5 ms·

I'm still waiting for a good non-retina ~30" 3k monitor. I'm currently using a 2560x1440 (HP zr2740w), and horizontal space is a little tight for dual windows.

I'm still waiting for a good non-retina ~30" 3k monitor. I'm currently using a 2560x1440 (HP zr2740w), and horizontal space is a little tight for dual windows. Retina doesn't really matter for me (I got the retina MBP, but using it for 1680). The only options seems to be the ones linked below, but there aren't any reviews on the 2880 ones, and the 3440 is too wide and only 1440 high, not ideal for dual windows. 1. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00KG5LWM4 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00KG5LWM4 - eq278c, 27"@2880x1620 = 122ppi, $765 2. http://www.amazon.com/AURIA-EQ308C-30-2880-1620/dp/B00KG5LSBE http://www.amazon.com/AURIA-EQ308C-30-2880-1620/dp/B00KG5LSB... - eq308c, 30"@2880x1620 = 110ppi, $1075 3. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00JR6GCZA http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00JR6GCZA - LG 34UM95, 34"@3440x1440 = 110ppi, $999

danboarder 12y ago
Monoprice is selling UHD 4K 3840x2160 60hz for $500-600... I've seen similar ones from Samsung on Amazon. http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=113&cp_id=11307&cs_id=1130703&p_id=12156&seq=1&format=2 http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=113&cp_id=11307&cs_id=...
- fuzzythinker 12y ago
  I want 3k, not 4k. I haven't heard any 4k monitors that can downsize to 3k w/o aliasing and/or without first upscaling to a higher resolution. EDIT: 4k on ~30" is too high resolution. 4k on ~40" is too big/wide. Also, for the same price, you can get the same 28" 4k Samsung monitor from Amazon (search for samsung u28d590d).
  - zanny 12y ago
    > 4k on ~30" is too high resolution. What?
    - nordsieck 12y ago
      He's saying that OS controls don't scale well on the desktop.
      - zanny 12y ago
        > OS controls You mean Windows. KDE is iffy (but I use it just fine and was able to scale my fonts / frames up enough on my 150 DPI notebook), but Gnome in its latest release has fantastic high dpi support. It is an unmentioned consequence of Windows being a piece of shit in regards to DPI that holds back the desktop display industry, whereas Androids inherent scalability let smartphones race for big pixels.
        seanmcdirmid 12y ago
        Ah, Windows* is catching up. But the ecosystem (third and some first-party applications) has been admittedly quite slow in making their applications HiDPI friendly. Metro/Modern apps for use on smartphones and tablets is already quite good, desktop apps are catching up. *disclaimer: MS employee who is just enthusiastic about "viva la resolution."
  - kayoone 12y ago
    why not first upscaling ? Your (and mine) rMBP do the same thing and that makes 1680 look a lot better than native 1680.
simonh 12y ago
Bear in mind you may have set the display virtual resolution to 1680, which affects apparent font and icon sizes etc, but the phydical resolution it's being rendered at is still the full retina fidelity. You shouldn't be seeing jaggies on curves the way you would on a real 1680 display. I'm in the market for a retina iMac but expect to turn down the virtual resolution a few notches to make the UI a bit more readable. I find the system text on the non retina 27" machines a bit small, but scaling it up on those panels makes it look crap due to scaling artefacts that just shouldn't happen on a retina panel.
- hollerith 12y ago
  >makes it look crap due to scaling artefacts that just shouldn't happen on a retina panel. Just to clarify: the scaling artefacts are still there; they're just half the size (and one quarter the area).
  - simonh 12y ago
    Quite right, I should have said "shouldn't be visible".
- hollerith 12y ago
  Like you, I'd prefer to turn down the virtual resolution a few notches to make system text and UI elements bigger. I cannot help but notice that 1706 by 960 would be enough virtual resolution for me[1], which on the new iMac would put 9 actual pixels into every virtual pixel. It would be nice if Apple included system fonts and other UI elements adapted specifically for such a 1:3 ratio of virtual size to actual size, which we might call "pixel tripling" in contrast to the "pixel doubling" that Apple has already implemented (a.k.a., HiDPI mode) in which each virtual pixel is made up of a square of 4 actual pixels. Apple is very unlikely to go through the trouble of implementing "pixel tripling" just to accommodate people like you and me, but wouldn't it be sweet? :) [1]: A rectangle 1706 pixels by 960 pixels contains .93 as many pixels as one 1680 by 1050 contains.
cpr 12y ago
I've been using the LG 34UM95 for a month or so attached to a rMBP, and find the ultra-wide screen (3440) delightful. The 1440 height is the same as the current Apple T'bolt Cinema Display. I really don't need Retina-level resolution, though it'd be pleasant. Maybe in a year or two. But having a single monitor this wide is really a treat, as I never could stand a dual-monitor setup. One of them is going to be your main monitor, facing you, and one of them will be on one side or the other, somewhat ruining the effect of the combined width.
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  Actually, having a second monitor to the side at an angle does wonders for neck strain. A single flat monitor, in contrast, means that the edges are going to be pretty far away from your head. Of course, that could be fixed with a curved monitor, which are coming, though the curves aren't very dramatic yet.
  - cpr 12y ago
    Well, having a single wide monitor means I move my neck very little from side to side (maybe 15 degrees each side?). Even my old (60) eyes have no trouble viewing the edges.
    - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
      We can visualize some geometry here using some highly appropriate ASCII art (-, /, and \ are screens, * is the user): ------- * vs. --- / \ * The first one requires you to move your neck much more than the last option; it also provides a better peripheral view. I have a corner desk, so my setup looks like: --- / * More or less; I also have a chair that pivots, so I can change my focus quickly without moving laterally. What is really painful is when, to reduce horizontal span, the monitors are thrown into portrait, then you have up-down neck strain...which is very painful! I actually decided against another 24" as my second monitor for this reason (I have a secondary 21" wide screen in portrait as my secondary, nice for reading PDFs and email). I would prefer to have one wide monitor, but with a curve.
simplemath 12y ago
Overlord x270 OC. 27" 1440p IPS 120Hz. $450.

