×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AOC's 21:9 Format, 29" IPS Display Put To the Test At 2560x1080

Soulskill posted about 10 months ago | from the how-does-quake-3-look-on-it dept.

Displays 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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

217 comments

NOPE! (5, Interesting)

Narcocide (102829) | about 10 months ago | (#44172621)

I would still rather have two 1600x1200 displays.

Re:NOPE! (5, Insightful)

Z00L00K (682162) | about 10 months ago | (#44172631)

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.

Re:NOPE! (5, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 10 months ago | (#44172783)

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.

Re:NOPE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44172957)

I can see a whole page in 1080 just fine, just set the zoom level to 90% or so. I don't need to see it at 100% zoom. And no, those 2560x1600 monitors cost over $1000, come in only a couple brands, require a computer with a dual-link DVI port (almost no laptops have that as an option), and they can't display three pages, they would be too skinny. Oh, and those monitors only come in 30" size, which quite frankly, won't fit on everyone's desk. First, we have to wait until something like the lightening port is standard on every computer so you can actually connect to something that high. Then, show me something around the 25" size with 2560x1600, with a touchscreen, just in case someone wants to use it from now on, and 120Hz, in case someone wants 3D. Make that less than $300. That I would buy for myself, and that I think most people could get their work to buy for them. No way will most people's jobs give them a $1300 monitor.

Re:NOPE! (5, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 10 months ago | (#44173101)

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:NOPE! (4, Insightful)

Nyder (754090) | about 10 months ago | (#44173217)

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! (2)

mjwx (966435) | about 10 months ago | (#44173635)

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.

What the GP meant to say is that modern developers need 3 windows open, an IDE, Google and the Clipboard.

Re:NOPE! (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 10 months ago | (#44173629)

your... your... you...

I'm quite happy developing on one screen, thanks. But feel free to dictate what's best to everyone else.

Fuck this wide bullshit (4, Insightful)

Stormwatch (703920) | about 10 months ago | (#44172633)

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.

Re:Fuck this wide bullshit (2)

EvanED (569694) | about 10 months ago | (#44172731)

I'm willing to accept many ways, but not every way.

For entertainment, wider is significantly better except for splitscreen multiplayer. There's almost always much more important things happening along the horizon line roughly

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 in which I could not, and I'd do it without hesitation.

For work 4:3 far superior (4, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 10 months ago | (#44172821)

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:For work 4:3 far superior (1)

EvanED (569694) | about 10 months ago | (#44172863)

You can still make things narrower (or overlap) to fit side by side, you can't fix height cropping.

If you make things too narrow, they crop or wrap annoyingly. Things like code especially suffer, as if you get narrower than 80 characters it becomes almost unreadable.

Personally, my viewpoint on "you can't fix height cropping" is that in some ways the fact that text scrolls naturally vertically almost makes it better to crop that way. If I had to choose vertical cropping (within reason, e.g. the difference between 4:3 and 16:9) or horizontal cropping, I'd choose vertical in an instant and never regret it.

Re:For work 4:3 far superior (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 10 months ago | (#44172895)

But with code it's often better to see more at once, which means more vertical height. I agree code wrapping is annoying, but that's when you simply overlap windows (or use tabs) and get more vertical view for each window.

Re:For work 4:3 far superior (2)

exomondo (1725132) | about 10 months ago | (#44172929)

Which is why the ability to rotate displays is important.

Re:For work 4:3 far superior (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | about 10 months ago | (#44173041)

Rotate ("pivot") a 16:9 and you get something that is to narrow to be useful.

Re:For work 4:3 far superior (3, Informative)

exomondo (1725132) | about 10 months ago | (#44173299)

Rotate ("pivot") a 16:9 and you get something that is to narrow to be useful.

That's why I use 16:10.

Re:For work 4:3 far superior (1)

EvanED (569694) | about 10 months ago | (#44173035)

I agree code wrapping is annoying, but that's when you simply overlap windows (or use tabs) and get more vertical view for each window.

I guess this comes down to preference. You say "simply overlap windows"; I say "simply scroll". I'd rather have an editor and console open side-by-side than I would a few extra lines of text.

