Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dell UltraSharp 52 Thunderbolt Hub Monitor

dell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 370 posts

Re: Dell UltraSharp 52 Thunderbolt Hub Monitor

#71

Post by kccqzy »

cosmic_cheese wrote: post #40
gouthamve wrote: post #32

I just setup mine today, and I am not sure I recommend it. I went from a 40" to a 52", and I'm just moving my head waaay too much and my shoulders hurt. It is curved, but very little imo, it's almost like it's flat. I'm going to try it for a week before making the call on whether to return it. I feel like this needs a workflow where you do work in the middle and use the fringes for other applications that you rarely…

Based on personal experience, I think the upper bound for comfortably useful size at normal sitting distances is probably about 32", and even then I think there'd be better returns on adding vertical pixels to a ~27" monitor. A modern equivalent to the old 16:10 30" 2560x1600 monitors (ideally 2x scaling 5120x3200) would be great for example, but one could also imagine a 4:3 or 5:4 monitor with the same width (~23.5"…

Same! My employer offered a choice of 32-inch and 40-inch monitors. I “upgraded” from 32 to 40 but I regretted it. I just don’t make use of the extra horizontal space effectively.

Re: Dell UltraSharp 52 Thunderbolt Hub Monitor

#72

Post by joombaga »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #33
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #19

The smaller sizes would be nice if they had a 16:10 option. 16:9 just isn't a very nice aspect ratio imo, the extra height on 16:10 is much better.

To whoever needs to hear it, I will never buy another 16:9 monitor. Vastly prefer the 3:2 on my Framework and also liked an old 4:3 I had. Also great in portrait.

Yep. I have a MacBook air 13 and a Framework, and miss the extra vertical space when I'm on the MacBook.

Re: Dell UltraSharp 52 Thunderbolt Hub Monitor

#73

Post by spullara »

lejalv wrote: post #21

This has pixels the size of my hand, and it fully covers my field of view. Not my cup of tea. What I do recommend (having bought one) is the Kuycon G32p, 32 inches @ 6K. Incredible quality and unbelievable value for money ( https://clickclack.io/products/in-stock-kuycon-g32p-6k-32-in... ).

I wish they had an ultra wide with the higher resolution.

Re: Dell UltraSharp 52 Thunderbolt Hub Monitor

#74

Post by gouthamve »

switchbak wrote: post #42
gouthamve wrote: post #32

I just setup mine today, and I am not sure I recommend it. I went from a 40" to a 52", and I'm just moving my head waaay too much and my shoulders hurt. It is curved, but very little imo, it's almost like it's flat. I'm going to try it for a week before making the call on whether to return it. I feel like this needs a workflow where you do work in the middle and use the fringes for other applications that you rarely…

That was my issue with multiple monitors years ago - I'd be cranking my neck over too often (looking at logs, etc). I vastly prefer an ultrawide where I can put logs / monitors on the side flexibly. I have a 34 inch now, and feel like I could use more space - but it's nice to know there's an upper bound. Do you feel like there's still room to go beyond 40, or is that the sweet spot?

I honestly think 40 is the sweet spot.

Re: Dell UltraSharp 52 Thunderbolt Hub Monitor

#75

Post by swframe2 »

I use 2 32" 4K which cost about $800 for both monitors. The small gap between the monitors is annoying but I can't really justify paying $2k more. Also there is a samsung dual 4k that is about the same price as the dell.

Moving my head to see everything doesn't bother me. I also have a setup with 3 32" 4k which I find a little too wide but in that setup 1 monitor connects to different computer.

Re: Dell UltraSharp 52 Thunderbolt Hub Monitor

#76

Post by maxglute »

gouthamve wrote: post #32

I just setup mine today, and I am not sure I recommend it. I went from a 40" to a 52", and I'm just moving my head waaay too much and my shoulders hurt. It is curved, but very little imo, it's almost like it's flat. I'm going to try it for a week before making the call on whether to return it. I feel like this needs a workflow where you do work in the middle and use the fringes for other applications that you rarely…

Maybe it's a head turner vs eye mover thing. It's a lot less fatiguing moving eyes, which might not be option for glass wearers. I sit 2 feet away from my 50 inch OLED and moving eyes is much less work than windows management. Otherwise it is very workflow dependant, i.e. working on visuals or schematic diagrams.

Re: Dell UltraSharp 52 Thunderbolt Hub Monitor

#77

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

switchbak wrote: post #54
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a fraction of what most Apple customers are used to.

The freakin stand alone is $1300 CAD. What planet are those people on? That's Gucci bag territory. They can take their res and shove it, that's almost NINE GRAND (granted, Canadian pesos) for a freakin display! Who is this for, just Pixar employees?

It's a halo status symbol for price insensitive people. Lamborghini makes compromised overpriced vehicles but they have a market.

Re: Dell UltraSharp 52 Thunderbolt Hub Monitor

#78

Post by adrian_b »

LtdJorge wrote: post #29
masklinn wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is a poor pixel density.

If compared to a smartphone, maybe.

No, it is a poor pixel density when compared with a printed book, which should be the standard for judging any kind of display used for text.

At the sizes of 27" or 32", which are comfortable for working with a computer, 5k is the minimum resolution that is not too bad when compared with a book or with the acuity of typical human vision.

For a bigger monitor, a 4k resolution is perfectly fine for watching movies or for playing games, but it is not acceptable for working with text.

Re: Dell UltraSharp 52 Thunderbolt Hub Monitor

#80

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

cosmic_cheese wrote: post #69
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sometimes think that my 40" is too much because the extra space just ends up hosting distracting junk like Slack. I also have a mild take that large screens make screen real estate cheap so less thought goes into user interface design. There's plenty of room just stick the widget anywhere!

It'd be pretty interesting to compare how much the amount of information one can cram onto their ~27" screen has changed between 2005 and 2025, with the comparison points between between a Mac running OS X 10.6 and a Mac running macOS 26, which I think is a particularly salient and apples-to-apples comparison since Apple was selling 30" 2560x1600 displays back then, which are close cousins to modern 27" 2560x1440 dis…

It would be interesting but I don't think that information density necessarily makes a good interface.

As a personal pet peeve example, developers love to cram a search bar (or browser tabs) into the top of the window. It's more dense but it's also harder to use and drag the window.

Post reply on HN