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."

15 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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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...
    5. 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
  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.
  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.

  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.
  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. 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.

  8. 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
  9. 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