Re:For work 4:3 far superior (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 10 months ago | (#44173069)

You can place the console below the other window with the extra height, since usually you only need to see a few lines of the console...

Re:For work 4:3 far superior (1)

EvanED (569694) | about 10 months ago | (#44173127)

And now you've lost your extra height. :-) Anyway, I find myself using the full height of the console a ton. This may be me just not being as good at doing stuff in emacs as I should be*, but things like compiler error messages (especially in C++, it's common for a single error to take several lines even before wrapping) or the result of a recursive grep are way harder to scan over if you can only see a few lines at once.

* OTOH, this doesn't really make a difference. I'd still rather have compiler messages displayed side-by-side regardless of what it's displayed in.

Re:Fuck this wide bullshit (2)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | about 10 months ago | (#44173031)

Pivotable monitors in 16:9 at around 23 inches is like working in a mine shaft.

The "wide screen", when sideways is too narrow for document production work. But when horrizontal, too short for document production work.

4:3 above 19" is expensive and illusive.

This widescreen bullshit has really skewed everything away from usefulness.

Re:Fuck this wide bullshit (1)

EvanED (569694) | about 10 months ago | (#44173071)

Actually I think 22" in portrait mode is pretty good if you want a single-width thing with lots of height, though I'm not sure what you mean by "document production" (I code).

Again, I guess this just boils down to preference. But personally, I think that the benefits of 4:3 are overrated. It would be nice if there were more options there though.

Re:Fuck this wide bullshit (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 10 months ago | (#44173341)

Pivotable monitors in 16:9 at around 23 inches is like working in a mine shaft.

Maybe, but imagine playing Caverns of Mars that way.

Re:Fuck this wide bullshit (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 10 months ago | (#44173647)

For entertainment, wider is significantly better except for splitscreen multiplayer. There's almost always much more important things happening along the horizon line roughly

There's an element of chicken and egg to that, though. Films are shot with widescreen in mind because that's what everyone watches.

Re:Fuck this wide bullshit (2)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about 10 months ago | (#44173657)

For gaming I strongly prefer the old school 4:3. I like bigish screens in the neighborhood of 24". I had an asus VE series that was 24.6 inches and I'm close enough to my screen that it screwed with my peripharies. It was close enough and big enough that I think the edges were outside my "active" cone of vision.
It also just appeals to me a lot more in general. Maybe I'm just used to the square...but I like it better.

I'm using a TV from the RGB HD era...couldn't find anything in 4:3 with a res this high.

Re:Fuck this wide bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44172787)

No it isn't. It's hard to put two pages side by side on a 4:3. Plus, videos are wide, so that letterboxes them. 16:10 is the best ratio. You can fit two pages side by side, and videos aren't letterboxed by much.

Re:Fuck this wide bullshit (1)

scottbomb (1290580) | about 10 months ago | (#44172809)

True to a point, but I do very much like my 24" dual monitor setup with each at 16:9, 1920 x 1800 resolution. If I could get all that into one monitor, I'd still probably get 2 of 'em!

Re:Fuck this wide bullshit (1)

Khyber (864651) | about 10 months ago | (#44173185)

"The classic 4:3 ratio is better in every way."

Except for the fact your field of view isn't even CLOSE to 4:3, when you take in the entire field of view that your eyes can encompass as opposed to looking straight ahead (which is how 4:3 was first meant to 'emulate' human vision angles/perception.) It's closer to 16:9 when you get down to reality.

Re:Fuck this wide bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44173583)

Only if you're some sort of halfwit and measures a variable aspect ration area by a single linear measure (across the diagonal, no less!), rather than using the height and width like a sane person.

QHD or WQXGA? (4, Insightful)

jerpyro (926071) | about 10 months ago | (#44172635)

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.

Re:QHD or WQXGA? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44172799)

You put all your code in one file? Because this will let you have 3 pages of code side by side. Or 2 pages of code plus the spec or whatever. I don't write all my code in one file, I need to see multiple pages at a time.

