Comment Re:Yes. (Score 1) 330
A 31.5" 4K/UHD 3840x2160 monitor hits ~140dpi and fits pretty well within your size constraints.
A 31.5" 4K/UHD 3840x2160 monitor hits ~140dpi and fits pretty well within your size constraints.
WA displays are simply too wide. And in portrait orientation, they are too narrow.
Don't think of them as widescreen displays. Think of them as two portrait-mode displays side-by-side with no annoying bezel.
For instance, with a 2560x1440 monitor, I have two 1280x1440 portrait-mode monitors built into one monitor. It's brilliant.
Your error was that you replaced your monitors with new ones of lesser vertical pixel count. You should have bought 1920x1200 or 2560x1440 instead. Never skimp on monitors, keyboards and mice. They will generally outlast every other PC component you buy.
Go 2560x1440, then. A 27" monitor with that resolution is right around 108dpi, which is pretty darn nice. Or go for something like Dell's 4K/UHD 27", that's 163dpi. or 140dpi if you go for a 31.5" model.
But who would want a 1600x1200 monitor when a 1920x1200 or even 2560x1440 monitor is cheaper these days?
And for pretty much all work except video and movie editing, 4:3 is better.
Why? You can most likely get a 16:9 format monitor with more vertical resolution than your old 4:3 monitor, and you'll be getting more horizontal space to boot. It's almost like having a dual-monitor setup in one monitor, what's not to like?
Integrated Lights-Out (iLO) for HP servers was a godsend back when I managed a reasonably-sized server farm. Being able to completely re-install a whole rack of servers remotely was extremely nice when the server room was a 15 minute drive away and someone else had the IT department car.
Yeah, but who wants a monitor that's only 960 pixels wide? That's the problem with 16:9. It's too wide, but at the same time not wide enough. If it was wider, you could replace a dual 4:3 or 5:4 set up with one screen and lose the bezel running down the middle. But it's not, so you end with two 16:9 screens which is just stupidly wide. The 21:9 screens are more interesting than the 16:9 screens to me.
It's no problem with 2560x1440, it's wide enough to fit 2 full-size documents with room to spare for toolbars etc. on a single monitor. Or putting it in other terms, I have two 1280x1400 monitors side by side with no annoying bezel in the middle.
1920x1080 is bargain bin crap for anything other than laptops these days. 2560x1440 is standard and 3840x2160 (or 2x 1920x2160, better than two of these Eizo monitors) is quickly gaining ground.
"1440p" is not a computer monitor resolution. It could be 1600x1440 (16:9) or 2304x1440 (16:10) or 1920x1440 (4:3) or 1800x1440 (5:4), or with the 1:1 aspect ratio from this article's focus, it could be 1440x1440. Notice how 16:9 is the crappiest aspect of all of those. It's not useful like the 1:1 ratio, and it's fewer pixels than any of the others.
Errr no, that would actually be 2560x1440, the best aspect ratio of those possible options, with the most overall screen space. I should know, I have a 27" monitor with that resolution.
This 1:1 monitor from Eizo will only ever be relevant if it's significantly cheaper than a comparable-quality 4K/UHD monitor. 2160 versus 1920 vertical pixels, with a hell of a lot more horizontal space as a bonus.
Just sayin'.
Finally get back some of the vertical space lost when every laptop and desktop downgraded to "HD".
Only if this monitor is cheaper than a similar-quality 4K/UHD monitor. UHD buys you 2160 vertical pixels compared to 1920 for this monitor, plus a hell of a lot more horizontal space to boot.
Well, there may be good news for you: http://www.anandtech.com/show/...
A 26.5" tallscreen 1920x1920 monitor sounds like just what you're wishing for
You're arguing that you get less screen area for the same diagonal size, but while that's obviously true, it's a useless metric. It's like buying lightbulbs by wattage, when you should be buying them by lumens, color rendering index and color temperature.
Who cares that you have to get a 24" widescreen (1920x1200) to get the same vertical resolution as a 20" tallscreen (1600x1200)? You're still getting the vertical resolution you wanted, but with more space on the side, plus the 24" monitor is going to be significantly cheaper. Good high-resolution (2160 vertical pixels!) monitors are cheaper than ever, why complain about extra horizontal resolution?
You can install the PPAPI version of Flash on Chromium pretty easily, and it's obviously included in Chrome by default. So the only NPAPI plugin that's truly missing is Java, and good fucking riddance, I say.
This shouldn't surprise anyone who's actually used Facebook. It's a case study in JS abuse.
I never needed to scroll "for want of vertical space" on my 1920x1200 monitor, and I certainly don't need to on my current 2560x1440 monitor. I rarely even maximize windows vertically anymore, it simply isn't necessary.
Like I said: More than enough space for two full-size A4 pages with plenty of room to spare. Or for that matter a comfortably-sized browser window alongside two full-size 720p videos at once, if you're into that kind of thing. 2560x1440 will do a 4x720p video wall with no scaling, which can be quite useful for people working in visual media.
With monitor pricing the way it is currently, you would be crazy to insist on a 4:3 monitor, when you can get a 31.5" 4K (3840x2160) monitor that will handily replace a dual-monitor setup for much less than a single comparable 4:3 monitor, let alone two. And with no annoying bezels. I know we lost vertical resolution when everything went to 16:9 instead of 16:10 and 4:3, and things maxed out at 1920x1080 for a while. But now we're getting in back in spades, with more horizontal space as a bonus. You can get laptops these days with 1800 pixels of vertical resolution and crazy high DPI. What's not to like?
An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.