I wont agree, there is no place to put, this screen gives no advatage to 4k big screen in the same prize (surely you find one).
The 1920 i little to small to work on two documents nowdays. 2560 would be better for that.
If its your only screen, where will you put the toolbars and tool windows?
For working on one document + bars it will do fine but why to get this instead of 4k then ?
On 4k you can work on 3 documents + bars or 2 documents and lot of the space for toolbars, and you still can watch a movie on or play a game.
I am way more into 21:9 than 1:1 for coding and for anything else...
its hard for me to imagine an user who would prefer square over for example 4:3 or 5:4, but of course there always is someone
If it was 1080 X 1080 I'd be grabbing 2 to go either side of my screen for the extra width and immersion, as long as they had the same height as my 34" telly anyway.
I like it. For regular web browsing I think this aspect ratio is perfect. Had been looking at 2560 x 1600, and this might be even better. Could cause me issues with games though so would need to check that out.
Not for me. I wear varifocal glasses and although I would like a little more height (compared to my present 3 x 21.5"), it would be impossible to keep a screen this tall in focus without continually moving my head.
I still have a 4:3 21.3" Samsung 214t S-PVA monitor - input lag and power consumption aside, it's still better than any modern monitor I've used. It's the perfect one window monitor.
Really can not make my mind up on what i think about this
seeing as you want to be picky and/or not understanding the point/concept of the comment (look at the comparison pictures on the eizo site).... yes you are correct if you go literal screen diagonal via Pythagoras theorem and both use 26 inch diagonals, however that would then mean that the pixel pitch would be different and as such it would clearly be a larger screen. If you use a comparative size screen with matching size pixels to the 26inch square, ie a standard 23/24inch 1920x1080, then you will find the heights are very similar.
I agree with LSG501; it is simples. Likewise the decision to pay extra to avoid the daftness that is 1080. I'm using three 24" 1920x1200 monitors with one in portrait mode.
1920 vertical height is absolutely fine for web browsing and development (although I wouldn't complain about 1440 width instead of 1200). 1920 width with the landscape monitor is fine for two editing windows but there's no room for vertical toolbars or info panels. Visual Studio with twin editors is too cramped. It really needs 30" and 2560 for that. My compromise is to have free-floating panels and stick them in the rhs zone of the left side monitor.
I couldn't use this 1920x1920. It only gives 720 more vertically than the landscape monitors and splitting it into two horizontal zones as in the web development example would wear out my mouse scroll wheel and my patience. Similarly if split into two vertical zones. An editor will fit into a 960 wide window but that's just too narrow for the browser. For example, at the zoom level that my eyes need, Hexus fits into a browser window that's 1200 wide, perfect on the portrait monitor, but it would be scroll city on half of a 1920x1920.
I do appreciate the programming example. I fit two editors side by side in landscape and top and bottom on the portrait monitor works comfortably as well. Explorer++ also fits nicely into 960-sized zones. (Explorer++ is to Win7 Explorer as nice is to sucky).
I reckon 2560x2560 is the square that would get my attention. I'd probably find the extra 640 pixels of height a bit strange at first but I doubt that it prove a burden. Until then, my wishlist has a pair of 30" 2560x1600s with one in portrait mode.
I bet that Metro apps look really great on a 1920x1920 monitor You can never have too much unused screen space, eh, Microsoft? ;o)
slow news day!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)