Re:QHD or WQXGA? (2)

Mattsson (105422) | about 10 months ago | (#44173331)

2560x1440, 2560x1600 and 2560x1080 are the exact same amount of horizontal space.
If you can get 2 or 3 pages side by side on a 2560x1080 screen, you can also get in on a 2560x1600 screen.
And a 2560x1440 screen usually cost the same as a 2560x1080, so you pay the same for less pixels.

Re:QHD or WQXGA? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44172997)

$650? Try just under $400 [monoprice.com] - same price as this AOC abomination, but with a 2560x1440 IPS panel at 27" diagonal. 2560x1600 is about $100 more. Thank you Monoprice...

I don't get it. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44172637)

My two 1080p monitors, side by side, give me a combined 3840x1080 pixels.

This is purporting to replace my setup, with 1/3 less pixels (or basically cutting 2/3 off of one of my monitors)? Really?

These days I feel more cramped vertically, and would rather have more pixels in that direction. Another failure from this monitor.

No thanks!

Re:I don't get it. (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 10 months ago | (#44172817)

Its the consumer trade off. Average people with average $250-500 cards buy a big screen.
Plug it in and their must have game sort of works and they are very happy.
If the new screen ups the res too much you need two new good video cards or hope one new really expensive card works well.
With two cards you are at the mercy of the game code, Windows, the driver and the hardware.
All you are doing is dropping the bezel for a usable bump in res that will still be ok for most users.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 10 months ago | (#44173549)

The ones that can do 4 outputs at once are as cheap as $120 now. That removes SOME of the pain of MS Windows and multiple monitors versus two cards (which would always give you some clone combinations that were inaccessable even if linux can do it with dual boot).

Re:I don't get it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44172961)

My two 1080p monitors, side by side, give me a combined 3840x1080 pixels.

This is purporting to replace my setup, with 1/3 less pixels (or basically cutting 2/3 off of one of my monitors)? Really?

No, it isn't, if you read the summary properly it clearly said "But what if you could enjoy all the benefits of a dual-monitor configuration from a single monitor?", clearly your dual monitor configuration doesn't fit that qualifier, there's no reason to insist on being a dumbshit.

Re:I don't get it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44173457)

Would anything prevent you from tilting the display 90 degrees?

Sad (5, Informative)

timeOday (582209) | about 10 months ago | (#44172645)

2004: 2560 x 1600

2013: 2560x1080

Re:Sad (4, Insightful)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about 10 months ago | (#44172805)

2004: 42lbs
2013: 4lbs

2004: $4500
2013: $450

I can't say I mind the trade off.

Re:Sad (1)

mjwx (966435) | about 10 months ago | (#44172901)

Korean QHD (2560x1440) are going for A$300.

1080 is so 2005.

I'd rather have the extra vertical space.

Re:Sad (1)

BrookHarty (9119) | about 10 months ago | (#44173633)

Yup, 2560x1440 for 350-450 on ebay, brand new, drop shipped from Korea, Got mine in 27 hours by fedex for 70 bux.
No dead pixel options also.

Cant wait for 4K.

Re:Sad (2)

timeOday (582209) | about 10 months ago | (#44173019)

2004: 42lbs

You are confused.

30" 2560x1600 LCD displays were released in 2004 [apple.com].

Re:Sad (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 10 months ago | (#44173533)

I was lucky enought to inherit two from someone who quit his job. By inherit, I mean of course that I was quicker than the other guys. Don't get me wrong, they sere very nice to look at and use. However, compared to newer monitors:

(a) Quality much worse than my cheepie Korean IPS
(b) Substatially heavier
(c) Substantially hotter
(d) Sreen was un even (looked like burn in?)
(e) lower brightness
(f) lower contrast
(g) Much, much much much more expensive.

They have the same connectivity options as my really cheap Korean one (Dual link DVI-D or nothing). In 2004 that was substantially worse since many computers had VGA. By contrast the competing Dell then and the competing Dells now (about 1.8x the price of a cheap one) have all the connectivity options you can imagine and are still much cheaper, lighter etc than the 2004 monitor (and much cheaper than the 2013 Apple one of course).

The long and short of it is that in 2004 I was lucky to pick up 2 from someone who had budget to burn. In 2013, I can easily justify buying my own and it's better in ever regard except vertical resolution.

