• folkrav@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not a fair comparison at all though. A 34” 1440p UW is basically like taking a 27” 1440p and adding another ~66% to the original width. It’s physically smaller than two 16:9 monitors of comparable density.

    3 monitors side by side takes up a lot more space. The 2x23” I have stacked on top of my 34” ultrawide are already much wider than the UW. I couldn’t fit three monitors on my larger than average desk made out of an IKEA tabletop, without removing my speakers and having the side monitors overhang.

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fair, and of course that’s the ultimate consideration in the end, since any monitor choice has to fit into where you put it. I went to a 32" 1440p center + 2x 22" 1080p sides (pixel size is identical, hence that specific setup) which works better for me due to the versatility, and it just perfectly fits the Ikea desk I have. 😅 But I can understand why someone especially limited in stand-space would go for a single monitor.

      I do think multi-setups are inherently more versatile, plus they avoid the built-in occassional software issues with ultrawide-incompatibility.

      • folkrav@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve yet to hit that second issue about compatibility in 4 years using mine with a combination of Mac, Windows 10/11 and Linux machines. But yes, agreed about that first point. It’s easier to rearrange a couple of physical screens than mess around with software.