I really don't like the 1080p monitor resolution.

[Little stoned kiwi]

Sure, you get more usable vertical resolution. How useful is the additional horizontal resolution to you?

[zip accident]

Sure, you get more usable vertical resolution. How useful is the additional horizontal resolution to you?

5120x1440 or GTFO

I'm more with you than I am with RiK, but still vertical resolution is resolution, and my point is that 1080p has insufficient vertical resolution, and always had too little vertical resolution. There were earlier standards that had less, but at the time of 1080p's introduction, there were already standards with more resolution.

[RiK]

5120x1440 or GTFO

Couldn't go back now....

[Little stoned kiwi]

[RiK]

Best tech decision I ever made.
Your point is?

[Orava]

Two effing big monitors or you are out as a web developer and a laptop as well.

[zip accident]

Sure, you get more usable vertical resolution. How useful is the additional horizontal resolution to you?

To answer this a little more fully, it's not as great as the vertical resolution for me, but it's definitely not nothing, things extend into that space as well, long comics may still end up off to the left, but they have more on screen, and text fields extend to use the extra space.

This at 2560 * 1440 is 16:9 the same as FHD but it's a lot better for me, RiK's is (16 + 16) * 9, tho others mentioned are 16 * (9 + 9) and 3 * 2.

If you don't mind saying, what resolution are you using?

[Little stoned kiwi]

If you don't mind saying, what resolution are you using?

My daily-driver is a cheap Acer with only 1366x768. Only usable by heavy use of workspaces in a tiled window manager. I have an1280x1024 5:4 Viewsonic on my desk if I want something more comfortable. I'll cry when that dies.
There's a couple of 1080p monitors in the garage from when I had an office that is relevant to this conversation; I mount them on monitor arms and have the second one in portrait. It's ideal for displaying documentation and spreadsheets.

[zip accident]

If you don't mind saying, what resolution are you using?

My daily-driver is a cheap Acer with only 1366x768. Only usable by heavy use of workspaces in a tiled window manager. I have an1280x1024 5:4 Viewsonic on my desk if I want something more comfortable. I'll cry when that dies.
There's a couple of 1080p monitors in the garage from when I had an office that is relevant to this conversation; I mount them on monitor arms and have the second one in portrait. It's ideal for displaying documentation and spreadsheets.

Wikipedia says New Zealand has a dollar, I don't have a clue what that's worth in pounds or euros, but over here at the moment monitors are incredibly cheap.

Teh years ago, a monitor with this resolution would have cost me £6-700, now this one is £140, and a cheap 3840 * 2160 can be had for under £300, possibly approaching £200. All the monitors I notice have VESA mounts, if you actually need VESA you should probably check, but unless they are making them without VESA especially for NZ you should be able to find one.

My glasses are giving me aggro, so this one is a bit troubling to use at the moment, but I'm sure it'll be better with a new prescription. If your eyes are giving you grief, that's a different thing, good luck with that.

[RiK]

This at 2560 * 1440 is 16:9 the same as FHD but it's a lot better for me, RiK's is (16 + 16) * 9, tho others mentioned are 16 * (9 + 9) and 3 * 2.

Yep, it's basically the same as a pair of 27's side by side, without the pain of the bezels in the middle.

[RiK]

Yep, it's basically the same as a pair of 27's side by side, without the pain of the bezels in the middle.

And basically takes up the same desktop footprint, see:

[Little stoned kiwi]

Wikipedia says New Zealand has a dollar, I don't have a clue what that's worth in pounds or euros, but over here at the moment monitors are incredibly cheap.

Teh years ago, a monitor with this resolution would have cost me £6-700, now this one is £140, and a cheap 3840 * 2160 can be had for under £300, possibly approaching £200. All the monitors I notice have VESA mounts, if you actually need VESA you should probably check, but unless they are making them without VESA especially for NZ you should be able to find one.

My glasses are giving me aggro, so this one is a bit troubling to use at the moment, but I'm sure it'll be better with a new prescription. If your eyes are giving you grief, that's a different thing, good luck with that.

We call them Kiwi Pesos and they are worth 0.62 USD. Cost isn't the issue.
Part of the reason I like my ViewSonic is because it doesn't take up much space, especially as it is not usually in use. If I replace it I would prefer it to not be 16:9.

[skab]

I too had a 1600x1200 CRT and it took _so_ long for comparable flat panels to catch up.

Hm? Are you counting in several decades when you say "so long"? I got my Samsung 21" 1600x1200 PVA LCD back in 2004. Still have it, great screen.

[Dio]

Indeed. I had a 1600x1200 TFT in 2001 (Dell 2001fp; those, and the following 2004fp, are the best monitors to use for TFT arcade cabs, by the way - 4:3 resolution and great picture quality. I bought three of the latter for £50 each on ebay a couple of years back for just this purpose).

[zip accident]

If you're really that annoyed by it, the Huawei 3840x2560 is a very good choice. 4K wide but 3:2 ratio, much more height than a 19x12 screen. BenQ have started to do some too, it seems. Not cheap, but it's a perfect resolution for productivity work, proper fonts & all. I'm surprised it's taken this long for other monitor vendors to start playing this one, hopefully more will and the price will come down under £500.

Just saw the BenQ on Amazon for £499.99.