Tangentially related thought: Take my advice, don't go ultra-wide. Go with a large 4k. You get more pixels for cheaper.
The only ultrawide that makes any sense is the 5k x 2k resolution one. These have more pixels than a single 4K. But they are expensive.
Even then, a 16:9 5K monitor has more pixels.
I personally use 3 x 27 inch 4K - which is cheaper than a single 5k Ultra-wide and gives you a TON more pixels.
On the contrary, I have a 49" 32:9 monitor, and for a laptop it's wonderful. The support for a single monitor is just way better than any dual (or more) setup.
I can just connect it directly to my laptop, and it just works. When I had two displays I needed a docking station, and truth is most of those out there suck. Unless you go for the top models, and then you've lost all the money you saved on cheaper monitors. In addition you generally need a thunderbolt compatible dock, and that seems to come with it's own category of issues, assuming your laptop even supports it.
Also found ultrawide easier to configure hotkeys for windows management.
The advantage I've found with multiple monitors is the ability to independently switch the "desktop" that's showing on each.
I can have a desktop for coding, a desktop for reference docs and previews, another for working on non-coding tasks, one with general browsing, one for chat/email/calendar, etc.
I've not found a satisfying way (on Mac OS on my Macbook or with various WMs — Sway is my go-to) to quickly replicate this ability to have multiple task oriented sets of windows visible at the same time and make them quickly switchable without multiple physical screens.
How would you organise such a multiple display setup in sway?
I use sway on my laptop only, but Gnome 45 and macOS is easier for me, for now. When it comes to multiple displays. The best feature of sway for me is the ability to assign apps to their workspaces, and also assign hotkeys to these workspaces. So e.g. cmd+alt+e opens Files app (nautilus) and it’s always on its files workspace that I activate with cmd+e. Quite very useful for me. I almost never open windows tiled, very seldom that I have two at one screen.
So with multiple displays, I am quite unsure how to organise that, which logic to apply here. Maybe I alt-tab out of old habit, but it’s so much easier, cognitively speaking, comparing to remembering all the logic for my multiple displays setup.
I’m not sure what the high-level strategy is, but do note that there’s the
and so on bindings to help out. I’ll typically keep a workspace as “whatever windows I happen to have put in it, over time” and then I’ll bounce them around to monitors as needed.Roughly speaking, my Sway config:
- Assigns most apps to a specific workspace
- Assigns the standard hotkeys to focus specific workspaces
- Assigns a hotkey for Rofi to filter and focus apps directly
- Assigns hotkeys to move a workspace to the current output/display
- Sets hotkeys to move a workspace 1 output left/right
Now I can quickly bring the most relevant contexts for a task to each display, and can also quickly switch to another context and back as needed.
It's not perfect, but it's pretty good. I'd like some apps to be on multiple workspaces, for example. And I am exploring the idea of a way to search for and bring an app onto the main display as a centered float temporarily then dismiss it back to where it came from with a single key — for example to bring up a Slack channel front and centre, reply to a message, then quickly dismiss it again.
I may be misunderstanding your description, but isn’t this how macOS built-in spaces already work? I use this daily, and swap desktops with ctrl+left/right and the ctrl+num keyboard shortcut to get direct space switching (I have 4 for roughly the same purposes as you describe). When using multiple displays, I can even make each display have independent spaces.
It's exactly how it works but only if you have mutliple screens.
My comment was that, for this reason, 2 or 3 smaller (ish- ~27") 16:9 4k screens [1] (previously, 4–6 even smaller 4:3 screens) works much better for me because I can switch the spaces on my Macbook and i3/Sway virtual desktops on my Linux machine individually for each screen.
If we're talking about having a smaller number of giant screens it would need to be able to be partitioned into logical "zones" for virtual desktops to enable this way of managing sets of windows together, and I've not found anything that really does this, let alone does it well (though honorable mention to HerbstluftWM [2] which I think, with patience, could probably do something pretty close).
[1] preferably 16:10 but that seems to have died out as an aspect ratio :(
[2] https://herbstluftwm.org/
I'm in complete agreement with you. I use i3 (still using Xorg) and find the ability to have multiple desktops that I can move atomically between monitors to be far better than having to position windows individually. I put reference material, chat, etc, on the side monitor and then can very quickly move it back to the primary monitor when I need it. I find a normal 16:9 monitor to be just right for two side by side windows, or a tile of three, with one tall window taking half of the screen and two terminals top and bottom on the other side.
