AOC's 21:9 Format, 29" IPS Display Put To the Test At 2560x1080 217
MojoKid writes "Ask any person who owns a dual-monitor setup and they'll likely tell you they couldn't fathom going back to a single display. But what if you could enjoy all the benefits of a dual-monitor configuration from a single monitor? Would you be game to reclaiming some desk space by trading in two panels for a single display? AOC aims to answer that question with its new 29-inch Q2963PM LCD monitor. Armed with an UltraWide IPS panel, this LED-backlit monitor boasts a 2560x1080 resolution with 21:9 aspect ratio, providing users with an extra wide panoramic view. With features like picture-in-picture (PIP) and picture-by-picture (PBP) built-in, workcaholics can multitask the night away from multiple video sources with plenty of horizontal real estate to play with. The funky aspect ratio limits the appeal of the Q2963PM for gamers currently; though if developers were to jump on board, a 21:9 monitor could offer a wider field-of-view of the action."
Sad (Score:5, Informative)
2013: 2560x1080
Nope (Score:5, Informative)
That being said, I miss 5:4 and 4:3 monitors and want them back, because having to set up widescreens vertically defeats the point. two 4:3 monitors give me the horizontal area I want without consuming my entire desk, but it's difficult to find good ones at a reasonable price.
Why do we still count the diagonal? (Score:4, Informative)
The diagonal means something different depending on which aspect the screen has. We have 16:9, 16:10, 3:2 (Chromebok pixel) and 4:3, and now 2.37:1 and the angle of the diagonal is different on all of them. .. maybe the height of the screen.
How about using a metric that does not change, such as
This "29 inch screen" is only as large on the vertical as a 23 inch diagonal 16:9 screen. Both are 11" high.
Re:NOPE! (Score:5, Informative)
This hysteria to have as wide screen as possible is limiting the usefulness when it comes to business applications and software development.
For software development your screen(s) needs to horizontally span three pages: One page for docs, one page for your editor, and one page for testing/debugger. You want a vertical resolution to display at least a full page of documentation. If you are going to do all that on a single monitor, then 2560x1600 is common and cheap enough, so I don't see why anyone would settle for the 2560x1080 in TFA. 1080 is insufficient vertical res.
For work 4:3 far superior (Score:5, Informative)
For work, I'd take a 16:9 display in which I could comfortably put two programs side-by-side over a 4:3 display
For work, I'd vastly rather have the extra few inches of screen at the bottom, since text scrolls up and down. You can still make things narrower (or overlap) to fit side by side, you can't fix height cropping.
Re:NOPE! (Score:5, Informative)
I can see a whole page in 1080 just fine.
You can see it a lot better at 1600. I pay my devs an average of $80k/year. Buying a better monitor makes sense even if they are only 0.1% more productive. Some studies have shown 10-20% productivity for doubling the available pixels. So buying better monitors is a total no-brainer.
2560x1600 monitors cost over $1000
You haven't been shopping lately. They are about $600 on Amazon. I pay a good dev that much in two days.
Re:For work 4:3 far superior (Score:4, Informative)
Rotate ("pivot") a 16:9 and you get something that is to narrow to be useful.
That's why I use 16:10.