This is a perfect one for crypto traders! These days they should rotate their 16:9 vertically to see the full depth of assets plunged. Now they will have this and see much longer history at the same time.
I appreciate the joke. While I consider buying and trading crypto on the same risk level as gambling, I am crypto mining which even though crypto dropped is somehow still profitable even after the electricity is paid.
This monitor is quite interesting especially for text editing and playing Factorio, would love to try it one day!
Because the cryptocurrency community demonstrated incredible hubris, and even mocked "no-coiners" constantly. So, it shouldn't be a surprise that some people would respond in kind.
I don't think it's great to mock people for losing their life savings, but that's where it's coming from I think.
From a population perspective, all groups of people will have a disproportionate fringe of memorable behaviors. I've always found it odd that people group an entire community together like that, which may be the fact that I'm on the spectrum.
The crypto jerks aren't necessarily the ones who quietly used blockchain investments as an attempt to invest. Can't say they made a wise decision, but it's just bad form to strike someone when they're down. They still came out better than taking $40K in consumer debt!
I left you a perfect chance to retort with a joke about future crypto-assets growth, but you chose just to whine lamely. No wonder crypto bros are so non-likable.
The problem is not the joke, the problem is persistence of hate towards Bitcoin from people in the tech community. I guess tech-bros are non-likeable to most people as well.
For the record: I personally think that Bitcoin is the only part of crypto which is partially useful. Of course it is mostly used for empty speculation and buying drugs, but there are transfer and legitimate payment sides of it. Too bad its cost for the humanity is disproportional.
Ethereum network is a nice exercise in distributed computing, but its usefulness is questionable, while harm is undeniable.
Everything else crypto are either scam (I estimate this at 90%) or solutions in search of problems.
For the record: I agree except "its cost" part. Bitcoin consumes less energy than cloth dryers. It is not "cheap" for the environment to mine gold, haul it around the globe, have those gold shops, build storage for gold etc. etc. This is not even considering whole banking system.
Drying machines makes life of a lots and lots of people more comfortable. Hundreds of millions is my lower estimation, maybe even billions (if we include industrial dryers used in textile and clothes-making). Useful segment (eg except speculation and illegal activities) of Bitcoin operation is consumed by millions of people tops, two or three orders of magnitude less. And I never heard about using dryers for drug trade.
I’ve been looking for a replacement for my 16:10 HP zr30w with either high-dpi or high-fps (not that this is particularly either) and have been coming up high-and-dry. This looks like an alternative worth exploring instead of the garbage 16:9 flooding the market with unusable high-dpi real estate.
But it doesn’t have VESA? I’m all for the “save desk space” mantra that’s plastered all over their marketing materials, but my solution was a wall/stud-mounted gas spring fully-articulated VESA mount that I’ve used across several monitors. I definitely don’t want a desk-clamped alternative that will flatter and shake as I type vigorously on my mechanical keyboard (on anything that isn’t a solid, handcrafted wood desk that takes four people to move).
I'm using the included monitor stand. The monitor definitely can move relative to my desk if I shake my desk, but it's noticeably sturdier than a cheap (but highly rated) monitor arm from Amazon. I'm personally pleased using the monitor stand.
I've been using a 32" 16:9 4K monitor (BenQ BL3201PH) for years. The biggest improvement I've made recently was putting it on a proper monitor arm. OMG, what a sea change being able to raise, lower, bring forward, push back the monitor throughout the day.
I have a fixed standing desk with a tall bar-stool type chair I use for resting at times. I'm 50, but even with glasses I use just for editing (they are optimized for bringing into focus things at arms distance) I have the monitor relatively close to use it at the resolution and font-sizes I like. This means if I'm working on editing something toward the bottom or top of the monitor I'll often have to adjust its height so that I'm not tilting my head too far down or up. The monitor arm just makes that so easy.
After a couple tries, I found a knock-off of the Fully Jarvis arm that works well, the WALI GSM001XL:
Anyway, this LG is neat, but my 32" is already at the height limit I'd want for a monitor. I feel like this LG dual setup I'd need to have too far way to see the full view comfortably, which would mean running everything at larger font sizes, so I'm not sure it makes sense.
I don't run it 100%. I run it at 3360 x 1890, once click down in the Mac display preference pane from native. It's apparently 114%/122ppi according to [1] (not my monitor, but it's an equivalent size/resolution).
Isn't that a bit too close? Can you see all of it at once, and is there anything but it in your field of view? I'm asking because i had a 60cm (24'' is 61cm) desk with a 24'' screen and i found that too close and too straining on my eyes.
It's as close as it needs to be for the size fonts and resolution I want to run it at, and still be able to read comfortably with my 50 year-old eyes. Yes, it's a bit on the close side so I do have to pan my head a bit. As I mentioned, I do push it back and bring it forward throughout the day, but I just measured where I'd left it at after coding yesterday and it was at 24" away.
I don't really have any issues with eye strain though.
