-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The new hotness for Dev/Office Monitors - 1:1
- Thread starter Raistlin
- Start date
- Status
Pegasus Actual
Member
Square monitor, no thanks. But let me know when someone makes a nice 16:10 OLED zero input lag 144hz GSync monitor, 28" 2560x1600-ish should do nice
It's a size made for one specific type of content that is not mainly consumed on computers. 16x9 HDTV? Sure since it's tv movies, and games(this is preference). But I work and surf the web on my computer and a wide narrow stripe is a horrible way to display and interact with those things. Plus games look better to me on 16x10.
PetriP-TNT
Member
Want want want want want. Would be perfect for web dev
I still think dual monitors work just as well.
PetriP-TNT
Member
I code on another monitor (1:1 split screen). I do front-end debug on the other which means I have browser (or browsers) and some dev tools open on the other. More vertical real estate while keeping the horizontalness would be amazeballs
dual/triple of this is what I'm talking about
The Purple Pill
Member
2 of these, and Wacom starting making tablet monitors in same ratio, then I'm in, otherwise, the price better be competitive with panels you can easily put in portrait mode.
But either way, I would like one of these.
But either way, I would like one of these.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
God Dayumm
Banned
Pretty cool. But I still prefer 4:3 aspect ratio, that was perfection.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
These aren't gaming monitors though they would be packing the same pixel density range as 1440P monitors which isn't bad.
DataStream
Member
I'd rather just wait for a high refresh 40"+ UHD TV.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
Ugh, no! My eyes are hurting just looking at the pictures. Either keep the widescreen or have those rotating ones. 4:3 is hard enough to go back to. There's no benefit here. At least widescreen lets you view two pages next to each other if you need to.
Dumbest idea ever.
I guess the benefit is vertical videos won't be as big a deal anymore while you're wasting time when you should be working.
Dumbest idea ever.
I guess the benefit is vertical videos won't be as big a deal anymore while you're wasting time when you should be working.
Nope
No snapping
Lower vertical resolution
Isn't as wide as 3 of these
Can't articular the angle (though they do have a curved model which negates that issue)
etc
dude ... no one is talking about going to a single monitor @ 1:1
We're talking about multi-monitor setups.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
I still wouldn't want to work with them though. The separation between them would bug me just as much as the aspect of each. Maybe have a single one for a specific purpose but only if i have a second 16:10 or 16:9 monitor with the same exact height, distance off the desk and pixel height as the square one.
I don't agree. I want more horizontal pixels, as Lightroom's navigation and editing interface are on the left and right side.
jts
...hate me...
Why couldn't you view two pages side by side in this one? It boils down to real estate, not aspect ratio. In fact, you could comfortably cram 4 pages, one in each corner of this monitor, which would be a pain in most widescreen monitors.
This is great because it increases your real estate without taking more horizontal physical space in your desk or requiring complicated monitor setups. I love it.
Because the only reason they exist is because a very, very, very long time ago, the movie industry thought TV's were going to wipe out movie theaters, so they made wider screens so that it felt different. The allure for movies have us 16:9 TV's, and then 16:9 monitors. It's something that wasn't decided because of use, it was decided due to 'wow factor'.
Because, really; 16:9 is a backwards aspect ratio for even simple PC tasks like writing and reading. We are simply used to it.
- Status