This really is designed to replace 2 1280x1024 screens or for people who watch a lot of movies. Personally though I say either grab a single 27in monitor or two 24in 1920x1200 monitors for the same price, but to each their own.
I think most people are missing the point, this is a monitor for a special application, it's a single monitor with the resolution of 2 with zero bezel between them. You can get something similar for cheaper but it's not the same. While not specifically for gaming any game that supports the resolution would be great, try playing any fps with two monitors next to each other and you're staring at a gap or plastic. This is a very niche product but for the price it's a good deal.
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.
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.
Way more in-depth than I went, thank you for sharing!
This has the same ppi as a 23" 1080p monitor. So if any of you have one of those, but wish your monitor extended out a bit more sideways in each direction, then this is the monitor for you.
Personally, I wouldn't mind having this in a triple-monitor setup but my dollars are better spent going for a different configuration. I'll just have to settle for narrower monitors with less pixels to fit into my budget.
These are are much more of a rectangle compared to widescreen monitors. That is not to say video or web pages look poor, it just might take awhile to get used to the form factor. I went with the U2711.
Slickdeals is able to share the best deals because of the contributions of users like you! If you found a great deal,
please share it with others by posting in our forums.
Welcome to Slickdeals!
Save money here by finding the lowest and cheapest price, best deals and bargains, and hot coupons. We're all about
community driven bargain hunting with thousands of free discounts, promo codes, reviews and price comparisons.
Don't worry, we'll help you find your way. If you haven't already, check out this
that explains the features of our site.