Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Soulskill on from the how-does-quake-3-look-on-it dept.

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."

32 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. NOPE! by Narcocide · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I would still rather have two 1600x1200 displays.

    1. Re:NOPE! by Z00L00K · · 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.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:NOPE! by binarylarry · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm pretty happy with one 2560x1600 display.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    3. Re:NOPE! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:NOPE! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:NOPE! by davester666 · · Score: 2

      You'll be happier with two...with three, you'll have to also buy wipes for the screens regularly...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    6. Re:NOPE! by Nyder · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    7. Re:NOPE! by mjwx · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    8. Re:NOPE! by YttriumOxide · · 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)

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    9. Re:NOPE! by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 2

      Is this ad...story.. a joke? I have two 1600x1200 20" (ie, 100dpi) monitors. How is this any better except perhaps eliminating the bezel? 72% of the resolution and at 95 dpi instead of 100. Try again.

    10. Re:NOPE! by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 2

      Dang, I don't know how i survived programming C on a CGA monitor back in the late 80's.

      Yeah, yeah, and the folks enjoying their CGA monitors in the late 80's wondered how they survived coding on a dumb 24x80 terminal in the late 1970's, at which time they were wondering how they survived paper coding forms and keypunches in the late 1960's.

      Guess what? You would've been more productive with a bigger (but especially taller) display back in the day. With a bigger monitor and a more modern IDE, you would've been more productive still.

    11. Re:NOPE! by Dareth · · Score: 2

      "Hello World!" was smaller back then.

      --

      I only look human.
      My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  2. Fuck this wide bullshit by Stormwatch · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Circumcision is child abuse.
    1. Re:Fuck this wide bullshit by EvanED · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:Fuck this wide bullshit by gandhi_2 · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      THL phish sticks
    3. Re:Fuck this wide bullshit by Redmancometh · · Score: 2

      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.

  3. QHD or WQXGA? by jerpyro · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:QHD or WQXGA? by Mattsson · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
  4. I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!

  5. Sad by timeOday · · Score: 5, Informative
    2004: 2560 x 1600

    2013: 2560x1080

    1. Re:Sad by ArsonSmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      2004: 42lbs
      2013: 4lbs

      2004: $4500
      2013: $450

      I can't say I mind the trade off.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    2. Re:Sad by timeOday · · Score: 2

      2004: 42lbs

      You are confused.

      30" 2560x1600 LCD displays were released in 2004.

  6. Nope by FireballX301 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  7. Why do we still count the diagonal? by Misagon · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    1. Re:Why do we still count the diagonal? by Stormwatch · · Score: 2

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

      --
      Circumcision is child abuse.
    2. Re:Why do we still count the diagonal? by Stormwatch · · Score: 2

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

      --
      Circumcision is child abuse.
  8. Needs to be curved. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  9. For work 4:3 far superior by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:For work 4:3 far superior by exomondo · · Score: 2

      Which is why the ability to rotate displays is important.

    2. Re:For work 4:3 far superior by exomondo · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      That's why I use 16:10.

  10. Bring back the IBM T221 ! by ArchieBunker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seriously, someone needs to start making these panels again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  11. Seiki 4k display by strack · · Score: 2

    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.