I did need to get dedicated glasses that I use when using the monitor or when I'm on my laptop. I'm a bit near-sighted, even after Lasik a decade ago, and now I'm also dealing with presbyopia the last few years. I've worn glasses all my life, but they never bothered me at all till I started dealing with the presbyopia and needing task-specific glasses. :-(
I tried progressive glasses (modern versions of bifocals) but found them extremely annoying with their fishbowl effect and only providing enough magnification at the bottom and gave up on them after two weeks. So I now have my regular glasses that are adjusted for normal activities and I just take them off or read below them for near work. My near-sightedness here is providing me some temporary respite from the presbyopia. But at arm's length distances, it's uncomfortable to read text through them because my eyes can't focus that close with them on, yet if I take them off it's just a bit too blurry.
So I basically have my work glasses that make things from ~ 18" - 36" comfortable for viewing.
Presbyopia really sucks and it's the only thing so far about aging that's a constant irritation in my day. :-(
p.s. typing this on an iPad 12.9" that's about 16" from my face, w/o wearing my glasses. Further away and it's too blurry and I'd need my middle-distance glasses. With my regular glasses, there's no distance at which I can read it.
> I tried progressive glasses (modern versions of bifocals) but found them extremely annoying with their fishbowl effect
Lord you aren't kidding about that - I tried these after a doctor recommended, and it was so jarring and disorienting I thought something had to be wrong. Apparently that's just how they are.
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 decent 1080p or even 1440p monitor for much less.
Fyi I had written a comment some time back on how to make your own monitor, using Panelook but that also isn't very cheap (edit here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30422163)
I run the EIZO you linked and love it... since I'm such a fan of this monitor I've always kept an eye out for anything more affordable.
Unfortunately, this LG is the first and only thing that I've seen that comes close with a <$1k price tag... I'm considering picking this up to have as a backup when my EIZO finally dies.
100% not for everyone, and I have to run it along side of traditional monitors (gaming etc). That being said, it's the #1 thing I value out of my setup just by personal preference.
When I'm traveling + using a traditional setup I really miss it.
If what you value is vertical space/resolution why not run a 4K monitor vertically? You can either use the full resolution or crop at whatever vertical space you prefer.
This is terrific advice. I run one monitor in the standard horizontal configuration and one horizontal. Everybody who sees it falls in love. I can get 100 lines of code on the monitor and rarely does a line wrap. PDFs and other documents look terrific.
I just switched to this setup and it’s great. Windows unfortunately doesn’t natively support “snap to left/right” on a horizontal monitor and “snap to bottom/top” on a vertical monitor at the same time.
It's a little bit better but it's still a crap aspect ratio, and turning it vertical doesn't fix all of the problem. Now it's too tall and not wide enough.
This is where the vertically curved displays used for video slots would shine as a general purpose monitor. You'd have less vertical range to scan and refocus on.
The Huawei Mateview is exceptional. I was bothered by the price but eventually got one on sale. It’s so good I’m buying another at full price. (Unless it comes on sale again!)
I have one as well and definitely can recommend it. The only thing is that if you are running macOS you really need to have SwitchResX for it to not look terrible.
I have it next to my studio display and it honestly does not even compare in terms of clarity. I’m sure it’ll run better on windows.
> I have it next to my studio display and it honestly does not even compare in terms of clarity.
Could you clarify a bit by what you mean? The studio display has a higher resolution if I'm not mistaken (4500*3000), do you mean the display is more vivid or has a better color space (DCI P3 etc) coverage? Thanks!
I’m referring to the scaling of the display. The reason that I say that macOS looks better is because it uses integer scaling on the studio display. While even after setting a custom resolution, (the defaults macOS chose for the Mateview were either really small or really large for my taste) the Mateview still has a bit of a blur to it in small fonts it is most noticeable. Whereas the studio display shows well because it was made with integer scaling in mind
Not sure what you mean by bleeding - can you be more specific?
I find it an absolute joy to use. When I am at my desk I spend a lot of time in front of the screen and compared to the Samsung 4k I was using previously I find far less eye strain, much crisper image, and just generally more pleasant. I feel the investment was very worthwhile.
It’s also very beautifully designed which was definitely a consideration for me, as my office has a very cheaper defined aesthetic.
Happy to answer specific questions but understand that I’m not a monitor expert :)
Having looked out for this since you mentioned it it is not something I noticed. Meanwhile I’m really annoyed because this was on a “lightning deal” on Amazon recently for £389 and I missed picking another one up by about 40 minutes!
That is 5:4. The 4:3 1600x1200 IPS one are quite decent but they are getting bulky by todays standards. Also require a lot more power and they are starting to die. (I think last model is from 2005).
So I'd be prepared to do some repairs / get spares if you can+want.