Given the choice, I'll take 2013.

Re:Sad (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about 10 months ago | (#44173105)

The thing that changed was price, you can now buy a couple of them for that price. You can always spend up big on a pro LCD if you really want (Eizo and Sharp have some), hell IBM had the T220 back in 2001.

Nope (4, Informative)

FireballX301 (766274) | about 10 months ago | (#44172661)

Having two discrete monitors that you can easily lock windows to is what I want. I consider the dividing line between the monitors a good organizational assist.

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.

Re:Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44172889)

With picture by picture mode, this acts like 2 1280x1080 monitors. I figure that means the edge snapping of two monitors (which I like) without the 1.2" wide bar between the two sides. However, that is two much money for what is (pixel count wise) a step back to 2x19" displays.

Re:Nope (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44172983)

Having two discrete monitors that you can easily lock windows to is what I want. I consider the dividing line between the monitors a good organizational assist.

That's a software problem, quit making excuses for developers (who have dual monitors and don't care about normal people)

They can paint a black line of pixels down the middle if they really wanted to, and snap windows to it.
There's probably something out there that can do this already, but I haven't found it myself. We have wall mounted displays at work for monitoring software, and it'd be nice to have windows snapped to configurable non-overlapping tiles somehow, with window dressings removed of course. Hey, maybe even rotate apps through the tiles in some way like a security video system.

Nobody wants my money bad enough :(

Re:Nope (1)

adolf (21054) | about 10 months ago | (#44173443)

I consider the dividing line between the monitors a good organizational assist.

Won't a vertical strip of black tape in the middle of a very wide monitor accomplish the same thing?

Re:Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44173609)

Nope.
Unless it is magical tape, that tells the window manager its position.
I think, what the OP wants is a tiling window manager.

Re:Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44173469)

Having two discrete monitors that you can easily lock windows to is what I want. I consider the dividing line between the monitors a good organizational assist.

Perhaps you should consider a tiling window manager...

Why do we still count the diagonal? (3, Informative)

Misagon (1135) | about 10 months ago | (#44172683)

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.
How about using a metric that does not change, such as .. maybe the height of the screen.
This "29 inch screen" is only as large on the vertical as a 23 inch diagonal 16:9 screen. Both are 11" high.

Re:Why do we still count the diagonal? (2)

Stormwatch (703920) | about 10 months ago | (#44172711)

The correct measurement is the area: multiply width and height.

Re:Why do we still count the diagonal? (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | about 10 months ago | (#44172737)

That still doesn't discourage sacrificing height by going overboard with width.

Re:Why do we still count the diagonal? (2)

Stormwatch (703920) | about 10 months ago | (#44172807)

It does, in fact it'd be an incentive to make square screens.

Re:Why do we still count the diagonal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44172839)

Math is hard.

Re:Why do we still count the diagonal? (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | about 10 months ago | (#44172857)

1920x1200 still comes off worse than 2560x1080 in total number of pixels, and thus, for the same DPI, you can still sacrifice height by going overboard with width and advertise a higher total area. As someone who cares about height more than width, area by itself isn't overly useful to me.

Much the same way that 1280x720 is supposedly a higher resolution than 1024x768 and yet the former isn't supported properly in Windows 8 (Metro apps refuse to run, it complains that the resolution is too low).

Re:Why do we still count the diagonal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44173061)

1920x1200 still comes off worse than 2560x1080 in total number of pixels

There's a handy abbreviation for total number of pixels. It's not an acronym or initialism, it's written like a normal word. It's spelled "area". All the cool kids are using it.

Re:Why do we still count the diagonal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44173231)

All the "cool kids" are dipshit stupid. Total area has little to do with number of pixels. Ie. there could be a (useless) monitor that has 100 square feet as area but only has 100 pixels.

Re:Why do we still count the diagonal? (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 10 months ago | (#44173361)

Wouldn't be so useless if you were a pilot reading it from two miles out from the runway.

Re:Why do we still count the diagonal? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44172767)

The correct measurement is the area: multiply width and height.

