it's not that baffling.

[jkot]

Is not that just scaling issue? used 8k virtual display onh Windows 7 without problems. (multi-display setup, thanks to AMD Eyefinity Windows see only one large screen).

[cpkpad]

Why not 16k? Microsoft has never done too well with the forward looking bit. We were stuck at 1080p because software did not support more, and there was no demand for monitors and vice versa. Cell phones and Macs validated the market, and 5 years later, MS starts to catch up. 8k displays are now coming out, so Microsoft adds support without looking forward another few years.

[adam12]

How many people have 16k monitors? They can add that in Windows 11 or 12.

[codeulike]

This would be for the Surface Hub presumably, which has an 84inch screen. Future versions of it could easily get to 8k

[kemiller]

8k is useful for vr headsets where you are just a few cm from the display, yet need a wide field of view.

[JamesBaxter]

Does this really mean anything until applications start supporting these resolutions?

SQL Server Management Studio is basically unusable for me on my retina Macbook Pro.

It will be nice to have proper text scaling however.

[doc_holliday]

I am curious as to what you mean by that?

An image by definition would always be represented as a 2D array. Unless you are using hologrophy or a projection field... which still in essence require a 2D array of representing the light field, often needing a higher resolution.

Images aren't always processed in 2D arrays though but are always represented in 2D arrays for display.

[perdunov]

"Microsoft Windows will support displays with up to 8K resolution" would be better, as using 8K displays would be only useful for the Matrix Architect.

[simi_]

Of course, nobody needs more than 640K of memory either.

Seriously, though, although I'm sure 4K will become somewhat commonplace in 10 years, the rate of progress for desktop screens is ridiculous compared to the mobile world. I still don't quite understand what stops us from making cheap, large arrays, when we can make the tiniest, most colourful pixels to keep in our pockets. Is it just the general market being completely ignorant/indifferent to good monitors?

[spacemanmatt]

I'm ready for my 4x8 panels to be installed directly against wall studs, in lieu of drywall. Modern display resolution is jaw-dropping to me.

[gberger]

For a moment I thought it would support 8 thousand displays simultaneously... Could probably change wording to "displays up to 8K"

[prawn]

Then for a moment would you think it was about extremely cold displays limited to -265.15 degrees Celsius?

[acd]

Will the icons and other text scale seamlessly or do I need a magnifying glass?

[pavlov]

They already do -- Windows 8.1 looks great on a high-DPI display and most apps support it. (Although it's annoyingly obvious when you run an old app that doesn't, because its window gets upscaled and the text is visibly blurry.)

[perdunov]

I'm looking forward for a 8K, 16 bit per pixel, 120 Hz, 3D display.

[xwintermutex]

Up to 8K displays? Other than those Bloomberg terminal guys, who needs more than 3 displays?

[agumonkey]

Thanks to Moore's law, and desks surface growing 2x every 18 months, we won't have to wait long to really enjoy Win 10 to the fullest.

[taylorling]

It's about the display with 8K resolution, not 8 thousand monitors. Good to see that they are prepare to be future-proof for the next 5-10 years.

[bitL]

8k is considered to be the final resolution for digital displays as it should be sufficient for people with the best vision.

[lotsofmangos]

Personally I find 4 to be the comfortable minimum for using adobe after-effects.