I do actually have a Dell 4:3 monitor with me but unfortunately the resolution as well as the physical dimensions are nothing to write home about. I can make do with "smaller" (<~24") monitors fine as long as the resolution is good enough, but as you mentioned most old monitors aren't even 1080p. (Additionally with my shortsightedness I can/end up pixel-peep on 400ppi+ displays)
I guess a decent solution in my case would be to actually get a proper job (I'm still studying) and save up for a decent display, until which I'll just do some window shopping heh ;)
Dell 2007's (1600x1200) are in high demand. Only a few weeks back I set a watch on an ebay site selling over 100 of them, I see there's only 2 left new.
The 1280x1024's are good for older eyes--that's the size with the biggest pixels. Windows does a pretty good job of scaling fonts but icons don't scale so well. I have a 27" 2560x1440 that's absolutely wonderful for stuff that actually scales well, but I don't do much else with it because of the tiny icons.
It's nice to see large manufacturers break out of the 16:9 mold, although I think 4:3, 3:2, or 5:4 would be better for most users.
Unfortunately, LG is letting the supply chain dictate panel size for their product team, instead of the other way around. This is no doubt a byproduct of their decision to stop building their own panels in 2020.
Huawei's MateView 28.2" monitor too. It has a 3840 x 2560 resolution (which is slightly more than the 2560 x 2880 resolution of the LG DualUp), although sadly is not VESA mountable.
Its rather close to 16:10 which is more ubiquitous (I have 32" one funnily enough from LG from pre-covid times, and oh boy was I glad I bought when it came).
It feels so natural to my eyes, I definitely don't want vertical panel but 16:9 is pretty crap for any kind of work.
I would say this is very far from "breaking out of the 16:9 mold".
You can clearly say that the vast majority of the product pictures instead present it as a 2x16:9. Most of the text is also selling it as a replacement for a double monitor setup.
That's unfortunate. I was hoping to get one of these as an external monitor for an MBP.
I do have to wonder though, you're saying 'Screen scaling with Mac OS' and 'scaling issues on mac' but this is just a monitor, Isn't that "MacOS screen scaling does not work well" and "mac scaling issues" rather than any defect with the device itself?
I bought one, and I'm also upset with how Mac OS handles the scaling.
I've tried absolutely every utility that allegedly makes higher DPI monitors work: BetterDisplay, SwitchResX, EasyRes, and a few other little ones. BetterDisplay makes it sound like they support full resolution with any arbitrary scaling factor. But all of them, at least the ones that did ANYTHING, they only offered the exact same behavior that Mac's built-in display settings offered. They only let me run at a lower resolution. I'm on a 2020 Intel MBP.
Running it at 1920x2160 (just via Mac's built-in settings) is annoying, but it displays things at the correct size and lets me move on with my life. It's still slightly crisper than my old 96 DPI monitor, and the screen real estate + aspect ratio is absolutely amazing for coding.
It's a real shame that neither Mac nor LG has a solution similar to what Windows offers. Hooking the Dualup to my Windows 10 PC, it immediately just worked. Full resolution, 150% scaling, it was the perfect size. Text looks so much crisper on Windows than Mac with this monitor. I've been considering installing some Linux distro for my daily work just to enjoy proper scaling (I figure Ubuntu would offer something similar to Windows).
I was disappointed too. In the end the vastly improved aspect ratio and ergonomics could not overcome the unpleasant screen quality.
While Mac OS has never had an issue with other monitors and scaling replies in my experience, it does for the DualUp. I’m not knowledgeable enough about the various protocols to know if this is Apple or LG’s responsibility, but the end result is not pleasant.
I believe for Apple's rescaling to work properly, it needs to be able to render at 2x resolution on both axes (4x resolution total). So for this 2560 x 2880, it needs a GPU to render internally at 5210x5760. That is 30MP. Can your GPU actually do this?
Are you sure it's not the OS X chroma issue on external displays? It has some bug with the EDID exchange, and doesn't use full chroma - making everything look blurry. There is a way to fix it [1], but it's pretty insane Apple still hasn't fixed this basic functionality.
I like how they target programmers specifically on their landing page.
I wonder how well it works in practice. I typically have multiple tabs open so I don’t mind going wide over long. But it is easier to look down rather than sideways.
I love it, perhaps we are entering a golden age of 1:1 screens. I had a blackberry passport and the second greatest thing about it was that it had a square screen and took square pictures.
i have that and the one thing i don't like about it is the max rate is 60hz. even 75 would be fine; i don't need amazing, just a bit more than 60. this new lg monitor has really neat features: the picture by picture and the built-in kvm are clever and useful, but it has the same 60hz.
