Oh give me a break.  You're in a dying business and you're blaming others for the fact that your services aren't as valuable as they used to be.

Desktop PCs used to be quite expensive, now they're not.  Now they're so cheap that most people wouldn't even think about repair.

The shift to cloud services adds pressure to this.  If your QuickBooks computer died, you had a huge problem.  But if your QuickbooksOnline.Intuit.Com computer dies, you just get another web browser.

The shift to lightweight/mobile adds pressure to this as well.  Desktops are now the exception, not the rule.  The rule is now phones, laptops, and tablets in that order.  Devices that are hard to service because making them serviceable would add weight and cost to every unit sold.

You need a new business model.  That happens.  Stop blaming Intel for the fact that it's not 1995 anymore.

Can't you just zoom in the website with Ctrl-+ and get the same effect? That's what I do on Windows with a 3840x2400 display. Admittedly some websites specify fixed pixel sizes for things so they appear scrunched into the top left corner, or in a thin dribble down the middle, but I don't see how you can fix that without violating web standards. Does the 'Retina' mode render something that says 100 pixels as 200 pixels instead?

I don't believe those airlines are subsidized directly by their respective governments. Certainly BA is a private company and is no longer particularly British (it merged with the also-privatized Iberia). It's true that national airlines or 'flag carriers' have often enjoyed special privileges, but those are usually of the kind which tend to *increase* ticket prices, not reduce them.

Also, you should know that your claims about driving 3840x2160 are a bit misleading. You may be able to do it over a single HDMI link, but you're not getting full 60 Hz progressive refresh. HDMI doesn't have enough bandwidth to support that. You're probably dropping down to ~30 or even ~15 Hz refresh.

That's what I suspected too. Usually there is an on-screen display which shows you the refresh rate you're using.

I wonder, Wikipedia isn't usually wrong on this stuff (and with T221 monitors the DVI bandwidth restrictions are all too real) but you have a clear counterexample. But if there is no problem driving 2560x1440 over plain DVI, why was dual link DVI invented? Hardware manufacturers wouldn't spend the money to provide the extra pins if they didn't do anything. There must be something we are missing.

Cool. I have monitors with a similar resolution but only 22 inches - so I have to set the font size to extra large in every application. I imagine that you can keep fonts at 'normal' size and just have a super huge desktop. Here's a photo of my setup: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7145/6851350945_e582af1ed5_o.jpg (it's a big image but I guess you will have no problem displaying it!) Do you have a photo of yours?

According to Wikipedia that display, the Toshiba Regza 55X3 or 55ZL2G, is driven by four HDMI inputs. Are you really getting a 3840x2160 desktop just using one of them?

I was wondering what the model of the 3840x2160 display is.

That's really interesting - so you can get a 3840x2160 desktop on it, at 60Hz refresh, with only a single-link DVI connection. Can you share some more details about your setup?

You have a 3840x2160 television? Wow. And the pictures you are displaying on it are that resolution too - not just normal HDTV 1920x1080?

I don't watch movies or play games on my work PC, so 24Hz is fine.

Sorry I meant Displayport 1.2 not "2.0".

Nope, DVI won't cope with 4000x4000 resolution at any refresh rate you'd want to use. The bandwidth on a DVI link is relatively limited. From Wikipedia:

The DVI specification mandates a maximum pixel clock frequency of 165 MHz when running in single-link mode. With a single DVI link, the highest supported standard resolution is 2.75 megapixels (including blanking interval) at 60 Hz refresh.

Dual-link DVI is twice the bandwidth but that is still not nearly enough for a 4k*4k display at 60Hz.

I have first-hand experience of this driving T221 monitors (which are less than ten megapixels). Over a dual-link DVI connection only about 30Hz refresh is possible, even if you overclock the DVI link beyond the spec.

As for analogue VGA connectors, there is no defined limit, but basic signal processing laws limit the pixels you can push down the wire. In practice, even with a very short 0.5 metre cable of the highest quality I could find, the picture quality at a mere 1920x1080 resolution is noticeably worse with analogue cabling than with DVI. That might be due to the A-to-D converter in the monitor rather than to a limitation of the cable or graphics card, but making A-to-D converters capable of handling this large bandwidth, together with the higher-spec cabling required, would be very expensive. Much more so than using a digital interface such as Displayport 2.0.

I drive a T221 at 3840x2400 resolution over dual-link DVI - but it has to be at a reduced refresh rate of 24Hz. (Actually I have two monitors with this setup, each in portrait rotation, so the total desktop is 4800x3840.)

I should clarify - the GPU is certainly capable of rendering a 4000-by-4000 frame buffer, it's still only a hundred megs or so of memory. Sending those pixels to the monitor may require something beefier than a standard DVI link. Even dual-link DVI is not enough for high resolutions at a decent refresh rate. The new Displayport 2.0 standard has four times the bandwidth of DVI, which is getting there. So what's needed is for onboard graphics to move to Displayport 2.0 outputs; but the GPUs are already fast enough, if you're talking about text-based uses, static images like photo editing, or relatively low-resolution video like playing DVDs or Youtube.