I hate using the mouse to manage windows, and having one huge ultrawide just feels like a nightmare to manage -- I'd need some way to split it logically into 2 or 3 virtual monitors.
With i3/Sway having the limitation of 1 workspace per monitor AND each app only being in 1 workspace, I could still use that logical splitting at times even on normal 16:9 displays.
Ain't that the truth.
The "top of the line" CalDigit docks are incredibly expensive and buggy.
...and they're on their 3rd or 4th iteration.
Plus not much competition, so not much choice either.
If I could go back, I would have also gotten a single ultrawide monitor.
Plus Macbook Pros multiple monitor support sucks relative to windows AFAIK.
Dell docking stations have been rock-solid for me (the laptop is also a Dell) and they can be had for quite cheap (about 50% retail) on eBay. I also balked at the price of caldigit units.
Be very careful about Dell docking stations. It's not always clear whether they're based on DisplayLink or real Thunderbolt/USB-C. The problem with DisplayLink is that a) you need a driver and b) after installing the driver, some websites don't show video (Udemy for example). This is on macOS, by the way.
Mine worked great with the Dell laptop on Linux ;) no drivers and video shows just fine. (Anecdata, I know)
At $work they had a variety of dell docking stations around the cube farm.
I use an old intel macbook running macos, and found that the docking stations with usb-c didn't support secondary video, while those with thunderbolt (usb-c with lightning bolt) worked fine for all docking station needs (secondary video, charging, USB keyboard / mouse / camera / etc).
A thunderbolt docking station and a 24 inch 19:10 monitor transformed my home office setup. Big monitor in portrait mode in front of me, macbook to left, old IBM M4-1 (trackpoint) keyboard, webcam perched on top right corner of macbook so I can have windows in either screen and it kinda looks like I'm still looking toward the camera instead of being rude.
I've found the biggest problem with the big monitor is where to put the video call camera -- if you're looking anywhere but toward the camera it looks like you're not making eye contact with the people on the screen and it seems "rude" because there's the impression that you're not engaged.
Ditto for Belkin docks. A Belkin Thunderbolt 3 dock can sometimes be had from $20 on eBay if you’re prepared to get one with no cables.
What's buggy about them? They've been pretty good to me.
I think you could daisy-chain DisplayPort MST monitors, so that only first one would be connected to your laptop.
On windows and Linux this works great. I have two Dell business screens, one with USB-C, a DP in and a DP out. Just connect another screen to the DP out, and you get two screens over one USB-C connection. Together with the charging and USB hub provided by the screen this replaces a docking station for me.
However, Macs have spotty support for this. I believe it works on the newest Mac books, but not older generations, and not the Mac mini?
It doesn't work on Macbooks. References to macbooks supporting MST are about certain early high res monitors that behaved internally as multiple monitors due to bandwidth limitations on Displayport 1.2. That's fixed with higher bandwidth newer DP and HDMI revisions so the MST feature people care about these days is monitor chaining, and that is still not supported even in M2 Macbook Pros
Does anybody know how to test if a monitor is compatible with that? And is it plug and play?
My understanding is that, yes, it’s plug and play. If the monitors have DisplayPort out, they should support daisy chaining.
I don't get the point of a lot of monitors. My current setup is a 4K 32" 16:9, which I do 98% of my work on. Everything on one big screen.
I have another monitor next to it, which I sometimes use for to put documentation on, a hot reloading web app I'm working on, maybe a video I'm watching while doing some work, or a video conference while I'm screen sharing. But turning my head to the secondary monitor is too much of a burden to really use it a lot. 80% of the time the second monitor is just empty.
I’ve got the LG 2-UP monitor and a plain-Jane 1080p monitor in portrait mode. I use the second monitor for mostly-PDF mostly-letter paper document review. I would love to find an ergonomic reason for my org to purchase an eink monitor for that, but I haven’t come up with any excuses ;)
Two monitors let me compartmentalize my workflow. Window management is otherwise too messy for my needs with a single display.
