> On Aug 31, 2021, at 18:01 , Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 8/31/21 4:40 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>> On the other hand, the last time I went looking for a 27” monitor, I ended
>> up buying a 44” smart television because it was a cheaper HDMI 4K monitor
>> than the 27” alternatives that weren’t televisions. (It also ended up being
>> cheaper than the 27” televisions which didn’t do 4K only 1080p, but I
>> digress).
>
> Back when 4k just came out and they were really expensive, I found a "TV" by
> an obscure brand called Seiki which was super cheap. It was a 39" model. It's
> just a monitor to me, but I have gotten really used to its size and not
> needing two different monitors (and the gfx card to support it). What's
> distressing is that I was looking at what would happen if I needed to replace
> it and there is this gigantic gap where there are 30" monitors (= expensive)
> and 50" TV's which are relatively cheap. The problem is that 40" is sort of
> Goldielocks with 4k where 50" is way too big and 30" is too small. Thankfully
> it's going on 10 years old and still working fine.
Costco stocks several 44” 4K TV models (like the one I got) that are relatively
cheap. It’s a little larger than your 40” goldilocks, but I think still within
range.
Owen
