Hand it back?
That's a bit tight of 'em considering the free publicity!
In 2017 we learned that Samsung had given the world the CHG90, a curved, 49-inch, 3840 x 1080 monitor with a 32:9 aspect ratio. Rather a lot of Reg readers read and/or commented on the story about the screen and more than a few of you seemed intrigued by the ideas of having your heads just-about-surrounded by display. So we …
That's a bit tight of 'em considering the free publicity!
I don't know how serviced offices like WeWork, erm, work. I presumed they mostly provided a desk, power, toilets, heat, networking. Having a monster like that would require either a semi-permanent desk that no one else can use or lugging it away into a cupboard every night, at more expense and effort, so probably not worth keeping it in this case.
Depends on your level of commitment/subscription. WeWork provide permanent cubicles and offices as well as hotdesk style arrangment.
Plenty of 27" IMacs lurking inside WeWork
"I don't know how serviced offices like WeWork, erm, work. I presumed they mostly provided a desk, power, toilets, heat, networking."
My employer has had me in a temp office at WeWork for the past couple weeks so I can tell you they do offer lockable offices that you can rent by the month since I'm in one. Also, the included items are: desk, power, toilets, heat, networking (speedtest.net says 780 MBPs here in Montreal), mouthwash, fruity water with the fruits arranged artistically, tea, "microground coffee", and a beer tap loaded craft beer that gets unlocked at 11 am every weekday.
'and a beer tap loaded craft beer that gets unlocked at 11 am every weekday. 'How on earth do you get any work done?
Just as well as it may avert an arms race between Vulture South, Central and West for who's got the biggest...
"'and a beer tap loaded craft beer that gets unlocked at 11 am every weekday. 'How on earth do you get any work done?"
Well if you're a 9-to-5 type, that's two hours of work on something where you need to be able to mentally manipulate more than one complex concept followed by an hour of work where things degrade a bit followed by a liquid lunch at the local followed by four hours of increasingly problematic social media posts. Sounds like a normal day at the office for most of the people I work with..
I don't know how serviced offices like WeWork, erm, work
There was an interesting interview on Today this morning around 0715 with the bloke in charge of a services company that offers a very similar product to WeWork, but which has been around a lot longer. He ruefully admitted that he was jealous that WeWork has a valuation some ten times that of his company, the implication being that they were simply more fashionable for being a "tech" company, even though his company actually operates in exactly the same way, in similar locations and has a longer, better track record of profitability.
"the implication being that they were simply more fashionable for being a "tech" company, even though his company actually operates in exactly the same way, in similar locations and has a longer, better track record of profitability."
They are more fashionable because that's what they put effort into. The "Micro ground" coffee, the fruity water that it takes the girl 15 minutes to prepare because the fruit has to be artistically arranged in the sides and held in place with ice before the water gets added, the art in the common areas, the social events etc.
This is literally the most hipster place I've ever been. The valuation is high for the same reason Apple's is: People like the whole experience.
Far too many sites need copious amounts of scrolling to use them. That's why I have two 24in 1920x1200 screens mounted vertically at my desk. Works a treat.
Yep, I read that far and lost interest. 1080 is a lower vertical resolution than the CRT monitor I had 20 years ago.
I'm currently lucky enough to be using an Acer 34" curved QHD monitor - at 3440x1440, it has a FAR more useful resolution than the one reviewed here.
I have "only" a 27" 2560 x 1440 monitor and those extra vertical lines really help. If I have the budget/new video card/cleared desk then probable would go for a 40" 4k monitor to get more usable height as much as anything.
Having said that, ANY increase in monitor size is useful, more so than most CPU speed increases* in recent years, and if you often have two windows open side-by-side I can see such a monitor having its appeal.
[*] yes, lets not talk about meltdown/spectre
That's why I have two 24in 1920x1200 screens mounted vertically at my desk.
Imagine what you could do with a set of these. Why settle for two, when you could use eight to give yourself near 270 degree vision up-down left-right*. You'd need to seat yourself in a gimbal with a full safety harness. And in addition to never, ever having to scroll again, you could do a mean sim of being the belly gunner on a B17, complete with complimentary motion sickness.