What are your thoughts on the LG DualUp for programming workflows?
I use it for R Studio occasionally, and I appreciate being able to see my code and my data at the same time.
My main use is writing, and it can a little overwhelming to see all my copy at once. I tend to fill out my screen with other resources that I’ll use.
Since it’s an odd-ball ratio, built-in Windows 11 window snapping also has some weird default behaviour that assumes that I want my windows a third of the height and stacked.
I have a dual up from LG and it is the greatest coding monitor ever made!
In Intellij and VSCode, I can see project outline, 120 columns of code, and DB details all on the same screen. I use it as a side monitor, with main monitor being a Dell 32 inch 4k.
Does the LG display appear as 1 or 2 monitors in the OS?
I'm intrigued by it, potentially as a replacement for a vertical screen, but I'm unsure if it would work well with my Mac-based work environment.
It shows up as one device. The res you get depends on your source. You won’t get full res if your device only has an older HDMI or Display Link output.
I’ve got it set up for occasional PIP with a Bay Trail home server. That device has an HDMI out that does max 1920 x 1080 and won’t do the full width of 2560 x whatever.
I think it's down to personal preference, so obviously do what works for you!
I have the triple-27" monitors @4k setup described elsewhere..
Left-side monitor is Slack and Discord, and sometimes a File explorer or other misc apps that usually live minimized (Spotify, etc)
Center monitor is my IDE and terminal, or whatever "main" app I'm working in at the moment (sometimes Lightroom etc)
Right-side monitor is work browser (we use GSuite so lots of various tabs in GDrive, Calendar, Gmail, Docs etc)
You can certainly do this all on one screen, but I like to be able to glance at those things while still having my main screen laid out for ongoing work.
I also use multiple desktops so I have one for work and one for personal, and I can swipe all 3 monitors over to a different workspace with one key command, which makes macro context switching easier.
I heard about this kind of set up often, dedicated monitors for dedicated applications/tasks. Great that it works for you, for me it just doesn't seem to make any sense.
I usually use all the monitors for the task I'm currently working on, and not for different serial tasks. For context switches I use Alt+Tab or sometimes virtual desktops.
Totally get that.. I actually don't like alt-tabbing between windows, I find it clunky.. Much like you don't like to turn your head to look at other screens.. :-)
Last detail to add is that I use Powertoys FancyZones in Windows 10 to set up zones in my screens that let me snap windows into specific layouts easily on the side monitors, so setting up dedicated layouts per-monitor is more intuitive and easy for me.
Similar setup here since about 2015. 5K iMac in the center and a thunderbolt display on either side (2560x1440). IDE, terminals, and/or primary task in the center, application output on the left side, documentation/browsers/e-mail/calendar on the right.
My only complaint is one of the thunderbolt displays is getting flaky. It likes to briefly turn itself off and on again, and unfortunately Apple's braindead software flashes all three monitors on and off when this happens. I've tried replacing the display's power supply, main board, and thunderbolt cable with no luck. Other than that, the setup has been rock solid and being surrounded by monitors makes me feel like I'm running The Matrix.
I started with a lot of monitors and I've ended up with just one 27" UHD monitor. It works great and i like the focus it forces on me.
My 32" 4K is configured with 150% zoom on Windows. So it's usable resolution is in practice the same as an UHD monitor, just a bit sharper and bigger. More crisp fonts, icons and images. Totally enough.
Apps and window managers understand full screen. With my wide monitori often want full height, but not full width this needs manual adjustment to work. Windows can sometimes be made full height (tripple click), but this somehow always seems to get the wrong width
I'm using most applications not in full screen mode, and don't have a lot of issues with that on windows. I think the only thing I commonly run in full screen is IDEs.
It all depends on your workflow of course. I run 3 monitors for my main workstation. Admittedly the third is mostly for rare events (e.g. debugging a performance issue across many services) or most of the time background TV/security cameras.
I get motion sick on anything over 27" so that kind of limits my screen real-estate. I also like to be able to quickly reference material across two apps without having to mess around with window sizing or the like.
It's sort of like having two computers from back in the 90's I guess, which is likely where I picked up the habit.
I still find it difficult to work on a laptop due to the lack of a second display. It's fine, but not quite as mentally satisfying to me.
