Dell UltraSharp U2913WM 29", 2560x1080 Full HD, 21:9 Monitor - $549.99 ($649.99 on Amazon) Shipped Dell.com

see that's the problem. if you can't see the details in the text at "100%" but you can see it at "150%", then why can you see the detail in a picture at "100%"?
this is why the retina displays never advertise more working space. it's just better quality with the same working space.

Well, aside from movies and such, some folks actually use their computers to do real paying work on them. A wider screen is similar to having a bigger desk, which (up to a point) lets you get more work done. This is particularly true for people that work with large spreadsheets (like accountants) or people that have to work with multiple different programs/windows at the same time (most manager/professional/artistic types)

Really, in real world doing more than browsing a single web page use, square monitors just don't work well. They're best used as 2nd and 3rd monitors to the side of a rectangular main screen.



You can get a 10" tablet with more pixels too. But good luck using it as a desktop screen with your face three feet away from it.

Your 27" with more pixels will also probably cost more money. It might be worth it, if you sit close enough that you can actually see them. But not if you sit further away, and can't.



Pixel count is meaningless as a standalone number. This screen has 2,764,800. Regular 1920x1080 screens have 2,073,600. So it gives you 1/3 (33.33%) [marshu.com] more workspace than a regular screen. A 27" 2560x1440 has 3,686,400, giving you 78% more than a regular screen, but with a PPI of 109 you'd need to sit closer to be able to see the extra detail. Might work for some folks, and might not work for others.

What I think you had in mind was PPI (Pixels Per Inch). But that's also a useless number by itself because having a higher PPI than you can see from a particular distance just slows the computer down for no reason. (A higher pixel count requires more computing power to draw on the screen.)

Apple's marketing term for the "maximum usable PPI" is "Retina Display". To qualify as a "Retina Display" the screen must have a pixels per inch count that is at or past the point at which you can't see more pixels from a normal viewing distance. A high pixel count or high PPI don't by themselves qualify, the viewing distance for a person with 20/20 vision must be taken into account.

Here's a good article [signindustry.com] with lots of examples of why viewing distance matters.

Gizmodo has a nice breakdown of "retina display" viewing distances [gizmodo.com]. For example, a 60 inch 1020x1080 screen is a "retina display" when viewed from about 8 feet away, but a 40 inch one meets the "retina" threshold at only about 5 feet.

According to this retina display calculator [isthisretina.com], if the average persons eyes are more than 3 feet from this screen, it's a "retina display". 2560x1080 at 29" diagonal gives you a Pixels Per Inch of 95.81 which is "retina" for someone with 20/20 vision at an eyes to screen distance of 36 inches. For comparison, a 27" iMac is retina at 32" and an iPad 4 at 13".

Now, I, personally, have a big desk. When I'm sitting up straight my eyes are about 30" from the screen. But I like to work kicked back in my chair with my feet up, keyboard in lap. That puts my eyes 46" away. So if I'm working in a nice relaxed literally laid back position, I can't see the detail on the screen. It's invisible. If I'm sitting up AT the desk, and had 20/20 vision, I'd be able to see the individual pixels if I paid close attention. Even then, due to the complexities of human vision, I'd need to be looking at really thin solid lines on a solid background. That might matter for text heavy things or CAD drawings, but wouldn't be visible at with photos, gaming, or video. Yep, the use matters too.

Different people have different sized desks used from different viewing distances with differences in how well they see and what they will use a screen for .... Claiming that "more pixels is better" without taking that into account is, at best, misleading.

Here's another article [extremetech.com] that discusses it at length Basically, all the "moar peeexels!! moooooaaarrr!" you see from people in the SD forums is BS. They just don't know what the numbers mean, when they are useful, and what to look for. Bigger isn't always better, and some numbers are more important than others.

What was the point of all that? Not a single word in there addressed the real point of either of those questions. Have you never seen or heard of a 30" 2560x1600 or 27" 2560x1440 monitor?

Either of those do everything this monitor does but better, with the exception of displaying without black bars native 2560x1080 video content..which doesn't exist.

I'm with those guys. Give me a 2560x1600 or at least a 2560x1440. This is the WRONG direction to be heading.

maybe wrong for you, but someone else might find it useful.

Don't waste your time, get the 2560x1440 U2713HM which has a better panel (IPS) and a better resolution for the same price