9 ms·
I run two 2560 × 1440 monitors, which are 16:9, but each nicely splits into two square-ish (1280 × 1440) displays. While not quite 4:3, it's close in the experi
by gregmac 5y ago
I run two 2560 × 1440 monitors, which are 16:9, but each nicely splits into two square-ish (1280 × 1440) displays. While not quite 4:3, it's close in the experience. I tile using FancyZones and run most applications in this setup.
Though you can technically do it, I found most things just don't work well with a 1080 monitor in this mode: 960 wide just isn't enough. Even a lot of websites don't really work properly, and a lot go into mobile layout.
This was a good combo of screen space, usability and price.
Full screen movies or games are still 16:9 (supposedly there are/were issues with 32:9 with a lot of games), and I like that I can play a game or movie and still have the other screen showing something. I can also RDP to my work laptop in full-screen on one monitor, and seamlessly work across both - so much simpler than dual-monitor KVM chaos, or dealing with audio- or webcam-over-network issues.
(Edit: re-worded from incorrectly saying 1280 × 1440 is 4:3)
- wtallis 5y ago1280x1440 is not at all close to a 4:3 ratio. For starters, 1280 is a smaller number than 1440. It looks like you were using "4:3" to simply mean "closer to square than typical widescreen aspect ratios", which is pretty confusing.
- gregmac 5y agoYes, I guess I just meant "squareish". That's embarrassing. I'll try to edit my post to reflect that.
- NathanielK 5y ago> Though you can technically do it, I found most things just don't work well with a 1080 monitor in this mode: 960 wide just isn't enough. Even a lot of websites don't really work properly, and a lot go into mobile layout. I have found similar. This is why for a cheap portrait monitor I usually recommend older IPS monitors that are available in 1920x1200 or 1600x1200.