Ultra Wide Monitors – A pain in the neck? (2020)

I'm using a 43" 16:9 4k monitor. It's the most screen real estate you can put in front of you without having to move your head.

I would love to see more 16:10 or even 3:2 monitors in bigger sizes (Huawei has started shipping a 32" 3:2 monitor recently, but they seem to be the only ones interested in that market).

The 43" monitor is too big for any single application, so I'm using xrandr to split it into two 4:3 displays at the top for development/browser/chat, and three terminals side-by-side at the bottom.

I use the Dell 49” Ultrawide [1]

Although, it must be noted, it is just two monitors stuck together, but without a middle frame getting in the way.

This does lead to a few issues with certain apps on Windows. For example, pop-up menus are designed to not span the middle, so things like auto-complete boxes either don’t appear or appear in weird places. This has been a bugbear of mine with Rider for example, which handles the middle of the screen very poorly.

Another thing is notifications. Which are usually to the right hand side of the desktop, they pop up right in your eye-line.

And finally, there’s the placement of windows in the middle - there’s no support in Windows for that. So I created an AutoHotKey script to place the current window to the left at 25% width when pressing Ctrl+1, the middle 50% when pressing Ctrl+2, and the right 25% when pressing Ctrl+3. This is super handy and allows me to maximise the use of the screen and easily tile. I have a few other keyboard shortcuts for other widths and placements.

Even with the issues, I’m not sure I’d ever go back to a multi monitor setup again. I love having my primary reading view centred in the monitor, with secondary stuff pushed to the sides, it’s much more ergonomic and natural imho

[1] https://www.dell.com/en-uk/shop/dell-ultrasharp-49-curved-mo...

I’m all about desk ergonomics but this article seems off for one big reason:

People using a wide monitor create “zones”: The center is the “work zone” and the sides are for occasional reference.

Just because you have a 40” screen doesn’t mean you use all 40” equally.

I use a bank of 3 32 inch monitors but I don’t turn my head. I just slide and pivot my chair around to face the thing I want to work on. This work well for me because I’m often involved in multiple long running tasks and having all relevant documents be open in one corner of one monitor with other projects in other places allows me to context switch when necessary with relatively ease.

To each their own but a single 27″ 4K monitor is my preference.

I would love to have something taller than 16:9 though, but I’m afraid that’s economically unfeasible to manufacture. 5:4 would be awesome (^_^)

One lesson I learned when getting new glasses, that I hope will save someone else the hassle: Be sure to measure the distance to each of the monitors you use, from your nose to the closest and farthest points!

My new close-work glasses have a very specific distance they seemed to be good at, about 18" / 45cm. But I work at about 24" from the closest point to my 3 screens, and 36" from the farthest point.

I have to go back to the ophthalmologist and get different glasses so I'm not squinting or moving my head all over the place.

I use a 55" curved 4k TV for my monitor and it fantastic. 1 or 2 windows right in/near the middle for what I'm working on. 2 terminals off to the left for building code or grepping. And whatever else to the right. I rarely use the top portion because its uncomfortable to look up, but the space is there. To watch full screen videos I just roll my chair back a little.

It really brings the desktop UI metaphor to life. Everything about Gnome is wrong for this setup but I use it anyway.

I bought a curved 34" 1440p last year. Pretty neat to have that much space, needed a bit of Hammerspoon scripting to put windows into predefined slots on hotkey presses, but afterwards, having everything in plain view at all times was pretty neat.

But after a while I noticed I was squinting a bit more than with my 27" 1440p Dell, and also tended to lean towards the display a bit more, which probably was because the display was a somewhat less sharp than the Dell and further away from my eyes on the left and right. I also found keeping all that real estate organized was quite a bit of overhead, and having everything in my field of view was subconsciously stressing me out, so I'm back on the 27" 1440p, with Hammerspoon placing windows in way fewer predefined slots, and the 34" has been relegated to gaming duty, where it absolutely shines despite its 60hz refresh; it's crazy what a bit of additional display left and right can do for immersion.

I guess my ideal display would be a 27" or 28" 16:9 5K display, but there are very few of those that all seem to have their share of issues and are priced above my budget anyway. Some people seem to be quite happy with 4K scaled to 150%, but that's probably not viable without a discrete GPU (which my Intel MBP 13" doesn't have.)

Having dual monitor setup isn't the real issue. Also, turning your head occasionally can be a relaxing experience. The real problem is having a dual monitor setup and still using just one of them, which makes you keep your neck turned for a long time (assuming your monitors are positioned in an inverted V shape). If you have a dual monitor setup, keep the primary one straight in front of you, and place the secondary one away, dedicated for things that require less attention.

I've been through a ton of monitors, in neverending pursuit of ergonomic perfection. Currently typing this on a 38in 3840x1600 ultrawide.

Recently I've 'got over myself' and come to the conclusion that the single 27in 4k matte panel I have at the office is the least fatiguing & most productive and enjoyable setup.

As a side note, I also really enjoy coding on an OLED screen in complete darkness (with a 100% black background).

What a weird post. It seems to assume that I need to see my entire 49inch screen at a time.

If half of my windows are on one side, and the other half on the other. I’m not moving between them all that much.

Besides, I tend to drag the windows that I currently need together. It’s still handy to have other information somewhere else on screen.

As othere here, I tried a lot of configs. I now use two setups:

- a acer 27" 2k; the lower screen edge is just 3cm above the keyboard. Its the main screen I use for coding. - directly behind and above it a 43" 4k dell. Its lower edge is less than 1cm above the acer from my chair, but it sits 30 cm further spart. I use it to display debug logs and previews. - a laptop on left hand side, on a tall stand, close and aligned to the acer, for low level debug stuff - and an 27" 5k in portrait mode on the right for chat, browser and calendar.