danboarder 12y ago

Monoprice is selling UHD 4K 3840x2160 60hz for $500-600... I've seen similar ones from Samsung on Amazon. http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=113&cp_id=11307&cs_id=1130703&p_id=12156&seq=1&format=2 http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=113&cp_id=11307&cs_id=...

fuzzythinker 12y ago
I want 3k, not 4k. I haven't heard any 4k monitors that can downsize to 3k w/o aliasing and/or without first upscaling to a higher resolution. EDIT: 4k on ~30" is too high resolution. 4k on ~40" is too big/wide. Also, for the same price, you can get the same 28" 4k Samsung monitor from Amazon (search for samsung u28d590d).
- zanny 12y ago
  > 4k on ~30" is too high resolution. What?
  - nordsieck 12y ago
    He's saying that OS controls don't scale well on the desktop.
    - zanny 12y ago
      > OS controls You mean Windows. KDE is iffy (but I use it just fine and was able to scale my fonts / frames up enough on my 150 DPI notebook), but Gnome in its latest release has fantastic high dpi support. It is an unmentioned consequence of Windows being a piece of shit in regards to DPI that holds back the desktop display industry, whereas Androids inherent scalability let smartphones race for big pixels.
      - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
        Ah, Windows* is catching up. But the ecosystem (third and some first-party applications) has been admittedly quite slow in making their applications HiDPI friendly. Metro/Modern apps for use on smartphones and tablets is already quite good, desktop apps are catching up. *disclaimer: MS employee who is just enthusiastic about "viva la resolution."
- kayoone 12y ago
  why not first upscaling ? Your (and mine) rMBP do the same thing and that makes 1680 look a lot better than native 1680.

simonh 12y ago

Bear in mind you may have set the display virtual resolution to 1680, which affects apparent font and icon sizes etc, but the phydical resolution it's being rendered at is still the full retina fidelity. You shouldn't be seeing jaggies on curves the way you would on a real 1680 display. I'm in the market for a retina iMac but expect to turn down the virtual resolution a few notches to make the UI a bit more readable. I find the system text on the non retina 27" machines a bit small, but scaling it up on those panels makes it look crap due to scaling artefacts that just shouldn't happen on a retina panel.

hollerith 12y ago
>makes it look crap due to scaling artefacts that just shouldn't happen on a retina panel. Just to clarify: the scaling artefacts are still there; they're just half the size (and one quarter the area).
- simonh 12y ago
  Quite right, I should have said "shouldn't be visible".
hollerith 12y ago
Like you, I'd prefer to turn down the virtual resolution a few notches to make system text and UI elements bigger. I cannot help but notice that 1706 by 960 would be enough virtual resolution for me[1], which on the new iMac would put 9 actual pixels into every virtual pixel. It would be nice if Apple included system fonts and other UI elements adapted specifically for such a 1:3 ratio of virtual size to actual size, which we might call "pixel tripling" in contrast to the "pixel doubling" that Apple has already implemented (a.k.a., HiDPI mode) in which each virtual pixel is made up of a square of 4 actual pixels. Apple is very unlikely to go through the trouble of implementing "pixel tripling" just to accommodate people like you and me, but wouldn't it be sweet? :) [1]: A rectangle 1706 pixels by 960 pixels contains .93 as many pixels as one 1680 by 1050 contains.

cpr 12y ago

I've been using the LG 34UM95 for a month or so attached to a rMBP, and find the ultra-wide screen (3440) delightful. The 1440 height is the same as the current Apple T'bolt Cinema Display. I really don't need Retina-level resolution, though it'd be pleasant. Maybe in a year or two. But having a single monitor this wide is really a treat, as I never could stand a dual-monitor setup. One of them is going to be your main monitor, facing you, and one of them will be on one side or the other, somewhat ruining the effect of the combined width.

seanmcdirmid 12y ago
Actually, having a second monitor to the side at an angle does wonders for neck strain. A single flat monitor, in contrast, means that the edges are going to be pretty far away from your head. Of course, that could be fixed with a curved monitor, which are coming, though the curves aren't very dramatic yet.
- cpr 12y ago
  Well, having a single wide monitor means I move my neck very little from side to side (maybe 15 degrees each side?). Even my old (60) eyes have no trouble viewing the edges.
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    We can visualize some geometry here using some highly appropriate ASCII art (-, /, and \ are screens, * is the user): ------- * vs. --- / \ * The first one requires you to move your neck much more than the last option; it also provides a better peripheral view. I have a corner desk, so my setup looks like: --- / * More or less; I also have a chair that pivots, so I can change my focus quickly without moving laterally. What is really painful is when, to reduce horizontal span, the monitors are thrown into portrait, then you have up-down neck strain...which is very painful! I actually decided against another 24" as my second monitor for this reason (I have a secondary 21" wide screen in portrait as my secondary, nice for reading PDFs and email). I would prefer to have one wide monitor, but with a curve.

simplemath 12y ago

Overlord x270 OC. 27" 1440p IPS 120Hz. $450.