General > General Technical Chat
PC 4K 43" monitors
<< < (12/18) > >>
rdl:
I only use a single monitor. I feel totally out of date. I think if I used a multi-monitor set up I'd like three. A single 16:9 about 27-30 inch in center, flanked by a smaller one on each side, but in portrait mode. The two side monitors in portrait mode would need to match the height of the main center monitor pretty closely. If somebody made a kit like that I might buy it, if the quality was there.


edit: 27-30 not 27-20
PlainName:

--- Quote ---I think if I used a multi-monitor set up I'd like three. A single 16:9 about 27-20 inch in center, flanked by a smaller one on each side, but in portrait mode.
--- End quote ---

[note: this is not a 43 x 32 comment]

Main issue with that kind of setup is the limit on window height. My driver for going single monitor, as opposed to the three I already had, was the amount of space stuff like ribbons and that can take. A 4K screen gives you those extra pixels so you no longer care so much about window furniture.

Also, I think power use is a bit less then multi-smaller monitors. Not by an awful lot, but every watt helps.

There is a downside if you use virtual desktops. I used to have mine so the main monitor would switch but the side monitor wouldn't, thus I could switch between, say, two desktops on the main monitor but the peripheral monitors would always stay the same. With the single big screen that's not possible - it is one desktop or another. Mitigating that... you can have both desktops showing at the same time :) As I noted above, I resolved it for me by having a tiny satellite monitor to hold non-virtual stuff, but horse for courses.
paulca:
Technically, you can split inputs Left and Right on most ultrawide's.  If they support PnP PbP or multi source.  The Acer does support side by side, but the last time I went into those menus I did not have a happy experience. :)
wraper:

--- Quote from: paulca on April 21, 2023, 07:50:52 am ---I'm not quite sure how you define "small".  5 feet by 2 feet is not a small screen area by anyones measure.

Your second comment would be true if I didn't already accomodate the aspect.  43" 16:9 is about 10cm wider than a 34" ultrawide.  So it should just slot into place.

--- End quote ---
Witdh is almost the same two normal 32" 16:9 monitors would take. I don't see a point in these, as they only make internet browsing and working with documents a pain due to vertical pages. If you want narrower image, you can do that on normal monitors too with black bars on top and bottom. 2ft height you claim makes no sense as it implies 5:4 aspect ratio.
paulca:
They are 32.5"/82.5cm wide, each.  They are not the same width as a 32".  The 43" is only 5 inches wider.

A monitor showing 2 applications "split" fashion each "browser" or app is: 15.5"x13".   It should be 10.5:9. 

Works for me.  The same on 16:9 doesn't work nearly as well, both apps just look tall and skinny at 8:9 aspect.  Eugh.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod