5 ms·
I picked 34" Ultrawide. It works just fine for everything. Easy to read, almost two "regular" monitors worth of screen space. Gaming on 3440x1440 is hard to max
by ponyous 7y ago
I picked 34" Ultrawide. It works just fine for everything. Easy to read, almost two "regular" monitors worth of screen space. Gaming on 3440x1440 is hard to max out (but easier than 4k), but you barely notice the difference between 3440x1440 and 2560x1080 in most games.
I actually quite like the aspect ratio - it means I can have 2 windows in normal proportions (IDE for example) and another one on the side (terminal for example)
1 thing to note; I thought 34" Ultrawide will be bigger screen than it turned out to be.
- matt_the_bass 7y agoMe too. I use a windows manager and generally work with 3 windows across. Middle window is 50%, each side is 25%. This gives me a “full size” main window (like browser, 2 column ide, etc). One side is “monitoring” for things like cmd, git bash, slack, etc. other side is “reference” For things like PDFs, spec sheets, etc. this works great for me. One full size window gives me 4 large ide columns. I also often use 25%/75% for “monitoring”/“ide”. Occasionally I use 50%/50% for comparisons. I like it a lot. Sometimes I wish it was 200px taller but not often. Some of my colleagues have 42” 4ks. They are also great but I find my head needs to move up and down. With my 34” ultra wide, only my eyes move up ab down. I think 1 large monitor is way better than 2 monitors nearly all the time. True for either 4K or Ultra wise. Also get one that is curved.
- steev 7y agoDo you have any thoughts on a 32" 4k? I am struggling to decide if I should go with an ultrawide or just a standard 32"
- matt_the_bass 7y agoI’ve only used 42 4K. And 34 ultra wide. But I feel like 32 4K would be too small