How about just giving the width and height so everyone knows exactly how big the screen is, the space it will occupy on their desk and what ratio the display is. Area tells me nothing about the ratio of the display or it's actual width and height.

The diagonal deception (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44173421)

Deprecating diagonal measures, and mandating that screens prominently advertise area would prevent corporations from engaging in this common deception. As manufacturing cost is essentially directly proportional to area, it would enable people to accurately compare the value of different screens, and remove the motivation for continuously growing the aspect ratio. This would be a huge win, resulting in more choice in aspect ratio to appeal to different markets. 16:9 rarely makes sense on anything not a TV, and options would be very welcome for other use cases.

Obviously the aspect ratio and other measures should still be specified. Basically everything except for the diagonal, which is now obsolete, and an entirely useless measure.

Re:Why do we still count the diagonal? (1)

EvanED (569694) | about 10 months ago | (#44172749)

So you take a measurement that you claim is dumb because it means something different on different monitors, and suggest a replacement that.... is equally dumb and means something equally different on different monitors?

You suggest height probably because you consider height the most important monitor measure (along with many /.'ers). But this isn't the only viewpoint, by far.

Re: Why do we still count the diagonal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44172877)

You'd think nobody has realized yet that you can orient these displays at 90 degrees from what's intended, giving you plenty of vertical resolution...

Re:Why do we still count the diagonal? (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 10 months ago | (#44172979)

cause my desk is only so wide and 11 inches doesnt mean shit considering there is nothing above it

Re:Why do we still count the diagonal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44173383)

If we did that, they would start selling us 'tall' screens - widescreens on their side.

Re:Why do we still count the diagonal? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 10 months ago | (#44173661)

How about using a metric that does not change, such as .. maybe the height of the screen.

In what sense does the height "not change"?

Needs to be curved. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44172695)

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:Needs to be curved. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44172995)

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.

The width of a 29" monitor is less than two 19" side by side. I have never heard anyone complain that a 29" is too flat, but it probably is about as big as I'd care to have a flat display on my desktop.

Manufacturers seriously missing the point (1)

Jstlook (1193309) | about 10 months ago | (#44172719)

In 1985 I liked a 19" monitor because of the amount of information could be relayed. 1280x1024 was huge compared to the 13" monitor I had (800x640 or whatever).

What screen size I liked (in inches) was directly related to the pixels I could use. Two monitors meant that I'd effectively doubled the pixels. The cool feature there was that I could put *two* pages of dead-tree text side-by-side. The drawback was (with windows at least) that the second monitor was always somewhat a gimp. A you-tube video or a dvd meant it was useless. Playing EQ (because back in the day WoW didn't exist - remember those days?) meant it was useless.

When I migrated to my current setup, I got a 30" screen (Full HD! - 1280 x 1080p). Know what that means to me nowadays? My eyes don't strain to see the same content I used to. Does it mean my screen shows more information? Nope. Is it better than my old 19" monitor? Not noticeably. It's just a little easier on the eyes (and uses less energy, and since its' LCD instead of cathode-ray tubing, doesn't throw electrons directly into my eye). Marginal improvement!

What would be better though? More pixels! A wider screen? Not so much - How wide is a movie every going to be? I seriously don't want to watch a movie that has panoramic (21x4) type dimensions. It'd make me *so* disengaged from the movie I may as well listen on audio-tape.

What would be better? More pixels! DPI used to mean something, and used to be a valued number when buying monitors. Give me a quality monitor, and I'll pay for it. Quality? That means going back to basic metrics - speed, accuracy, precision, cost. How big of a picture can fix on the monitor (DPI!). How long does it take to render (Hz!). How much does energy does it use (And don't give me some eco setting, give me the number for regular use!). How good is the color rendering? [is there a serious value for the last one? I honestly can't remember anymore. I remember there used to be a metric I regularly looked for until I bought a monitor with a 50k:1 value that gave me a headache because everything blurred together).

Re:Manufacturers seriously missing the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44172757)

1280x1080 is not "Full HD!". I don't even think there exists monitors with such a resolution. There exist 1280x1024 and 1920x1080, but not whatever you said.

