>>51888149
I want one of those except 4x bigger and 8k resolution

Wasabi mango love senpai

>>51888149
The only thing ultrawide is useful for is watching movies in cinema format.
It's terrible for desktop usage, and abysmal for viewing websites.

>>51888333
>he full scenes his webbrowser

idiot

>>51888149
my 42 inch 4k monitor is taking a shit on your lel wide, fucking dumbass for not caring about vertical resolution

>>51888396
>implying any of this changes available vertical resolution.

>>51888222
>>51888333
>double trips

>>51888527
Are you dumb? Ultrawide are the best if your goal is vertical resolution. Literally stop being poor and get a rotatable screen and put it in portrait.

>>51888555
An Ultrawide will have to few vertical pixels to even use in it portrait mode.

>>51888701
What? An ultrawide has the same amount of vertical pixels as a 16:9 monitor but with extra shit at the sides.

>>51888766
No. A typical 16:9 monitor will have a resolution of 3840x2160, which is more pixels in the vertical and horizontal directions.

>>51888799
>actually falling into the 4k meme in 2015
4k is fucking pointless when ultrawide 1440p monitors exist. Besides ultrawide 4k has to happen eventually.

>>51888849
By that point 8k will be out.

>>51888555
i don't know how many times i've heard people report this like they were serious, but i've literally only seen it happen once and it was clear that the person rotated the screen 10 seconds earlier based on how fucked up the cable management looked (especially in comparison to the rest of the setting).

Besides that, the vertical distance of a 21:9 monitor in portrait orientation is an extreme exercise in neck pain.

Get a 4k monitor - ideally one that's roughly the size of a 1920x1080 monitor (i.e. 22-24"). Use an operating system that scales well and you'll have a desktop environment that generally looks like a 1920x1080 display, except with dramatically sharper text.

This is not rocket science.

>>51889065
>get a 4k monitor
>but scale it to the point where it's essentially a a 1080p monitor for autistic people who stare at their text with magnifying glasses.

literally a retard, if you're going 4k you buy a 40".

>>51889189
clearer text is less straining on the eyes. if that's primarily what you're looking at on a monitor, then high pixel density is advantageous.

i imagine that if you game a lot or watch lots of TV and movies, this sounds preposterous to you, and i agree that it is. but if you do work, properly rendered high density displays are a revelatory experience.

>>51889276
m8, 2k and 4k have a huge benefit for work in being able to give yourself way more screen space for all your documents and such. Please get a larger screen and text becomes a non-issue.

>>51888883
So fucking what. Ultrawide 4k >>>>>>> 8k. Ultra wide 1440p >>>>>>>>> 4k. Ultrawide 1080p >>>>>>>>> 1440p. Anything under 1080p is retarded/poor/oldie-tier

>>51889317
I have a handful of monitors (laptop+3 externals). I have adequate real estate, but if I were told to choose between my laptop+a 40" TV, and my laptop and a 24" 4K monitor, I would choose the latter without hesitation.

I mostly code, often with the code block I'm working on in front of me (on my laptop screen) and language/library documentation or other reference material on the other monitor (in portrait orientation). Like I said, I optimize for long periods of reading rather than lots of glancing at many things, which it seems a 40" monitor is designed for.

I'm vaguely curious what kind of use case you're in that long periods of staring at a 40" screen for text is normal for you (not curious enough to engage unless you can concisely sum it up), but I'll tacitly offer that this is just different strokes for different folks. Calling the high density screen choice "literally retarded" is asinine and thoughtless, and you should acknowledge that you made a knee-jerk reaction to someone not liking what you like.

>>51888149
Hey faggot can you not post this every day, thanks

>>51889349
>I'm a cuck who enjoys having vertical space cut off

>>51889420
circumcised people don't know any better.

>>51888849
Ultrawide 4k is basically 5k minus a few vertical pixels. 5k is the future.

>>51889826
5k is nice, but it remains to see whether it remains as long-lived as 2560x1600/1440 was.

the big threats against it are the nips getting 8k out on schedule and 120Hz becoming the baseline expectation after DP 1.3 rolls out.

the rest of this thread is troll-tier garbage.

>>51889387
as a 40" UHD monitor user, I can tell you it's more about usable vertical space in the center, with the left and right thirds of the screen being available for occasional cursory glances.

I upgraded from a 4960x1600 PLP setup, and the nicest thing is getting the same screen space without needing to work around bezels.

>If only Windows 1-'s multi-monitor scaling weren't so shite.

>>51888149
Why would I buy a 1440p ultrawide when I can buy two 4k monitors for the same price?

>>51888149
sorry op, most people are taller than 4 feet

vertical space isn't a premium on our desktops

Ultra wide wouldn't be very useful for me. 4K however would be very useful.

>>51889992
Because your black market korean reject monitors are shit.

>>51888149
> 5MP "quality" > 8.3MP

ok senpai