- supports DDC brightness control (controlling the real brightness of the monitor using Lunar on Mac, TwinkleTray on Windows or ddcutil on Linux)
- supports DDC volume control
- supports Lunar's XDR Brightness feature (https://lunar.fyi/#xdr) which means that in HDR mode the full brightness of the display can be unlocked and used for SDR content
- although the specs page reports a typical brightness of 300nits so not sure if this has any effect
- it isn't recognized as HiDPI by macOS (this used to cause blurry text, not sure if this is the case here but BetterDisplay is a thing these days so not an issue)
If you want to dig deeper, you can find the same data here: https://db.lunar.fyi
And here's the query I used:
SELECT
name,
ddc,
"canChangeVolume",
orientation,
width,
height,
"dotsPerInch",
"maxEDR",
"potentialEDR",
"refreshRate",
"isHiDPI",
"isRetina",
"isSmartDisplay",
("kCGDisplayID" <= 10) as "appleSilicon", -- M1 assigns IDs from 2 to 10, Intel uses much larger IDs
*
FROM
displays
WHERE
name ILIKE '%SDQHD%'
AND "DisplayProductID" != 0 -- Filter out those in a semi-connected state
I used Better Display with it (very useful tool) but it only partially improved the scaling instead of resolving entirely. It still has banding, jagged edges and some lag.
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.
I've always been the opposite - not a big fan of having to turn my head much when I'm working.
At home I've got 2 x 27" 9:16 monitors, one in front and one to my right (total display width ~68 cm), then my little laptop on the left (~30 cm wide) - and that's about far left or right as I can be bothered to look.
At work I've got 1 x 27" 9:16 monitor in front, and 1 x 27" 16:9 monitor on my left. The left hand side of the desktop feels very, very far away!
Partly because I work in video games, so at work I benefit from having one landscape monitor for testing the game at a realistic resolution and/or using the tools, almost all of which are always designed for use in landscape orientation.
(I could probably work around all of that, and indeed when I work at home I just suck it up and/or have things stretch across two screens. But the other part is that the monitor stand I have at work is a bit limited, so if I have both monitors in portrait orientation and move them so they're adjacent, they end up too close to me.)
Are there any window managers that let you set some kind of 'snap zones' so that you can easily tile screens without fiddling? That's my main issue with large screens vs a plurality of smaller ones.
Specifically, the FancyZones utility. I was just showing this to a guest I was hosting and blowing their minds. You can setup multiple patterns per monitor depending on a given workflow, snap windows with shortcuts or shift-dragging with the mouse, and even tab between windows in the same 'pane'.
If you use a Mac, I’ve really enjoyed using Divvy. You can define snap zones with keyboard shortcuts. It’s $20, but that’s worth it for me considering how much I use it.
Hammerspoon has the benefit that in addition to managing your windows / spaces, you can also script tons of other things in the macos interface with it: have a glance at https://www.hammerspoon.org/docs/ to see the top-level modules.
Honestly the latest Windows 10 isn’t bad in this regard and Windows 11 has improved on that without making it a chore (although the other regressions in 11 make it a strong Do Not Recommend for now). The PowerToys expansion for this feature is worth trying (it’s by Microsoft and it’s free).
I'm double-extending vscode: top monitor gets the code, bottom laptop screen gets the terminal (vscode click-to-goto file/line in stdout/stderr output is just too powerful)
why can't those be put in different spaces and just switch between spaces using keyboard. Whats the advantage of putting terminal in another monitor.
This has puzzled me for a long time as to why ppl use multiple monitors at all. Is the idea that your peripheral vision is monitoring terminal window ?
I have two 32" external monitors connected to my 17" laptop, so I use 3 screens: the laptop screen is usually for browser/slack/email, first external monitor is for Vscode code editor, second monitor is for tmux (watching a bunch of ML experiments on GPU servers).
I don't want to use different spaces on the same screen, to me it's like context switching, and I don't like that. I prefer to have everything open in front of me, so I just turn my head slightly to see what I need to see. It's like having a large work table where I can fit all my tools and materials.
Arguably if vscode allowed you to detach the terminal this would be less of an issue. But you can't, and it's part of the same screen, and making the terminal have a small horizontal section of the screen is not as good; terminal character wrapping for small vertical sections is not as good etc.
If you have never had your terminal highlight something that it detects (log line, compile error, stacktrace, test report, etc.) as a reference to a file/line/column and give you a clicky to bring that file to the front and focus it... I highly recommend you try it.
I'm not monitoring the terminal window with my peripheral vision, but when I am using the terminal I don't want to have to rearrange where my code appears.
I also have a third, vertical monitor, that typically has documentation (documentation is splendid when you can see lots of rows of text). Why that has to be "in another monitor" should be a reasonable corrollary from that.
I don’t know about terminals but having live reload on multiple monitors is a god send for frontend developer productivity. You’re experimenting most of the time.
Clearly this monitor only make sense if you get two of them and run them side by side... Imagine the glorious luxury of such setup...
I used to run two 30"s vertically, but after upgrading to high-res 32" didn't get back to such setup (would be too narrow and too tall). Two of these 27"s can be great for side-by-side again.