I would also argue any ops-oriented position where you need to have a lot of graphs and logging displayed at once can benefit from multiple screens - or at least screen real estate. Using multiple monitors for these setups is usually more practical just due to desk layouts.
I use two displays with the same specs as yours, but have them both vertical. Code goes on one, browser/documentation on the other, and I don't have to turn my head too much to go between them.
But then I _really_ like a vertical display for coding.
I also have similar single monitor (a BENQ EW3270U) set to 200% scale. I use Linux, and my productivity is good by binding F1 to F5 keys to switch to different virtual desktops.
F1 -> Terminals. (Wezterm showing 4 terminals in a 2x2 grid)
F2 -> Code editor or IDE. Sublime Text in my case.
F3 -> Internet Browser. Firefox with Container extension.
F4 -> File Manager or any other misc apps.
F5 -> unused
I'm so used to these keybindings, that when I'm on foreign computers I involuntarily find myself pressing F1 or F3 when I want to enter some command or browse some web page.
My setup has evolved over time and fits how I work now.
3 screens, all 4K, in | - - arrangement (portrait, landscape, landscape)
Left, vertical screen: terminals, Dash app, and documentation.
Middle, horizontal screen: Emacs showing org-journal+org-roam, VSCode, Firefox.
Right, horizontal screen: Chats and email, devtools from Firefox, separate VSCode workspaces, etc.
Main problem I've ran into was the newer M1-based non-Ultra/Max Macbook Pros don't support more than 2 external displays unless you use DisplayLink which is CPU-based and lags enough to notice. I wasn't able to convince our client to buy a laptop that would support my layout :/
I find it difficult to actually figure the proper position where the 27” Dell 4K (still very top notch) is just as far so that I can see it and not have to move my head left and right.
Anything beyond this size may be OK for games, but too much space and too much windows is actually too much of cognitive load.
It is not a surprise that many ppl (not me though) start to prefer full screen terminal rather than dozen windows arranged in some disarray on a large screen.
I always thought that moving my head to look at another monitor isn’t really faster than pressing a key to make my fullscreen terminal appear, especially if we start taking cursor hunting into account
Another thing that would be nice if it was easy to make: a button to place the cursor where you’re looking.
I don't know whether the software side is there or if the box, but it certainly seems like https://gaming.tobii.com/product/eye-tracker-5/ ought to be able to do that.
I agree it's not faster, especially when using a simple WM with no animations.
However, I also find it easier to recall where I was looking by moving my head between static content instead of having it change.
FWIW I use a 32" screen positioned so that I barely need to move my head to see it all, and try to have all things I'm looking at visible at the same time.
I did think that for years and I scoffed at multi-monitor setups thinking they were a poor imitation of the virtual desktops that have been present on *nix systems forever. But they are both good and complement each other.
I use virtual desktops as more to separate unrelated areas of work (like different projects). It's like having a completely different desk with different books open on it. Having more screen space is just like having a bigger desk. It's like having multiple books open on your desk at once as opposed to picking up one at a time to look at it.
One big monitor would be ideal (it could be split into an odd number of frames, for example), but in practice multiple monitors is a good compromise between flexibility and price.
My dream monitor is a 22” 4K monitor. I searched it for a decade and this creature just doesn’t exists. There have never been a single 4K monitor under 27”.
The only thing that somehow could do the job would be iMac’s panels but I’m just not interested in an All in one and I already have good enough computers.
There’s four 24″ 4K monitors on Newegg right now, all LG: https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=101702297%20601205242%20601305...
There’s also this refurb 21.5″ 4K LG on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/LG-22MD4KA-B-UltraFine-Display-4096x2...
And I’ve no idea about the quality, but the Dragon Touch S1 Pro 4K Portable Monitor is apparently 4K at 15.6″: https://www.dragontouch.com/products/s1-pro-4k-portable-moni...
There's a few 24", Dell has at least a couple.
There used to be a 21-and-bit’’ 4K LG Ultrafine. You might be able to find it used.
I’m very happy with a laptop monitor and 1920x1080. Browser goes on laptop monitor and code on the monitor.
I always will be. I am about condensing information to just what I need.
