5 ms·

This is great! I probably annoy my friends with how much I tell them I wish there was an (affordable) high-resolution monitor available. In fact, the retina M

This is great! I probably annoy my friends with how much I tell them I wish there was an (affordable) high-resolution monitor available. In fact, the retina MBP's screen is the only reason I switched from Windows to a Mac; that display alone was worth it. Looking forward to a non-pixelated future. I'm surprised ASUS was the one to take the initiative though!

tuananh 13y ago
Not sure the 140PPI is comparable to the Retina.
- ajross 13y ago
  It is for a 31" monitor. How close do you plan on sitting to it?
  - Bud 13y ago
    No, it's not comparable to 227ppi on a Retina MBP, not even if it is slightly further away. Desktop monitors' ideal distance is usually arm's length, barely further away than where a laptop screen sits. This isn't enough to make a 140ppi screen appear equivalent to a "Retina" screen.
    - barrkel 13y ago
      A laptop screen is usually quite a bit closer than a desktop screen because the comfort of typing on it limits how far you can push it away. I got my measuring tape and put some numbers on this. I sit an average distance of 75cm away from my desktop screens. The 24" screen in front of me is 52cm wide. So the horizontal viewing angle is 2 * inv_tan(52/2 / 75) = 38.2 degrees, assuming I sit positioned at the middle of it. I sit about 45cm away from my MBA's screen, with the keyboard in a comfortable position. Maintaining the same viewing angle, the screen's visible-resolution-equivalent width would be inv_tan(x / 45) = 38.2, or 45 * tan(38.2) = 35cm. So in order to have a higher effective eye resolution than my monitor, the screen would have to have more than 52 / 35, or about 1.5, times the PPI. Work that out with the numbers in this thread, and you get a 140ppi monitor being roughly equivalent to a 210ppi laptop screen, in terms of average view angle of a pixel on an mid-range sized display. IMO it's not that far off the 220ppi of a 15" MBP. Definitely comparable. Especially since a 31" monitor won't be as easy to sit right in front of as a 24" - as your screen gets bigger, you end up with more head movement, and it can get tiring.
      - rbanffy 13y ago
        > you end up with more head movement, and it can get tiring. They we ditch full-screen and go back to windows separating the contexts you are working with. Most of the time, I'm with two screens side by side, 22" and laptop, separating my contexts, and keep the 22" with a text editor full-screen with a vertical split and two buffers, further minimizing head movement. A 31" screen seems like a very workable solution.
        barrkel 13y ago
        I ditched full screen a long time ago. My browser window is portrait shaped; most of my editor windows are approximately square. I don't maximize anything except movies and games. I cascade windows with the bottom left corner acting as a selection surface - cascade means these corners are never occluded. I arrange my terminals on the other screen in a grid with gaps, so I can click through to my secondary testing browser.
- Guvante 13y ago
  Well the 30" market is 101PPI and has been for almost 9 years by my memory. A 40% jump isn't too bad after all that time.
rogerbinns 13y ago
Apple has at least also being using 16:10. This ASUS monitor is 16:9 so you lose 11% of useful vertical resolution which is what matters a lot to us techie folk.
- lelandbatey 13y ago
  YES, I absolutely love 16:10 displays, but their always inordinately expensive and hard to come by. I have one very nice 1920x1200 Acer P241w but I'd love to have a nicer one.
- hackmiester 13y ago
  I miss the old square-ish monitors!
- rangibaby 13y ago
  Apple has been a bit funky on this front. They ditched 16:10 displays in all of their desktops in 2009, while keeping 16:10 on their laptops.
- sixothree 13y ago
  16:9 is practically useless for development, at least for me. It's a trend I am not enjoying.
speleding 13y ago
> I'm surprised ASUS was the one to take the initiative though I agree, it seems unlikely that they would create a new panel size all by themselves foregoing the benefit of scale. Perhaps there is another client for that same panel. Perhaps a well-known brand that does not reveal its products until they are ready to hit the market and the product can be presented with much fanfare during a keynote speech.

tuananh 13y ago

Not sure the 140PPI is comparable to the Retina.

ajross 13y ago
It is for a 31" monitor. How close do you plan on sitting to it?
- Bud 13y ago
  No, it's not comparable to 227ppi on a Retina MBP, not even if it is slightly further away. Desktop monitors' ideal distance is usually arm's length, barely further away than where a laptop screen sits. This isn't enough to make a 140ppi screen appear equivalent to a "Retina" screen.
  - barrkel 13y ago
    A laptop screen is usually quite a bit closer than a desktop screen because the comfort of typing on it limits how far you can push it away. I got my measuring tape and put some numbers on this. I sit an average distance of 75cm away from my desktop screens. The 24" screen in front of me is 52cm wide. So the horizontal viewing angle is 2 * inv_tan(52/2 / 75) = 38.2 degrees, assuming I sit positioned at the middle of it. I sit about 45cm away from my MBA's screen, with the keyboard in a comfortable position. Maintaining the same viewing angle, the screen's visible-resolution-equivalent width would be inv_tan(x / 45) = 38.2, or 45 * tan(38.2) = 35cm. So in order to have a higher effective eye resolution than my monitor, the screen would have to have more than 52 / 35, or about 1.5, times the PPI. Work that out with the numbers in this thread, and you get a 140ppi monitor being roughly equivalent to a 210ppi laptop screen, in terms of average view angle of a pixel on an mid-range sized display. IMO it's not that far off the 220ppi of a 15" MBP. Definitely comparable. Especially since a 31" monitor won't be as easy to sit right in front of as a 24" - as your screen gets bigger, you end up with more head movement, and it can get tiring.
    - rbanffy 13y ago
      > you end up with more head movement, and it can get tiring. They we ditch full-screen and go back to windows separating the contexts you are working with. Most of the time, I'm with two screens side by side, 22" and laptop, separating my contexts, and keep the 22" with a text editor full-screen with a vertical split and two buffers, further minimizing head movement. A 31" screen seems like a very workable solution.
      - barrkel 13y ago
        I ditched full screen a long time ago. My browser window is portrait shaped; most of my editor windows are approximately square. I don't maximize anything except movies and games. I cascade windows with the bottom left corner acting as a selection surface - cascade means these corners are never occluded. I arrange my terminals on the other screen in a grid with gaps, so I can click through to my secondary testing browser.
Guvante 13y ago
Well the 30" market is 101PPI and has been for almost 9 years by my memory. A 40% jump isn't too bad after all that time.

rogerbinns 13y ago

Apple has at least also being using 16:10. This ASUS monitor is 16:9 so you lose 11% of useful vertical resolution which is what matters a lot to us techie folk.

lelandbatey 13y ago
YES, I absolutely love 16:10 displays, but their always inordinately expensive and hard to come by. I have one very nice 1920x1200 Acer P241w but I'd love to have a nicer one.
hackmiester 13y ago
I miss the old square-ish monitors!
rangibaby 13y ago
Apple has been a bit funky on this front. They ditched 16:10 displays in all of their desktops in 2009, while keeping 16:10 on their laptops.
sixothree 13y ago
16:9 is practically useless for development, at least for me. It's a trend I am not enjoying.

speleding 13y ago

> I'm surprised ASUS was the one to take the initiative though I agree, it seems unlikely that they would create a new panel size all by themselves foregoing the benefit of scale. Perhaps there is another client for that same panel. Perhaps a well-known brand that does not reveal its products until they are ready to hit the market and the product can be presented with much fanfare during a keynote speech.