I got a 21:9 display for my main monitor which forced me to turn a 16:9 monitor sideways so it would fit on my desk. It's very much just meant for stuff on the side because it is not comfortable to be looking up and down like that. The best arrangement seems to be to have stuff that I'm not focusing too hard on in the top half (a YouTube video or Discord when I'm just glancing at it) and to have in the bottom half stuff that I'm more actively focusing on (general browsing or Discord when I'm doing a lot of chatting)
I'm also using a 21:9 and a 16:9 sideways. I mainly use the portrait monitor for API docs and the iOS simulator. The tall format is perfect for viewing documentation, especially browsing through long lists of classes or methods.
Also don't forget that our eyes are… you know… next to each other. Rather than stacked vertically. The aspect ratio for the average binocular human is almost 2:1 (vertical FOV is around 100°, while horizontal is up to 190°).
Actually good point, looking at that article again, 190° is edge-to-edge — i.e. also including single-eye areas.
True binocular FOV is 120° horizontal, which makes it close to a square actually.
It’s not like that remaining 70° is completely useless for monitor viewing, you will still peripherally notice any major display changes in that area, and should you need to turn your head, the partial view makes it easier to quickly find and lock onto the new target.
I've always stacked my monitors because I recline while I work, so the up/down eye motion feels natural for me. By contrast, I turn my head to see side-by-side monitors, which doesn't feel as nice to do all day.
I work at a desk, lean my chair back, and use a footrest. Here's the one I'm using now: https://amazon.com/gp/product/B07PWT8X6K/ My desk has a keyboard tray so I can keep my chair low, and I'd want something taller if I had to raise my chair.
For me, this totally eliminates back strain from working. I've also got a friend who uses a La-Z-Boy in his home office, with his laptop connected to the TV. He can't say enough good things about that setup.
A couple years ago I got a Secret Lab Titan, which does have high back/head support. I'm very happy with it. Before that, I've worked this way with whatever chair my job gave me. The head support is nice, but for me it isn't critical.
I’ve been using a vertical monitor recently and I have to say I haven’t noticed any pain. I don’t tend to look up and down with my head, I simply move my eyes up and down
I used to be able to ride a bicycle for hours on end in my 20's and 30's. Now I can't look up when bent over in that position, I need a rise in the handlebars to get me almost vertical. I didn't hurt myself. I didn't get in an accident. It is just a fundamentally unnatural position and the discs just started to deteriorate from years of holding that position. My bikes were sized and fit properly, and I was doing everything right and everything felt OK for literally decades until one day it wasn't OK.
Intense bike positions require you to statically position the neck at almost 90 degrees to look forward, and keeping the neck maxed out like that is probably not great in the long run.
The articulation to look up/down is maybe +/- 15 degrees, and being dynamic it should be a positive movement that strengthens your neck.
That you have reduced neck flexibility decades later could easily just be age…
> Intense bike positions require you to statically position the neck at almost 90 degrees to look forward
Cyclists learn that the proper position is to hold the head at roughly the same angle of the spine and to peer upwards at an angle. So you are basically looking UP, but since the top 2/3rds of the spine is tilted forward at 45 degrees, you end up looking forward. However, as the neck muscles tire from holding a 15 pound head this odd position, riders end up like you described.
I think most of ppl have the opposite problem called "nerd neck" from looking down all the time while using phone, laptop ect. This could be a nice antidote to that :D .
Never heard of nerd neck til now. Every single piece of ergonomic advice on using monitors that I have encountered has recommended that the top of your monitor be level with your eyes so you look down (slightly) rather than up.
Yes, and it doesn't just affect your neck. Setting it up like that is also better for eye strain and fatigue, because if your monitor is too high and you're looking up (defined as your eyes angled above your horizon), tear production is inhibited and your eyes get tired a lot faster.
I just had a cervical fusion after 26 years in IT. Not a fun time. I really suggest you do not look downward at your screens. My surgeon used the term “computer neck” so it must be a common thing.
To be fair to the poster, we have in general horizontally distributed eyes. Yes the display is squarish, so the focus uses similar distances, but maybe the game of peripheral vision gives the L↔R space some advantage.
I have the exact opposite experience. I run a 34” ultra wide on top of a 27” 16x9 monitor. The top one is angled down just a bit and there bottom one is angled up a bit. I just need to move by eyes to see them well. With side by side monitors I’m either straining my eyes or moving my neck.
If you're curious what a setup with three of these would look like, there was a post on r/battlestations today by an app developer who uses three of them [0].
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.
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.
I received one last week. Works great on my M1 MBP. I have a 16:9 monitor above the MBP and the LG to the right of it, but now I want to get a keyboard, trackpad and webcam so I can swap the positions of the monitors and have the LG as my main monitor.
My only complaint is it’s not as wide as a 27” monitor despite having the same resolution as Thunderbolt Displays / 27” iMacs. So the pixels are smaller. The width is closer to a 24” 16:9.
But I love the stand, and everything else about it.
