Hacker News Reader

Comment by wil421 | Hacker News Reader

100% disagree. I went with 2 4K monitors years ago. When I switched to an ultra wide lat year it was a night a day difference. I wish I never bought 2 4k monitors (or dual monitors at all). Ultra wide is perfect and has a more functionality than a massive piece of each monitor's border in the dead center of your vision.

View on HN

Yeah, bezels midfield is no good. That's why three monitors is where it's at. Or perhaps one of those 32:9 ones. But many window managers make it easier to deal with multiple monitors than one enormous one.

There's some jank involved depending on which combo of x/wayland, window manager, and compositor you're using, but if you can manage to get virtual monitors working on an ultrawide it's great.

A lot of recent models also support "picture by picture" mode, allowing you to connect two separate inputs to the monitor and avoid doing anything in software.

They said one big one front and centered, and one to the side. Who voluntarily sticks a gap right in front of themselves?

I, too, am in the ultrawide camp now. I initially bought a 4k monitor. The default rendering was too small for my eyes. My Linux didn't support fractional scaling; 200% scaling kind of defeated the purpose of having a 4k monitor in the first place--net real estate I got felt the same.

I then returned it and went for a flat 34" monitor (HP X34), and I'm happy for it.

Did you go with one large 4k monitor in front like he said?

I use 2 4K monitors, often with one connected to work computer and one connected to personal computer.

When I'm not working I sometimes connect the work computer display to a Chromecast or as a 2nd monitor to personal computer.

Work computer is much shittier than personal computer and doesn't support 2 monitors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com