The other setup I use in my other home swaps the acer for a 34" ultrawide alienware and is better overall.

I did once had an injury - i twisted my back to rapidly to use mbp's touchbar and flexed one of the muscles below the collarbone. Otheriwse great setup. I blame the stupid touchbar.

I think the premise is flawed -- the idea that using our PC should be a static experience where we minimise movement of the body.

The same thing leads to keyboard fanatics trying to get all typing from the fingers without moving their wrists or arms; that seems likely to be a terrible recipe for RSI.

As a user of multiple large monitors for many years, I enjoy actually turning my neck, rotating my body and moving on the chair to orientate around different parts of the screen space. Probably I have to actually re-focus my eyes as well, as the screen edges are a little further away, too.

I heard this is similar to pianists, who say you should only play from the fingers if you can't move the wrist, and from the wrist if you can't move the arm.

Am I the only person who thinks a certain level of physical interaction when at the PC is actually a good thing?

This is very pseudo-scientific; and not just because of the unqualified health complaints.

So to meet psuedo-science with pseudo-science:

* I'm only talking about straight forwards adjacent alignment of screens.

* Having the head not-facing forwards causes physical accomodations, like twisting and side-slouching, which over time develop into pain and other problems.

* Any large screen is subdivided into multiple work areas, either user-intentionally by windowing, or unintentionally by formatting (ie. Hacker News' text box is on the upper left of the screen). These areas should be those considered, and not the whole screen, and henceforth shall be considered "screens" in their own right.

* It is OK to have some screen acreage outside the central FOV, so long as either: a. it is glanced at, and not worked on with the body facing another direction; or b. the user turns their entire setup to use the screen.

* An ultrawide monitor can be modelled as two, or three screens, depending on windowing modes.

* In a two screen setup, many people centre their body on the position between the screens. This causes all areas of interest to require rotations.

* In a three screen setup, there is a central "primary" screen and two "secondary" screens for glancing at. If the body position is able to be rotated it is possible to switch primary and secondary screens; the main concern is movement of keyboard and mouse.

* Rotating the body is hard, a traditional keyboard often results in one handed use that in turn results in side-slouching, whilst a split keyboard remedies the slouch by centering the body - preventing rotation, forcing the rotation to come from the desk area.

* In a two screen setup, if one screen is centred and the other screen is off centre then there is one primary work screen and one secondary screen. (ie. "missing third screen").

* An ultrawide monitor, modelled as two or three screens, needs accomocdations. Either off-centering the monitor or providing the ability to rotate the body.

For those on Windows, TaskView (built in) [1] and PowerToys Fancy Zones (Microsoft download) [2]

provide excellent free virtual desktop management for those without the finance/space/desire for the big monitors discussed in the article and comments.

[1] https://www.windowscentral.com/how-use-task-view-windows-10

[2] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/powertoys/fancyzone...

Here I am, happily hacking away in vim on my 24inch 16:10 Dell UltraSharp 1920x1200.

I use dual monitors but in a stacked setup. I’ve found that you have to be very precise in the positioning which is why I have them on articulating arms. I also have them arranged so that one is placed directly in front and the other is tilted between the first and the keyboard. This required a keyboard tray and angling the second monitor off the edge of the desk. I do have to bend my neck to read the second monitor but it’s an up and down motion rather than a side to side which I find more natural. The position is similar to how you might read a book and I find it to be very comfortable.

I like my curved non-ultrawide 32 inch 4k display. Not too wide, but tons of vertical space. At 125% scaling that's 3072x1728, which is even more vertical pixels than the 1600-height ultrawides give you. And the curve makes it easy to glance at the edges without as much neck movement. This is coming from someone who had chronic neck pain for 2 years and has tried very hard to prevent it in the future.

27 inch here and even that’s too big and I only use the middle of it. I might go back to a 22 and virtual desktops. It worked better for me.

Agreed about 32, perfect size for me. But for one, you normally don't read things spanning the whole screen, the typical setup for reading is two windows side by side. And i also like to saccade / turn my head from time to time. Second, curvy screens, i just cant get used to them. Thrid, wobbling, i havent't seen monitors with two legs to avoid the wobble.

I have a 30” HP 2K screen which is my main screen and a Dell 24” on the right. 90% of my time I use the main screen and have the secondary for debuggers and Slack. I think I could theoretically swap both with a 37” curved screen. Nevertheless, it felt a bit cumbersome when I tried a single 32” curved 4K screen. Any feedback on such changes?

Got a 49 inch Samsung G9 monitor - very nice if you’re not stuck to it. In my case I use it in a simrig- nearly perfect. Haven’t tried it a lot for other stuff though. On a day to day basis I’ve elected for a Dell 40 inch, which is perfect - no more multiple monitor, no need to move my head much and lot of working space. My neck thanks me!

I use two HD 21 inch monitors. I got them cheap and they work great. The real pain is when I put a laptop to the side of one of them and i have to move my head beyond say 10 degree's. Any length of time looking at the small screen is a killer.

Article's calculations are meaningless since author didn't specify what each "xx inches" refers to - monitor width or diagonal, and aspect ratio for said diagonal - which vary widely, e.g 16:10 or 32:9

I used to have three ~25" 1080p monitors side by side, but now switched to two monitors stacked vertically (1440p + 1080p). I think vertical stacking is probably better for my neck, also takes up less desk space.

How are people dealing with such setups on standing desks where they switch from sitting to standing regularly (several times per day)?

Where is my 27in OLED? its 2021 already.

You're using it wrong.

Put it top to bottom instead, and use it for coding :p

Currently very happy with an Alienware 38.

I have a lot to tabs open.