Yes! The stand is really great; I have mine on an adjustable height desk and it takes up so little space. Which is perfect as I have so little space to work with. I got it recently and for me it's spot on as my main monitor. The built-in two device kvm saves me so much time. I can't speak to the resolution woes as I was using two very, very old monitors at home so I've just been basking in the glow of using something made recently. I've been enjoying the vertical space for tasks like going through logs/giant spreadsheets and then switching to the dual monitor mode for the usual multi-tasking. I've used dual 32in curved fancy monitors at the office before and found that I would just use a fourth of the real estate available. My brain prefers the vertical space over the horizontal.
My solution has been to use it as a second monitor, run it at native resolution, and only use it for apps where I can reliablably increase the font size (terminals, web apps/pages with good zoom support). I keep VSCode on my high DPI main monitor.
Every other example use they've picked seems designed to make it look like it has a bezel with no content crossing the middle of the screen - this single counter-example is buried.
I have one- I can confirm, no bezel. It's just a single contiguous panel as far as I can tell. I does have software support for feeding 2 inputs into the top/bottom, but by default it just hooked up as a single monitor. Looks great!
Even that image is a little confusing; the strong red/blue line in the middle made me wonder if there was a seam between two panels. The red sugar packet on the left is the only thing that unambiguously indicates it's a single continuous panel.
According to what you are writing, it is much bigger than your display:
if your display had a 27'' diagonal, and was 25'' wide, it would be 10'' tall. (Which makes little sense: it would be a 5:2 proportion.) So it would have an area of 250 sqi.
Versus the ~350 sqi of the LG. (It is quite a jump: the rounded √2 jump, 5:7, Ax proportion, "do it twice to double".)
The steeper (or flatter) the proportion, the less the area per diagonal size.
But I guess the display for comparison is more likely a 24''x13'' scarce, ~300 sqi.
You brought the measurements of your 16:9 : yes, one of the points was that a 27'' diagonal with a 25'' side cannot be 16:9, and is in fact more like 5:2, as written. Going from 25'' to 23.5'' makes a lot of difference in proportions.
I was all ready to buy one of these until I realised it was the size of two 21” displays stacked, rather than two 27” as the resolution suggests.
I know I wouldn’t be losing any horizontal resolution, but I think 27” is the perfect width for a primary monitor and I wouldn’t really want to go smaller.
Maybe I'm bad at reading, but it would be nice if the page explained "this is the equivalent of two 20-inch 16:9 monitors stacked" instead of having to bust out the Pythagorean theorem.
I wish USB-C single cable solution would become standard on all screens, along with a built-in USB/BT hub. Then we could revisit the idea of thumbstick PCs. I am not a big fan of laptops and would gladly carry a Mars bar-sized computer with me instead.
I was given a NUC-sized PC when we switched to WFH and liked it more than a laptop, but I still had to carry a power brick with it, doubling the bulk. Getting DC from the display would've been much more convenient.
I've been using 43 inch 4k displays as monitors for 3 years now and don't think I could go back to anything smaller. Font size at native scaling is just right for me and there's plenty of real estate.
Having tried both setups I found 8k 55" to be problematic. At 200% scaling it's like 4 4k 27.5" displays which are already a bit under scales individually (160 dpi equivalent being displayed as normal) but much worse because you need to fit 4 within your vision on a flat plane. At 250% things are better but now you're effectively just got an extremely large 5k display with all of the troubles/inneficiencies of fractional scaling.
I found stacking 27"-32" sized displays in a 3x1 or 3x2 to be much more effective. This allows you to adjust the angles horizontally and vertically to where you sit so it's less of a flat plane and allows you to pick 1440p or 2160p panels for each (depending on size you went with and money you want to spend) giving you the option to build to the size and resolution you want instead of the size and resolution you can fit using a single tv. For less than $2k you can get 6x 1440p@165hz displays and 3 dual height monitor stands so it also gives more bang for the buck. Well getting the same peak HDR brightness might cost you more, especially if you want that on all displays.
Not to mention 8k TVs try to do everything I their power to make the experience of just turning on and displaying the content directly and correctly impossible to do fully.
Having had dual 5Ks for the past five years, I probably wouldn’t be excited even with it being 2x 4K. The bezels aren’t big enough to warrant the drop in resolution for something like this to me.
For what it's worth, my take: buy something like the LG C2 42" OLED TV. It is huge (but not too huge) and an excellent quality display. If you want to try ultrawide, or a square display, or an unusual aspect ratio, just.. make those desktop sizes out of your large screen.
LG C2 42" is 8.3 megapixels vs. this monitor's 7.4 megapixels.
This monitor offers 88% of the pixels the LG C2 does but compresses them into half the surface area. It also costs half the price.
For the same amount of money you can have 14.8 megapixels at higher PPI in a much more flexible format. 4K seems like a lot of real estate but at standard->lower PPI (large screen few pixels) realistically you don't get that much more real estate, especially compared to the 2560x1440 (and multiples thereof) displays.
I used to use a 55" LG OLED as a monitor but in practice, coming from dual 27" 2560x1440 monitors, I rarely did deep work in quadrants of 1920x1080. I tended to use a 2560 main slice and then the leftovers for reference and my terminals. I found 55" 4K as a monitor to be overly large and lacking in usable detail and I'm not sure I trust 42" to be small enough to make up for that.