This is my work method but use just code (terminal window driving tmux) on laptop monitor and 1920x1080 LCD for browser and sundry.
Font rendering was my biggest QOL improvement with higher PPI
I find the oppposite. The goal is not to be looking at everything all of the time but to make anything I might want, from key chat channels or monitoring dashboards, to my calendar, reference docs, secondary source files, etc. to all be "glanceable" within a given context.
I find a glance, even if it requires a turn of the head, is far preferable and breaks my flow/immersion much less than having to switch windows/desktops in place. It feels much more natural to me to place things like my calendar in a consistent physical place than to have everything intrude on one place, and I find it much easier to build the muscle memory for these glances.
The biggest downside is that travelling, even with a small second monitor, completely breaks the setup.
Always focus on PPI, some rough numbers
27” 5k (5120 x 2880) -> 218 PPI
32” 4k (3840 x 2160) -> 137.68 PPI
34” 5k (5120 x 2160) -> 163.44 PPI
39,7 5K (5120 x 2160) -> 139.97 PPI
Apple Pro Display XDR 32" 6k (6016 x 3384) -> 218 PPI
My preferred setup in terms of screen real estate is 24" 2k (2560x1440) without scaling. In terms of PPI it's a bit low (122), but 244 PPI 24" screens are hard to get. 1.5x scaling is an option
I like 25x14 on a 27" and the fact that on a mac you have to buy BetterDisplay just to make it work about 80% as good as on Windows makes me... not at all surprised since I'm supposed to use an apple display with an apple computer, right?
Why not just get a 4K 27”? They can be had for around $220 USD nowadays. I paid that for mine.
I do dislike the fact that Apple removed decent support for lower resolution monitors, but I also don’t see why anyone would prefer them to higher res unless it’s a budget issue.
4k is... too low res for desktop use on a mac. 25x14 upscaled to 5k only to be downscaled again to device native resolution by a $15 tool still gives me more usable screen real estate than a native 4k and the $15 makes it so text is actually legible...
By 25x14, do you mean 2560x1440? If so, are you saying that a $15 device will magically make a 2560x1440 monitor higher resolution than 3840x2160? If that's what you're saying, do you have a link that provides some detail on this because I don't believe it.
I'm also unable to believe someone would consider 27" 4K text illegible on a mac since that's what I use that every day and can read text comfortably. Edit: Unless you're using it unscaled, then yeah, text isn't that legible.
These are strange statements to make without any detail.
It isn't a device, it's a software tool. It doesn't make the monitor magically 2x the resolution; it can trick macos to render onto a 5k buffer and then downscale the output to the physical display so it looks not-broken.
https://github.com/waydabber/BetterDisplay
I'm saying macOS is unusable on native resolutions - everything is either too small or too blurry, so a 4k display won't do me any good. 25x14 is the sweet spot for me, but I guess Apple decided I'm holding it wrong, because they want me to get a 5k display to get usable 25x14.
The core issue with 4k on Mac is that unlike Windows or Linux, Mac doesn't have usable 125%, 150% or 175% scaling modes. But at 1x font rendering on Macs sucks, and at 2x you basically have a fancy 1080p screen; it just doesn't fit as much as an unscaled 1440p screen.
This forces you into 5k screens, or tricks to make the OS do actually useful scaling.
PPI doesn't translate to screen estate, though
And too many PPI won't make text easier to read, unless you magnify the screen, thus actually loosing PPIs.
PPIs will display sharper pictures, provided that they have enough quality.
If you go up PPI by a percentage you can reduce font size by a similar amount. Too small to be legible? Literally move the screen closer. No need to magnify anything.
Have a 27" 4k monitor and a 42" 4k monitor? Move the 27" close enough that it takes up the same FOV as the 4k and you get the same experience.
This isn't like home theatre where you're constrained to the dimensions of a room (ie. wall or console location a TV sits on top of and seat viewing distance).
For eye health, I've gotten the recommendation to keep my monitor an arms length away.
If that is true, I'd consider move the screen closer to not be an option.
You don't want it too close, but it can be closer than that if you have normal eyesight. The line should be where your eyes have trouble focusing and add a small buffer. For me that's about a foot. So wherever you're comfortable looking at a smartphone (or really any object) is a good point of reference.
