On a similar note, does anyone know of a squarish monitor that doesn't cost an arm and a leg, and preferably has a good color gamut coverage? There was an 1920*1920 monitor ( https://www.inputmag.com/reviews/square-monitor-eizo-flexsca... ) but that's over 1k USD :( There are other nice displays like Huawei's Mateview at 3000*2000 but nothing costs less than ~550-600$/€. It's a bit of a pity because you can get a dec…
Last time i looked you can still pick up the odd 4:3 1280*1024 dell ips on ebay, i have one as a secondary and it works quite well.
They're still doing the thing where if you want to wall mount it, you've got to punch a hole in your drywall for the cables to have enough room to exit straight out the back of the monitor. Or hope that some cheap 90-degree noname adapter supports the latest version of DisplayPort that you want. I stopped buying this brand of monitor because of this frustration.
Is there no cable with a 90 degree plug on the market?
Maybe, but there's a tall raised bezel around the port area so even those cables might not work if the port is close enough to the edge of the port cutout, since it'll intersect the chassis plastic. The lower DP port on this monitor looks way too close to the bezel for a 90 degree cable for example. I guess it's not hitting the wall anymore, but I still can't use it. All in all it's a baffling design decision and I wish they would just put the ports downward firing at the bottom of the monitor with straight clearance like everyone else. You could even still stack them vertically with no gap this way because the actual screen support curves away from where the ports would exit.
If this almost-square aspect would drive you crazy, Eizo has been selling actually-square displays for ages. There's some kind of U.S. government contract for air traffic controllers that keeps the square panel industry alive. I think their "wide all around" marketing is clever.
Meh. I never want more vertical space on my monitor. It would be really a hard aun with MacOS too unless it’s meant to be two virtual monitors, in which case, it still doesn’t impress me.
More horizontal space feels natural, but tends to be an ergonomic problem. I could see vertical working better for the spine & shoulders, as long as it isn’t unnaturally narrow.
Pretty sure that's backwards. Ergonomically you want the entire display to be at and below eye level. The neck rotates easily on the horizontal and really sucks at flexing in the vertical.
They're still doing the thing where if you want to wall mount it, you've got to punch a hole in your drywall for the cables to have enough room to exit straight out the back of the monitor. Or hope that some cheap 90-degree noname adapter supports the latest version of DisplayPort that you want. I stopped buying this brand of monitor because of this frustration.
I don't much care for the aspect ratio. But I have been dying for a decent sized 1080p USB-C monitor like this that has no power brick. Is there anything similar?
I find panning my eyes left and right to other monitors more natural than up and down, and I think most ergonomics experts would agree. As such a 32:9 widescreen seems preferable to a 16:8. But if you are pressed for space, either because of small desks or because of everything else going on on your desk (people who work not only in the virtual world) this seems like a great compromise.
How does this compare to two regular monitors stacked on a monitor stand?
This is basically two 1440p panels attached together... so not too different if you have really thin bezels. But what I'm curious about is if this acts as one monitor or two? None of the images show windows that overlap the middle of the screen. So is it one or two "virtual" screens? If it is one virtual screen, I might think of it as more useful to me in the 18:16 orientation.
The slideshow just below shows it used as a single monitor.