4 ms·
It's less of a problem with 2560xN than 1920xN, in my view. I also prefer 16:10 to 16:9, but 2560x1440 has enough pixels vertically not to be disagreeable, and
by to3m 9y ago
It's less of a problem with 2560xN than 1920xN, in my view. I also prefer 16:10 to 16:9, but 2560x1440 has enough pixels vertically not to be disagreeable, and 1440x2560 is wide enough not to be cramped. I'd never buy a 1080p monitor, but I've found 1440p a most worthwhile upgrade from 1200p.
So perhaps sit it out and wait for 5k? ;)
- MichaelGG 9y ago16:9 2560 monitors are too wide, and certainly don't work portrait. I end up running them with black bars on the side to get a comfortable layout.
- to3m 9y agoWell, it definitely takes all sorts, because I use 2 side by side in portrait mode and I'm quite happy with it ;) You're right about the length of the longer axis, though... I've rarely found it all that useful to have one view fill the entire screen. So I generally either have two 1440x1280 windows/panels/etc. on a screen, or one 1440x~1700 and one 1440x~860. That works pretty well. Many window layout tools will let you quickly set up this sort of arrangement.
- Rotareti 9y agoI can relate. Open up a page like this [0] in a maximized window on a very wide screen and try to read. I ended up writing a Chrome Extension [1] to narrow/center such pages. [0]: https://www.haskell.org/tutorial/patterns.html https://www.haskell.org/tutorial/patterns.html [1]: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/center-pages/ooebgplbpddoedbkdgkebgjidllhcfae https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/center-pages/ooebg...
- throwanem 9y agoWhy not unmaximize the window?
- dsego 9y agoWhy not chop off part of screen?
- saghm 9y agoBecause it's a lot easier to undo unmaximizing a window
- Rotareti 9y agoI don't like to see the noisy background. I also find it fiddly to do it manually. After I click unmaximize I will probably have to adjust each side of the window, which takes much longer and isn't really convenient (IMO).
- jitl 9y agoI can't stand 2560x1400 -- I swear by my 30" 2560x1600 (16:10) displays at home and at the office. The 16:9 ratio is just too skinny for anything but movies.
- gjvc 9y agoYes, I've found 30" 2560x1600 (16:10) displays, specifically Dell U3014 are the current ideal. I expect in a few years I will cave in and purchase a pair of Eizo FlexScan EV3237-BK 32" 4K screens, but for now 30" 2560x1600 is a good compromise between cost and practicality.