Otherwise this is a commonly propagated myth related to radiation from early TV sets.
https://theopticalshoppetn.com/is-sitting-too-close-to-the-t...
The text is sharper with a higher PPI even if the actual size of the text is the same. I have a 4k 24" screen, and text is much much sharper than on any FHD 24". Hell, it's noticeably sharper even than on my 14" FHD laptop. And sharper text helps with legibility, so I find I can actually use smaller font sizes more comfortably than the "regular" size on a lower-res screen.
You don't get more real estate, indeed, since that depends on zoom level. However, depending on your setup and habits, you may actually gain some. In my case, I use 4k at 100% zoom. I don't care for window decorations, interface icons and so on, so it's not an issue if they're small.
100% disagree. I went with 2 4K monitors years ago. When I switched to an ultra wide lat year it was a night a day difference. I wish I never bought 2 4k monitors (or dual monitors at all). Ultra wide is perfect and has a more functionality than a massive piece of each monitor's border in the dead center of your vision.
Yeah, bezels midfield is no good. That's why three monitors is where it's at. Or perhaps one of those 32:9 ones. But many window managers make it easier to deal with multiple monitors than one enormous one.
There's some jank involved depending on which combo of x/wayland, window manager, and compositor you're using, but if you can manage to get virtual monitors working on an ultrawide it's great.
A lot of recent models also support "picture by picture" mode, allowing you to connect two separate inputs to the monitor and avoid doing anything in software.
I, too, am in the ultrawide camp now. I initially bought a 4k monitor. The default rendering was too small for my eyes. My Linux didn't support fractional scaling; 200% scaling kind of defeated the purpose of having a 4k monitor in the first place--net real estate I got felt the same.
I then returned it and went for a flat 34" monitor (HP X34), and I'm happy for it.
Did you go with one large 4k monitor in front like he said?
I use 2 4K monitors, often with one connected to work computer and one connected to personal computer.
When I'm not working I sometimes connect the work computer display to a Chromecast or as a 2nd monitor to personal computer.
Work computer is much shittier than personal computer and doesn't support 2 monitors.
They said one big one front and centered, and one to the side. Who voluntarily sticks a gap right in front of themselves?
It is surprising how much more affordable 4k displays are. I was stuck finding a suitable display for my macbook being used to the 5k iMac, and ended up with the 32 inch samsung m8, which is one third what apple charges for the 5k studio display. I find myself liking it more in practice than the 5k imac, because while it is a bit less crisp, the colors once properly set up are equally nice and the size is luxurious.
Well M8 is a VA. Good for movies, not as good for everything else.
Why is that? And what type is better and why?
IPS panels have the best color accuracy and viewing angles. VA can produce the best blacks but pixels are slow to change. TN are the cheapest and historically have the best refresh rates.
Among LCDs currently. Micro LED and OLED produce better blacks.
It depends. If text contrast is a priority, VA provides better blacks. Personally I also can’t stand IPS glow and rather live with the VA off-axis gamma shift. OTOH, my favorite VA monitor is now 15 years old and there is no current replacement with the same picture quality. I’m hoping for more OLED monitors coming out.
IPS black imho better choice (I own one). VA looks very very bad with dark themes in IDE. Also, I do not know any Eyesafe certified VA's. I am sensitive to blue light and my eyes love Eyesafe certified panels.
I think 27" 4k with some scaling is a good spot indeed.
32" 4k is nice as well, if you scale down to 2560x1440, or 3008x1692. On 32" 2x scaling (1920x1080 is just too big, and native (3840x2160) is just too small.
But if money is no problem, 3x 24" 4k, 2x 27" 5k, or 1x 32" 6k is really the endgame. That 2x scaling is just soooo crisp. :)
The PPI ratio for 32" 4k with no scaling is actually pretty good (at least to my eye, since it's similar to my previous 24" 1080p, 27" 1440p monitors). If we can agree on that, then the solution is to just move the monitor closer to your eyes, 3rd party monitor arms help with that.
Depending on how close we're talking about, it may not be so great, especially with a non-curved screen, because the actual angle at the edges is possibly not so great anymore. That's the case on my 32" LG, for example (with an IPS panel, FWIW).
