This collaborative space allows users to contribute additional information, tips, and insights to enhance the original deal post. Feel free to share your knowledge and help fellow shoppers make informed decisions.
Deal History includes data from multiple reputable stores, such as Best Buy, Target, and Walmart. The lowest price among stores for a given day is selected as the "Sale Price".
Sale Price does not include sale prices at Amazon unless a deal was posted by a community member.
A 29" ultrawide is essentially a wide version of a 24". It's open for debate, but 1080p seems like a good resolution for a 24". This would make this 29" a a decent option if you want to snap 2 windows side-by-side. A pair of 24" screens frequently makes each window, like most web pages, excessively wide. You end up both wasting a lot of screen space, and turning your head a lot. This ultrawide might fit better ergonomically.
FYI, this comparison/ratio also works with 27" screens vs 34" ultrawide screens. Same height, but more width. I find my 1080p 27" screen to be noticably less sharp than my 24" screens. I think 27" (or 34" for 21:9) may be the breaking point where you want to go beyond 1080 pixels high.
Here's a few thoughts on UHD (16:9) vs UWQHD (21:9)
I personally moved from a pair of 24" 1080p screens to a single 32" 4K/UHD display. Although the 4K display was a better value than a compatible 34" UWQHD, I'm thinking a 34" UW would have been a better choice for office work. Here's a few
When I snap 2 windows side-by-side, they seem a bit more narrow than I'd like.
I have Windows set for 150% scale anyways. Otherwise things seem too small.
I'd prefer do less vertical looking. In other words, the extra height of the 32" UHD seems like a hindrance instead of a benefit.
If I could go back, I'd heavily reconsider getting a 34" UWQHD instead. It's got fewer pixels per $, but it may be more practical for WFH.
(I'm not arguing or disagreeing with hiroo916. I'm just continuing the conversation.)
Except QHD has never existed at this size ultrawide before? It's the same (ever so slightly higher actually) PPI as a 1080p 24in monitor, which I have never met a single person say that is too grainy. To each thier own.
Yup, it's actually pretty convenient on monitors that support it because you could charge your laptop and display your laptop screen using one cord and also frees up an outlet that you would otherwise be using to charge your laptop.
Yup, it's actually pretty convenient on monitors that support it because you could charge your laptop and display your laptop screen using one cord and also frees up an outlet that you would otherwise be using to charge your laptop.
Clearly I'm confused. Y'all use a monitor with laptop?
Clearly I'm confused. Y'all use a monitor with laptop?
Yeah for work. Have a screen at home and at the office, plug in and go. Gives you dual screen and the bigger screen is nicer to work on as well. All my colleagues have a similar setup, very common.
Clearly I'm confused. Y'all use a monitor with laptop?
Yup, I think a lot of people do. You can use the monitor to get more screen real estate when you're at your desk and, but when you're on the go, just unplug it from the monitor and carry on with your work wherever you need to go.
Clearly I'm confused. Y'all use a monitor with laptop?
I work in IT and yeah- nearly everyone in the office plugs monitors into their laptops. They use docking stations or dongles with video inputs on them so their laptop charges, uses an external keyboard/mouse, and 2-3 monitors + ethernet.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank
Quote
from hiroo916
:
In terms of pixels, it's just a regular 1080p screen with 1/3 more pixels wider. Doesn't really show too much more.
A 29" ultrawide is essentially a wide version of a 24". It's open for debate, but 1080p seems like a good resolution for a 24". This would make this 29" a a decent option if you want to snap 2 windows side-by-side. A pair of 24" screens frequently makes each window, like most web pages, excessively wide. You end up both wasting a lot of screen space, and turning your head a lot. This ultrawide might fit better ergonomically.
FYI, this comparison/ratio also works with 27" screens vs 34" ultrawide screens. Same height, but more width. I find my 1080p 27" screen to be noticably less sharp than my 24" screens. I think 27" (or 34" for 21:9) may be the breaking point where you want to go beyond 1080 pixels high.
Here's a few thoughts on UHD (16:9) vs UWQHD (21:9)
I personally moved from a pair of 24" 1080p screens to a single 32" 4K/UHD display. Although the 4K display was a better value than a compatible 34" UWQHD, I'm thinking a 34" UW would have been a better choice for office work. Here's a few
When I snap 2 windows side-by-side, they seem a bit more narrow than I'd like.