This monitor would be perfect as left and right side displays. It needs a matching center display that is twice the width and the same height, yielding a three-monitor configuration with a nice large central display.
Indeed, I think 3 monitors might be my next gamble. I switched from dual 27" (one always portrait and the other sometimes portrait, sometimes landscape), to a 42.5 (!) 4k monitor, and then downgraded to 32". The 42" monitor was a little ridiculous, like I literally started clustering my windows in the middle and ignoring the edges. 32 is better. The only direction I can imagine going would be to add 24" flanking portrait monitors to my 32.
I got them recently as the side monitors for a 16:9 43'' 4k in the middle. The height matches almost perfectly. I love this layout so far, so much desktop space and such high resolution! And it's nice to have a big 16:9 screen in the middle for videos. Finally a worthy replacement for my three 10-year-old 30'' 16:10 Dells.
I bought a LG 4k monitor with ERGO mount (32UN880-B.AEU). After the first week of use the useful small USB-C connector (power + video) was ripped off the back of the monitor PCB because the only mechanical support of this connector was the solder, no additional support to the chassis. A big hole where you can see the PCB.
Seems that there's no problem for this method of attachment in bigger connectors (HDMI or DisplayPort) but the soldered attachment of USB-C is not strong. It needs additional support to the chassis. The minimal movement of the included stiff usb-c cable when moving the ERGO mount will tear the connector off the PCB.
My monitor is broken and technical service didn't take responsibility. Money lost, never again LG.
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.
From someone that does a 3x2 setup I'll add one downside: on my split setup I run the bottom row 90 degrees from the desk while the upper ones are angled down and slightly so that both are viewed straight on when glanced at. Not having a physical split like this makes it so the top and bottom will always seem angled.
I suppose if it were curved it'd solve that problem but then it would come with assumptions about how far away you sit and create new problems like glare streaks.
More flexibility when splitting stuff? With 2 screens, I often found I wanted a main thing in the middle and a small window on each side, but that's really ackward if you have a bezzle. Then again, that makes more sense for an ultra-wide than an ultra-high monitor in my opinion.
I find aspect ratio is more important on smaller screens such as on laptops. Once you get to 28" and up, 16:9 is fine, since you can easily tile two windows side by side.
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.
I've been running two 4K 30" displays in this form factor for 3-4 months and love it. I put the upper monitor on an arm above the lower. The upper is a bit too high for doing regular work on, but it's great status stuff (slack, music player, bugtracker, e-mail, ...).
The down side of this LG is that it's about the price I paid for the two 30" 4K displays... The curse of irregular displays, losing economies of scale.
24 inches or smaller touch screen, 1920x1080 res, vesa mount preferably! No need to be portable. If there’s square-ish displays that’ll be cool too! Thanks!
Excellent form factor with an unusable ppi. I lost all my faith in non-Apple companies being able to produce usable displays. I hate macOS, but I have no choice. The only alternative is Linux+UP3218K, but it requires Nvidia graphics (no-go on Linux, for me), and the build quality is spotty and poor...
At least now we have a Linux laptop with a usable display though, the soon to be released ThinkPad T14s Gen 3 will have the option of a 16:10, 2880x1800, 242ppi display, usable in Linux with 2x scaling.
Of course that laptop has other problems, but at least we have the first alternative to a MacBook in over a decade for people who care about Linux and displays.
That is excellent to hear! I really, really want a Linux workstation using Dell UP3218K. Sadly so few people have this monitor, and even fewer use Linux, that it's quite the financial gamble to know what actually works and what doesn't. I could return the monitor, of course, but then I end up with a newly bought machine without any display I could use...
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 went on this quest recently. I wanted a small display to tuck _under_ my main widescreen monitor, so that I could have chat apps & video streaming in my periphery.
The category I ended up targeting is portable monitors aimed at the business laptop market. These are slim, have a kickstand for support, and can receive data & power over a single usb-c. Not sure about product marketing restrictions on HN so I won't say the brand. But it's a 14" portable monitor from a long-running business laptop brand.
If you want this for a non-laptop scenario, my advice would be to pay very close attention to the types & versions of connectors on the devices you're trying to connect. My gaming desktop didn't have the exact right usb-c port. That sent me into the world of 'weird' cables and lots of debugging to finally get it set up the way I want.
You can absolutely mention brands and even link to product pages.
If you're going to use an affiliate link, it is common courtesy to disclose that.
I'm interested in having a USB-C powered screen as a second monitor for my MacBook Pro, but would want it to more closely match the same resolution. 1080 just won't cut it.
Have either of you considered some kind of ipad + sidecar for that? I'm not familiar with the ipad product line but I think there are large-ish ones with high DPI.
with the added height of the monitor, this barely make it a monitor that has does not need external arm to be tall enough for correct posture. Monitors sold on the market are hazardously low, I always need an arm or several books stacked to pad them. There should be some health regulation around this.