Re:Manufacturers seriously missing the point (1)

swilly (24960) | about 10 months ago | (#44172899)

In 1985 I liked a 19" monitor because of the amount of information could be relayed. 1280x1024 was huge compared to the 13" monitor I had (800x640 or whatever).

Unlikely. VGA was introduced in 1987, and it only offered 640x480. Perhaps you meant to type 1995?

Re:Manufacturers seriously missing the point (1)

garyebickford (222422) | about 10 months ago | (#44173267)

I'll just note that, programming 3D FORTRAN in 1979, I built my own three-terminal setup (I built a three-way RS-422 switch) between the three terminals I had a total resolution of 3740x1024. I used one terminal for interacting with the mainframe, one to show the source, and one to display the 3D graphics output. All of these Tektronix terminals had their own memory so I could actually edit code in the edit buffer on that terminal, and all three maintained their view while I interacted with another.

Re:Manufacturers seriously missing the point (1)

Jstlook (1193309) | about 10 months ago | (#44173369)

Nope. You're somewhat right though. My memory in the past 25 years is apparently slightly fuzzy. I had a 15" monitor in '85, and a 19" monitor in '89. I kept the same monitor for the next decade (upgraded in '96 to a 21" monitor). Still .. for a memory that's roughly 25 years old,. 10% off one way or another doesn't seem that out of line.

In regard to my other poster that criticized me for not knowing 1920 x 1080p was "Full HD" .. my apologies for not paying attention to current marketing. You're right - Full HD is 1920 x 1080 .. and all I read on my (current) monitor is the "1080p - Full HD" label.

My apologies to both people, and anyone who has read my words. I'm a horrible person without any salient points what-so-ever!

Re:Manufacturers seriously missing the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44173535)

Perhaps you're a dumbass?

While GP, per his follow-up, apparently didn't have one, there were plenty of workstations with 19" and larger monitors before the home computers got their precious VGA. I'm 90% sure the Hitachi HM-3619AC, for one, was 19", 1280x1024, and around in 1985. Had one of those on an IRIS back in the day...

So close (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44172741)

Allllllllllllllllllllllllllmost big enuf t sho ein foto uf mien kok.

true aspect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44172759)

give me 1:1 aspect ratio or burn in hell.

Not a suable replacement, sorry (1)

markdavis (642305) | about 10 months ago | (#44172777)

>" But what if you could enjoy all the benefits of a dual-monitor configuration from a single monitor?"

Sorry but a 29" 2560x1080 is not a suitable replacement for my two 19" 4:3 1600x1200 monitors (3200x1200) on my Linux workstation. Not only do I get much more resolution but much more real-estate and I can angle the panels a bit to me so it is easier to see them both. I don't game or watch movies on it, so that part simply doesn't matter to me.

Maybe that product is a replacement for two tiny/cheesy 15" 1024x768 monitors.

This is where windows 8 / 8.1 sucks (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 10 months ago | (#44172815)

Start screen and full screen apps at not meant for screens this big.

Re:This is where windows 8 / 8.1 sucks (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | about 10 months ago | (#44173009)

Start screen and full screen apps at not meant for screens this big.

In the desktop 8.1 is supposed to finally make text DPI scaling unclunky.

Inaccurate documentation (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | about 10 months ago | (#44172825)

Sitting on the underside of the stand are a pair of DisplayPorts. With the front of the panel facing you, the left DisplayPort serves as an input and the right is an output, which allows you to daisychain multiple monitors.

Uh... I looked at the photos and one is HDMI. The port that they claim is HDMI on the side of the stand? That's DisplayPort.

According to the AOC data sheet, it should have 2 HDMI ports total, but the product manual only shows 1. Something strange is afoot.

dumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44172849)

Stupid.
My mac monitors is higher res than this vertical (2560 x 1200) and I got it 4 years ago. that's a much better replacement for dual.
it size (29) has nothing to do with space. res is what matters.

Sometimes two heads are better than one (1)

mpbrede (820514) | about 10 months ago | (#44172855)

I like playing my games in fullscreen and having another monitor showing other"stuff" on the side. With this monitor, that would not be possible.

