2 ms·

>> "To insult a new hire by providing only a single 4:3 monitor? I can't work like this." > I can work like this, but I prefer two monitors. How much does a mo

>> "To insult a new hire by providing only a single 4:3 monitor? I can't work like this." > I can work like this, but I prefer two monitors. How much does a monitor cost anyway? Having two displays is much more convenient. I now prefer a LG 21:9 34". They are fairly cheap, have a good quality screen for long viewing, and the extra width is a real help. I wouldn't buy the thunderbolt version as it really doesn't do the thunderbolt properly. I think any programmer or manager bitching about developers chairs or screens is a sadist and doesn't really get we have to live with this stuff and it affects our health.

oz 10y ago
I have an Asus 21:9 29", 2560x1080, not 3440x1440 like the LG you mention (which I've considered). The extra width is nice, and the aspect ratio is perfect when watching movies, but I find I need more vertical pixels. Instead of the 34", wouldn't make sense to just go 4K (3824x2160) and get it over with? You're getting more vertical AND horizontal pixels. Personally, I'm salivating at the Seiki SM40UNP (40"). Anything smaller at 4K resolution and you'll need display scaling, negating the size gain. I don't think my 2013 ultrabook can drive it at 60Hz, but there are apocryphal reports that I may be able to eke out 50Hz.
- protomyth 10y ago
  Well, when I bought it before the 4K was available, but LG is supposed to have a 4K equivalent coming in 21:9 which would have the same vertical of 2,160 pixels (giving 5,040 x 2,160). I'll get that when it comes out because I like ultra-wide versus buying 2 monitors.
- iwintermute 10y ago
  >> Anything smaller at 4K resolution I have 32" 16:9 Benq at 4K and it's perfectly usable without scaling. You can think about it this way: 32" is double 16" monitors, and 15,6" monitors (rather popular in notebooks) with 1080p are quite usable. And it took me few days to adapt from previous 27" 1080 monitor.

oz 10y ago

I have an Asus 21:9 29", 2560x1080, not 3440x1440 like the LG you mention (which I've considered). The extra width is nice, and the aspect ratio is perfect when watching movies, but I find I need more vertical pixels. Instead of the 34", wouldn't make sense to just go 4K (3824x2160) and get it over with? You're getting more vertical AND horizontal pixels. Personally, I'm salivating at the Seiki SM40UNP (40"). Anything smaller at 4K resolution and you'll need display scaling, negating the size gain. I don't think my 2013 ultrabook can drive it at 60Hz, but there are apocryphal reports that I may be able to eke out 50Hz.

protomyth 10y ago
Well, when I bought it before the 4K was available, but LG is supposed to have a 4K equivalent coming in 21:9 which would have the same vertical of 2,160 pixels (giving 5,040 x 2,160). I'll get that when it comes out because I like ultra-wide versus buying 2 monitors.
iwintermute 10y ago
>> Anything smaller at 4K resolution I have 32" 16:9 Benq at 4K and it's perfectly usable without scaling. You can think about it this way: 32" is double 16" monitors, and 15,6" monitors (rather popular in notebooks) with 1080p are quite usable. And it took me few days to adapt from previous 27" 1080 monitor.