* No, I've not done the maths. If you want to work out how many of these would really be needed for a 270 degree on two axis, fellow reader, then feel free. Being the Reg, I'm 100% confident somebody will.
I run two 1680x1050 (yes, they're old) monitors side by side, but with one rotated to portrait mode. That way it can comfortably show a whole A4 page document, or plenty of lines in a code editor.
I have the curved 34" Dells (home and office), which are 3440x1440. A much more sensible vertical resolution.
I would also imagine, at 49", the resolution is a little blocky...
1080 might be fine for TV, Absolutely stupid for editing documents. The 1200 I had on my 2002 laptop is a minimum.
The so called "retina" screen laptops are madly expensive and most are a far too small screen for 16:9. The 16:9 or 16:10 (if you are lucky with 1920 x 1200) is not great either for a laptop / documents. Makes a tall enough screen too wide.
11" high paper shown at 120 dpi needs 1320 pixels high. At old 1.66:1 Cinema Widescreen that is 2192 pixel wide approx. That would be about a 17" screen but less wide than 16:9 laptop. 120dpi is a minimum resolution. Above 150 dpi you need more pixels or the screen & text gets too small.
I have big screens for video. I want to watch video without reading glasses.
The problem of filling in all the vertical space with useless icons and menus is 'Pratkinsons Law' where designer shit expands to fill all the space available to the exclusion of ergonomics or anything useful. Programs that once worked perfectly well on 640*480 now need 4k monitors just to fit on the scroll bars you need to find the menu item you are looking for.
1080 is a lower vertical resolution than the CRT monitor I had 20 years ago.
I remember there being a lot of CRTs that could be driven at "1600x1200" or higher, but at that pixel density they didn't have the necessary dot pitch to truthfully produce that resolution, i.e. they fell below an average of three dots per pixel.
"...filling in all the vertical space with useless icons and menus..."
Perhaps; on the other hand, having witnessed the modern trend of trying to cram all the menus / toolbars / address-bars / tabs up into a single
titlemulti-bar I concluded early on that I want nothing whatsoever to do with any such scheme, even if that means losing the upper fifth of my screen - I'd much rather see clearly what I have there and where to aim for it than have to remember where to try to unpack it from.
Macs are 16:10, MS Surface are 3:2, and some older laptops are 16:10 though they are as rare as hens teeth today. A few times here I've invited anyone to name a current 16:10 laptop but it seems you're all as stumped as I am!
From an ergonomic perspective, taller laptop screens place the user's gaze higher above the keyboard - that is, closer to the most comfortable and healthiest working position. That said, no laptop is ergonomically suitable for long time working, hence stands and discrete keyboards.
It's true that in many CRT monitors the maximum resolution the monitor will sync to is somewhat above what the monitor can resolve, but a decent CRT will fully resolve 1600x1200.
I still have two IBM C220p 21" CRTs on my desk (plus a 1600x1200 TFT, a 1280x1024 3D monitor, and a 1280x1024 elderly TFT) and it will sync as high as 2048x1536x75Hz. It will fully resolve up to 1700x1270, and I usually run them at 1600x1200x100Hz.
Of course, because it's a CRT the loss in definition is gradual, so you probably could drive the monitors a little above that without any issue - but then I'm using a non standard resolution, and have to drop down from 100Hz to 75 or 85.
When one of the monitors finally dies I will be moving to a 1440p monitor - there's none of the scaling issues prevalent with 4K, plenty of vertical resolution, and using it for gaming only needs a graphics card that costs a kidney, rather than an arm and a leg.
There is a limit to the usefulness of this strategy.
The amount of strain on your neck muscles from left-right movement is significantly less than the amount from left right.
I have a 2560x1440 32 inch monitor and it will be unusable if I turn it 90 degrees. My neck will need rehab by the end of the day as it is very difficult to force yourself to use only eye movement to look up/down.