What about Vertical-Native Screens? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44172861)

Forget about super-ultra-widescreens that are only good at showing panoramic shots of Arabia, what about a monitor that has sub-pixels laid out to allow for a NATIVE vertical resolution? I want appropriate viewing angles, appropriate sub-pixel smoothing, and the like when working on text documents

Nope, again (1)

Dracos (107777) | about 10 months ago | (#44172883)

I don't care unless there are at least 1200 pixels vertically. Come back when you have one that's 2800x1200.

Nope (1)

Guspaz (556486) | about 10 months ago | (#44172977)

Not sure how a single 2560x1080 21:9 display is better than my current 2560x1440 16:9 display. If I wanted more pixels, I could get a second monitor, and if that was too wide, you could do two 2560x1600 rotated on their sides.

2560x1440 higher is better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44173273)

My Dell 27" 2560x1440 was about $600 I guess. But those 360 extra pixels vertically are really worth it. At work I have two HD screens now. But I really miss the vertical space and the flexibility to make the IDE a bit wider too. At least the price is somewhat competitive.

It's something new(?) and that gives the consumer the option to choose. So often you see consumer hardware all like the other and you don't really have choice.

Seiki 4k display (2)

strack (1051390) | about 10 months ago | (#44173419)

Meanwhile Seiki are releasing a 39 inch 4k display this month for $700. Sure, their decision to limit the 4k resolution to a 30hz refresh rate by not including a displayport connection is really quite daft, but it should provide a whole lot of desktop realestate for coding and the like.

Re:Seiki 4k display (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44173603)

Meanwhile Seiki are releasing a 39 inch 4k display this month for $700. Sure, their decision to limit the 4k resolution to a 30hz refresh rate by not including a displayport connection is really quite daft, but it should provide a whole lot of desktop realestate for coding and the like.

OK, the T221 couldn't use dual-link DVI because it wasn't invented yet... what's these clowns' excuse?

Nice Price - NOT... (1)

BulletMagnet (600525) | about 10 months ago | (#44173447)

Says it has a $500 MSRP and 400.00 on the street...I guess that doesn't include the street the link has to Amazon which is pushing them for ~ $770.00 USD with shipping.

Better deal? Try this

http://www.logicbuy.com/deals/dell-ultrasharp-u2711-27-inch-lcd-monitor/18859.aspx [logicbuy.com]
Dell U27711 Monitor With 3 yr Advanced Exchange warranty for $549.00 USD with free shipping.

I paid nearly $1100.00 for my 1st one in July 2010 ... figured two more won't hurt. Now I just need a pair of Nvidia's nuclear reactors to push the trio.

cheating? (1)

SuperDre (982372) | about 10 months ago | (#44173557)

well, because of the wider FOV you can see more than a player that doesn't have that, it's also something with multimonitor setups for gaming.. In the end it's a form of cheating IMHO as you have an advantage over someonelse, which makes it just as much as cheating as someone who's got a radar.. That's the disadvantage of multiplayer gaming, if you have a better rig, you'll bound to outplay people with lesser rigs, which is unbalanced and in the end as I said it before, just as much cheating as just using real cheats like radar..

Maximize/Restore (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44173645)

So when I press Maximize/Restore button on the active window, the window will maximize to the full screen or half the screen? The two screens are not only of reason of real estate, but also because of ease of multitasking, and one screen breaks most of the multi tasking tricks.

More lines ! (1)

redelm (54142) | about 10 months ago | (#44173665)

Why all this attention on extra width? It might be useful for spreadsheets and some drawings/photos but it is horrid for text. You cannot see much in the short textboxes, and perhaps that leads to microfocus (nitpicking) and flame-wars. Besides, long lines are hard to follow and read (40 char optimum).

Of course you can rotate to portrait (xrandr) and when time allows (home/work), I do! Personally, I find 1960x1080 to be a bit long(!) but 1600x1024 or 1960x1200 is fine.

But line-count has been slow to increase -- VGA had 480 (lower than NTSC at 525 and PAL at 625), then 640, 800 and now 1080 as common max. Only double in 30 years? You can find 1200 without too much expense, but any higher gets expensive quickly. Aren't all these big LCD/LEDs all stitched together from subpanels anyways?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...