51–60 of 341 posts
The question for people using single ultrawide screen instead of multiples - is something like this possible to achieve? are you able to define virtual "regions" on the screen space to move windows there?
On a similar note, I once again wish more displays were 3:2, and more people knew about it. The human central (not peripheral) vision’s ratio is very close to 3:2, yet due to economics of scale 16:9 is marginally cheaper and much more common. And if someone is wondering, no, rotating 16:9 vertically for more vertical space doesn’t help because it makes it very narrow - for me IMO a square display would be the best. (…
yesss... I discovered how wrong the widescreen displays are after I had found an old IBM Thinkpad in my basement and tried it. To add to what you said, I will also point out that it's the vertical space that often gets pinched by toolbars and such, effectively squishing your working area to an even wider ratio. And when working with text (reading, writing), the left and right edges of my screen are just slabs of empt…
I'm using 3 monitors currently (one vertical) and I'm used to utilizing keyboard shortcuts for moving windows between screens - for example I can move window onto vertical screen and then into bottom half of it, all using keyboard. The question for people using single ultrawide screen instead of multiples - is something like this possible to achieve? are you able to define virtual "regions" on the screen space to mov…
On a similar note, I once again wish more displays were 3:2, and more people knew about it. The human central (not peripheral) vision’s ratio is very close to 3:2, yet due to economics of scale 16:9 is marginally cheaper and much more common. And if someone is wondering, no, rotating 16:9 vertically for more vertical space doesn’t help because it makes it very narrow - for me IMO a square display would be the best. (…
Yawn. Get on with the times. I've been using ultrawide (21:9) for years, and would definitely not want to go back to peeking through a square'ish hole.
You might want to refresh your memory of HN's guidelines. Link at the bottom.
On a similar note, I once again wish more displays were 3:2, and more people knew about it. The human central (not peripheral) vision’s ratio is very close to 3:2, yet due to economics of scale 16:9 is marginally cheaper and much more common. And if someone is wondering, no, rotating 16:9 vertically for more vertical space doesn’t help because it makes it very narrow - for me IMO a square display would be the best. (…
yesss... I discovered how wrong the widescreen displays are after I had found an old IBM Thinkpad in my basement and tried it. To add to what you said, I will also point out that it's the vertical space that often gets pinched by toolbars and such, effectively squishing your working area to an even wider ratio. And when working with text (reading, writing), the left and right edges of my screen are just slabs of empt…
Absolutely agree, and it’s amazing/infuriating when people/companies don’t realise it. My mom’s old Asus could barely fit a few lines of text on its small screen after all its toolbars in chrome. You shouldn’t need to scroll multiple times to read a 3-paragraph email on a display where it fits if it were the only text! (And of course about 60% of the space on the sides was wasted.)
I don’t have a 3:2 display yet, though I do have an old 16:10 21” monitor which is alright. My ipad (10.9”) is okayish as well, but I’m planning to buy a 16” 3:2 portable monitor soon. Do you have an 3:2 screens?
I think a servo motor should be behind the screen and it should rotate depending on whether I look up or down or sideways. Added benefit: if you spin the screen fast enough you get a circular display! Of course this means you have to precisely time screen refresh rates and invent a new type of rotation resistant power and video cable.
That should not be difficult, plug cables into the base instead of directly into the screen and have circular donut shaped plates connecting the base and the screen instead of cables. The plates do of course have to have a spring to put the correct pressure to give a good connection even after some wear on the plates
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yawn. Get on with the times. I've been using ultrawide (21:9) for years, and would definitely not want to go back to peeking through a square'ish hole.
UW is fine if you’ve got a 28” or more desktop (or maybe larger even), but I’d take a 28” 3:2 like the Huawei Mateview over a 28” UW any day of the week. The UW probably has 20 or 30% lesser screen area.
Likewise, a monitor in portrait usually needs to be at least 1200(w)x1920(h) (ie. a 24" 16:10) to be usable for browsing today's web without getting served up a mobile-specific layout too often. A reasonably-sized 1080p display in portrait can be great for stuff like text editors and terminal windows.
On a similar note, I once again wish more displays were 3:2, and more people knew about it. The human central (not peripheral) vision’s ratio is very close to 3:2, yet due to economics of scale 16:9 is marginally cheaper and much more common. And if someone is wondering, no, rotating 16:9 vertically for more vertical space doesn’t help because it makes it very narrow - for me IMO a square display would be the best. (…
Eizo made a 1920x1920 display that I think has been discontinued; a very good review: https://youtu.be/gJG9HOQITrg The LG DualUp is an almost-square 16:18 monitor, higher resolution than the Eizo and almost half the price.
It's been a transformative layout for coding and managing machines.