Why don't you have a 21:9 monitor, /g/?

Thread replies: 6
Thread images: 2

Anonymous
2016-07-12 02:39:07 Post No. 55531941
[Report] Image search: [Google]

File: UltraWide.png (2 MB, 2560x1080) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 2560x1080

Anonymous 2016-07-12 02:39:07 Post No. 55531941 [Report]

Why don't you have a 21:9 monitor, /g/?

>>

Anonymous 2016-07-12 02:54:52 Post No.55532147
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-07-12 02:54:52 Post No.55532147 [Report]

>>55531941
what's wrong with what.cd?

>>

Anonymous 2016-07-12 02:56:34 Post No.55532167
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-07-12 02:56:34 Post No.55532167 [Report]

>>55531941
>downloading
>and
>running
>ads

>>

Anonymous 2016-07-12 03:14:13 Post No.55532363
[Report] Image search: [Google]

Anonymous 2016-07-12 03:14:13 Post No.55532363 [Report]

File: butIdo.png (362 KB, 2560x1080) Image search: [Google]

362 KB, 2560x1080

>>55531941

>>

Anonymous 2016-07-12 03:16:16 Post No.55532388
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-07-12 03:16:16 Post No.55532388 [Report]

>>55532363
bait

>>

Anonymous 2016-07-12 03:22:55 Post No.55532462
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-07-12 03:22:55 Post No.55532462 [Report]

>>55531941
Because I'm holding out for more 27" 5k HiDPI options to become available (Dell's looks great but needs to come down in price a bit). Sharp text and effective 2560x1440 is more interesting to me than a hidamari-wide low DPI screen. 1080 high is "just OK" on 20"-23" screens and unacceptable on 27" and up.

4k HiDPI is effectively only 1920x1080 which is why I haven't sprung for a 4k 27" model. Effective 2560x1440 is the bare minimum for 27"+ displays.