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."
Re:NOPE! (Score:5, Insightful)
Or three 1900x1600 displays.
This hysteria to have as wide screen as possible is limiting the usefulness when it comes to business applications and software development.
Fuck this wide bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
So-called "wide" screens are a scam to sell you more "inches" but actually a smaller area. That's actually a misnomer, they should be called short screens! The classic 4:3 ratio is better in every way.
QHD or WQXGA? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever. I write code. I want more vertical space. Why would I bother with one of these when I could just get a QHD [2560x1440] for ~$650 or a WQXGA [2560x1600] for a couple hundred more? If I'm going to spend more than $400 on a monitor, I'm going to get one that scales nicely.
Needs to be curved. (Score:5, Insightful)
I like to angle dual monitors to meet my eyes. You can't do that with this thing, so I consider it ergonomically inferior to just using two monitors.
Re:Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
2004: 42lbs
2013: 4lbs
2004: $4500
2013: $450
I can't say I mind the trade off.
Re:NOPE! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Dang, I don't know how i survived programming C on a CGA monitor back in the late 80's.
Re:NOPE! (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent informative.
This is something that is all too commonly ignored. When you're talking about the cost of equipment, it's worth keeping in mind whom it's for and what the relative value is. Abstracting the parent's statement a bit, if a dev is getting paid $x per week; the new equipment costs $x; and it will increase their productivity by more than the equivalent of one week over the lifetime of the equipment, it makes no sense NOT to buy it.
All the devs in my group have the highest quality equipment I could get them for exactly this reason - they type faster and more comfortably on good keyboards; they can see more at once on large high-resolution displays; and they don't have to wait for the computer to swap stuff in and out all the time by having a nice high amount of RAM. The equipment wasn't cheap, but when compared to the productivity gains by having it vs not having it, it was more financially sensible to have it (as well as the added benefit of not having devs that hate their work equipment; making for a happier, nicer workplace overall)