I have Windows set for 150% scale anyways. Otherwise things seem too small.
I'd prefer do less vertical looking. In other words, the extra height of the 32" UHD seems like a hindrance instead of a benefit.
If I could go back, I'd heavily reconsider getting a 34" UWQHD instead. It's got fewer pixels per $, but it may be more practical for WFH.
(I'm not arguing or disagreeing with hiroo916. I'm just continuing the conversation.)
29" ultrawide? ew.. 34" UW minimum. Unless you're sitting 6" from the screen perhaps.
A 29" 21:9 screen is basically a wider version of a 24" 16:9 screen. If a 24" is good enough, but you'd like an alternative to having 2 screens, then a 29" UW is a decent choice.
If you think 24" screens are too small and a 27" the right height for a monitor, then you're right. And a 34" 21:9 screen is a good alternative to a pair of 27" displays.
Yeah this is really the deal killer. Lots of lower end entry level monitors are falling in price, and this may not even be that much of a "slick deal" in a month.
Plus, not sure 2560x1080 monitors are in huge demand. 29" is kind of stuck between your basic 27" monitor that goes for $110-140 and the quickly dropping in price 32" monitors that come in 2560x1440 for the same price.
Yeah I got the 29WQ500 just 2 weeks ago, now the 29WQ600 is on sale for the same price.
Top Comments
FYI, this comparison/ratio also works with 27" screens vs 34" ultrawide screens. Same height, but more width. I find my 1080p 27" screen to be noticably less sharp than my 24" screens. I think 27" (or 34" for 21:9) may be the breaking point where you want to go beyond 1080 pixels high.
Here's a few thoughts on UHD (16:9) vs UWQHD (21:9)
I personally moved from a pair of 24" 1080p screens to a single 32" 4K/UHD display. Although the 4K display was a better value than a compatible 34" UWQHD, I'm thinking a 34" UW would have been a better choice for office work. Here's a few
When I snap 2 windows side-by-side, they seem a bit more narrow than I'd like.
I have Windows set for 150% scale anyways. Otherwise things seem too small.
I'd prefer do less vertical looking. In other words, the extra height of the 32" UHD seems like a hindrance instead of a benefit.
If I could go back, I'd heavily reconsider getting a 34" UWQHD instead. It's got fewer pixels per $, but it may be more practical for WFH.
(I'm not arguing or disagreeing with hiroo916. I'm just continuing the conversation.)
Join The Conversation
Share your experience with the Slickdeals community
Share information with the community. Please follow our Community Guidelines and be kind!
42 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Yup, I think a lot of people do. You can use the monitor to get more screen real estate when you're at your desk and, but when you're on the go, just unplug it from the monitor and carry on with your work wherever you need to go.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank
FYI, this comparison/ratio also works with 27" screens vs 34" ultrawide screens. Same height, but more width. I find my 1080p 27" screen to be noticably less sharp than my 24" screens. I think 27" (or 34" for 21:9) may be the breaking point where you want to go beyond 1080 pixels high.
Here's a few thoughts on UHD (16:9) vs UWQHD (21:9)
I personally moved from a pair of 24" 1080p screens to a single 32" 4K/UHD display. Although the 4K display was a better value than a compatible 34" UWQHD, I'm thinking a 34" UW would have been a better choice for office work. Here's a few
- When I snap 2 windows side-by-side, they seem a bit more narrow than I'd like.
- I have Windows set for 150% scale anyways. Otherwise things seem too small.
- I'd prefer do less vertical looking. In other words, the extra height of the 32" UHD seems like a hindrance instead of a benefit.
If I could go back, I'd heavily reconsider getting a 34" UWQHD instead. It's got fewer pixels per $, but it may be more practical for WFH.(I'm not arguing or disagreeing with hiroo916. I'm just continuing the conversation.)
If you think 24" screens are too small and a 27" the right height for a monitor, then you're right. And a 34" 21:9 screen is a good alternative to a pair of 27" displays.
Plus, not sure 2560x1080 monitors are in huge demand. 29" is kind of stuck between your basic 27" monitor that goes for $110-140 and the quickly dropping in price 32" monitors that come in 2560x1440 for the same price.
I wish this is at least 300-350 nits and I would be gladly to pay up to $200!
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Join The Conversation
Share your experience with the Slickdeals community
Share information with the community. Please follow our Community Guidelines and be kind!