32" 4k = 137.68ppi. 27" 1440p = 108ppi. 24" 1080p = 91.78ppi.
Significant difference. 32" 4k is not pleasant to read natively, and bringing it that close that is would be readable means you are putting things out of your focus and you need to start moving your head a lot.
There are 32" monitors with native 2560x1440. I still prefer that dpi to run Windows, where some apps still have problems with hidpi scaling. It's mostly about older and niche apps, but every now and then you encounter something that doesn't scale well.
I do find that 4k with scaling still feels crispier than native 2560x1440. And I also find myself switching between 3008 and 2560 a lot, depending on the workload I have. 2560x1440 is nicer for reading, 3008 is nicer for programming, video editing, ...
My 5k2k LG 40WP95C-W is an absolute dream. Worth every penny for dev.
Could you expand on this a bit? How’s the ergonomics, window management, etc?
I was within inches of buying this this holiday season but was offput by people’s brightness complaints. Figured I could wait another iteration until either the brightness or the refresh rate gets better… the 5K2K seems like the move though.
Since this is now a personal preference/setup thread, I use a single 43" 4k display at 1x.
Stacking window compositors do much better than tiling, it's quite natural to just spread things around, wherever the best place may be.
I use a single 43” as my main display, and then also two 27” displays in portrait mode on either side.
The 43” is where I actually work. The other two are like static displays, the left one is slack on top and iMessage on bottom. The right one is task list app on top and calendar on bottom.
You get used to it pretty quick. It’s just great for like having a few conversations in progress without being interrupted and so on. They’re right there I’m just not looking at them.
Not sure if it’s decades of driving or something in the brain but having static readout displays like that really doesn’t bother me the way trying to juggle everything on one screen does. Reminds me of how a dashboard full of indicators in a car can be constantly changing without feeling like it’s “interrupting” my ability to look at the road.
Are you able to read text at 1:1 native scaling?
I believe once you reach 150% scaling, you end up with the same screen real estate as a 2560x1440 monitor. 200% scaling is the same as 1080p.
Indeed: I like ultrawides so I can see more stuff at the same physical size. I only want greater pixel density to he crisp rendering.
If I had a taller, 16:9 version of my 49" 32:9 ultrawide, I think that much screen would swallow me alive.
A 43'' 4K monitor in the middle and two 28" 16:18 LG DualUp monitors on the sides is my recommendation for an unparalleled setup for a large desk.
It's unclear to me why we'd be optimizing solely for pixels or pixels/$.
I personally like my wide monitor, and I don't even particularly care to go for more pixels when available, ie my preferred resolution is ~1440p. They're nice and cheap, they look good to me, and they're easy to drive for the gpu.
I go more for deep blacks and good colors, pixels just look good until your eyes adjust and then it's all the same.
I'm working on a new build to replace my 11 yr old system. Monitors are a vexxing issue as I have competing needs - general/coding use and photo editing. As I'm working with 40+MP images, I'd like to have a screen with as high a resolution as possible to minimize the need to zoom in and out.
However, then you run into the need to do display scaling for UI elements for everything else. Windows mostly works in that regard and when it does not it is often the program in use that is not quite up to snuff.
After a lot of research, it seems to me the best approach is trying to get the resolution you want at a physical size that doesn't require excessive scaling (like 300%) as after all, we all want more desktop real estate and scaling reduces the effective resolution for most non-photo/video apps.
I've been looking closely at the Dell Ultrasharp 32" 6K monitor. The dpi is a little high at 223 but it will fit about 75% of an uncropped photo. I'd likely also get one of the LG dual UPs as well.
The one issue with both monitors, disappointing for the price of the Dell, is they are 8bit+FRC panels. Don't want to find out that I'm one of those who are sensitive to flicker or that the panel does not age well. At least the Dell is a 3yr warranty and the LG can be had in a commercial version that has 3 yr too.
I have both, an ultra wide in the middle and two curved monitors on each side with the edges touching. It works great for me
I use a 5120 X 1440, 49" ultrawide.
It's one of those things that I never knew I couldn't live without, until I had it.
Running my laptop (with a much greater pixel density) is downright painful.
Disclaimer: I'm 61, so all those packed-in pixels are wasted on me.