I just got one a few weeks back but haven't gotten to spend a ton of time with it yet. It's taking some adjustment but I'm liking it so far.
- had 1440p + 1080p monitors on stands side by side before. Now just this one on an arm (which is excellent), that I can adjust to keep my position from being static.
- not having to hold my neck angled while reading my side monitor is helpful.
- realistically there are a few "modes" of working on here. While coding it's pulled a bit closer, while in CAD or similar creative I might push it back a bit and get more of the monitor in view.
- I recline slightly so the monitor is tilted a bit which gives me a solid view of the bottom 60-70% of the monitor. The top is a bit out of range at close distance.
- For coding so far I have the middle-ish of the monitor as a 1440p code-only view. Below that are a few windows for manpages/reference/interactive debugging/repl/etc. On the top end which is normally slightly out of view I have compilation and long running test output which I glance at by moving my eyes.
I like not having to page between desktops while coding when possible. The bottom view is also large enough to hold a browser window or simulator window. Need to also try pushing it back a bit with slightly larger text and see if that's any better.
I don't intend to game on it, maybe windowed mode in the middle or something.
edit: well, also it has this mode where you can split it into two 1440p monitors on different inputs (which you can hook up to the same computer), so depending on the game I might do that as well.
I have a similar experience with coding! I bought this monitor precisely for that. It's nice to keep some bottom IDE panel open (test results, find results, git log, etc) while keeping the rest of my editor at a normal vertical height.
Similarly, I can keep a browser open at a normal (or even extended!) height, plus keep the developer console open at the bottom. It's made web development more pleasant, just the feeling of not being so cramped vertically.
Not the LG but I've ran a 1:1 EIZO for years which is very close... Just gonna talk on how I've grown to love the 1:1 aspect ratio.
1:1... it's not for everyone, but it is for me for the following purposes:
* Best LOC on-screen possible - balanced horizontal/vertical space in my IDE means I can fit WAY more readable code on screen vs. my horizontal monitors
* Vertical aspect ratio media - editing a vertical photo is outstanding (color profiles on this monitor are meh but not a huge deal for me)
* 4-corner tiling - I find I only tile to the left/right or top/bottom on normal horizontal/vertical monitors... on this one I can fit 4x windows in reasonable aspect ratios in the corners
* Full-height web browsing/document reading - not exclusive to 1:1; viewing a whole "page" of data is much more natural vs horizontal aspect ratios
---
Downsides:
* Gaming - Some games can be configured to work with it. Outside of Factorio I really don't use it _at all_ for gaming. I have 2x 16:9 1440p's on each side that I typically game on.
* Price/obscurity - This EIZO was way too expensive... the LG is way better but I'm afraid in 1-2 years you won't be able to find them at a reasonable price.
---
TLDR: I'm legit considering picking one of these LG's up for when my EIZO dies - I am so happy there's another option.
I used to run a 16:9 vertically for writing so I got one of these and love it.
The only issue is that I needed to install BetterDisplay (former BetterDummy) to get retina scaling from my macbook pro M1 . Dunno why macOS doesn't support it natively since it has the same PPI as a 32" 4k screen.
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.
Yes, except most people wind up looking at the leftmost third of the screen the vast majority of the time (see visual heat map research) which results in chronically bad posture with very wide screens.
I use a window manager to split a 21:9 5k2k monitor into 11:13:11 panels, so the largest is in the middle. Suits me just fine, and I mostly look at the middle panel, with terminals and browsers off to the left and right respectively.
Yeah, not advocating for big wide screens, either. A 17x17 square display would be pretty sweet. You can achieve this by setting the right mode on a 27-inch widescreen, because they are 17 inches tall.
Not just that, but curved monitors are useless for any design work, like CAD, or even good old graphical design, and I suspect this monitor will be popular with those people.
It is rather low 110 dpi, „retina“ devices are doing > 220 dpi for nearly a decade and are much easier on the eyes.
Now unfortunately those are still not common in external monitors - probably because they require 5k resolution for todays display sizes. But even the 160 dpi of a 4K @ 27“ screen is such a massive step forward in picture quality and readability that I couldn’t ever see myself going back to 110dpi or less. This should especially apply if a display is marketed as ergonomic
You are right. I got confused by the mention of 1440p - which is not really what this screen has at 28“. Still not really in the hidpi category. I assume it would be most usable with something along 1.5-1.75 scaling, which produces inferior results to 2x.
I would prefer higher dpi too. If someone would make a hidpi square (ish) screen I would buy it in a heartbeat. The Huawei Mateview looks great but can't swivel to portrait, unfortunately.
I wouldn’t own a 4K monitor that was over 24” and I don’t use monitors that are under 25” anymore. So yes, that means the entire market for monitors I’d own is around 6 in total, which is ridiculous being that it’s 2022, but that’s the world we live in.