If it was 27 or even 24 - maybe. At that size however, the advantages of higher res than 1920x1200 are rather slim - your eyes will strain too much.
If I ever have to extend the amount of video real estate I use it will probably be one or two small 1440x900 turned 90 degrees on the side. Once again, if there are more you get into diminishing returns from neck/eye movement.
It is for gaming, horizontal res is only 4k on more than double the width of a normal aspect screen.
I have been using 2 x 30" 2560 x 1600 for years. I would love to keep the size and res and lose the gap between them.
"* No, I've not done the maths. If you want to work out how many of these would really be needed for a 270 degree on two axis, fellow reader, then feel free. Being the Reg, I'm 100% confident somebody will."
I'd say about twelvety
"[...] why I have two 24in 1920x1200 screens mounted vertically at my desk. "
Two identical 26" 1920x1200. Main one directly in front with full screen spreadsheet. Second to my right angled at about 135 degrees split into two auxiliary function windows. A turn of the head - but usually only having to focus on one screen at an instant.
Both are capable of being rotated vertically.
The second one is a second hand purchase as can't buy that model new. Had problems getting the colour balance matched - so the second hand one had a slightly warm quality. Very annoying the first day - then my brain seemed to adjust to the different "white" balance without me noticing.
Although they are LED lit the viewing angle colour does go off towards the edges - especially noticeable on the far edge of the angled one. Not a problem for the current application.
@ inmypjs > I have been using 2 x 30" 2560 x 1600 for years.
I used 3 x 30" 2560x1600 for years too (two LG W3000H and one HP ZR30W), but just a few weeks ago I finally jumped to 4K with the 43" LG43UD79-B. I now have the 30" HP on the left, the 43" on the middle and one of the 30" LGs on the right.
If you're planning on going the same route AND you are still running on Windows 7 like I am, then be aware of the following limitation (I wasn't): the total width or height in pixels of all your monitors cannot exceed 8192 pixels. This is because the DWM in Windows 7 uses a DX10 texture to compose the Windows desktop, and a texture under DX10 cannot be larger than 8192 x 8192 pixels.
If the combined vertical or horizontal resolutions of your monitors exceed this limit, as mine did (2560 + 3840 + 2560 = 8960 horizontal pixels), Aero will stop working and Windows 7 will NOT tell you why it's not working anymore. You will be dumped into the Basic theme, all Aero related options will be gone, and there is no work around other than to reposition your monitors in relation to each other or reduce the screen resolution of one of them.
Took me a long time to figure out what was happening because very few people in the world use multiple monitors with extreme resolutions such as these, so unless you already know what you are looking for, 99.999% of all the solutions you will find in Google will be for completely unrelated issues.
Windows 8 and Windows 10 do not suffer from this problem because the size limit of a single texture was raised to 16384x16384 pixels under DX11. Just wait until 8K monitors become the norm lol
When one of the monitors finally dies I will be moving to a 1440p monitor - there's none of the scaling issues prevalent with 4K
With a bit of luck, your existing monitors will last long enough for the scaling issues to go away. Things are a lot better than they were. Application compatibility is steadily improving. I'm even optimistic that the next version of SQL Server Management Studio may work propery in 4K.
If they'd listen to people who *work* rather than people who *play* we'd have lovely 1:1 at 2000x2000 resolution (or more). People who *work* tend to use portrait for *work*.
"I'd say about twelvety"
About 9.5 would give you 360 degrees but at 1.8 meters away they are sort of short. If this thing had a radius of 700 mm to 1000 mm, I might consider it but for now I'll stick with several monitors. I have a pair of 24 inch curved samsung displays and I figured the curve was just a bit of a gimmick, but they do reduce eye strain even though they have the same 1800 mm radius curve.
If they came on a 1m radius, I could see mounting them on a turn table that physically rotated them around me maybe using something like plane rudder foot pedals. I could set the background to yellow and have a halo like in the icon.
"jumped to 4K with the 43" LG43UD79-B"
Thanks for the heads up, do run win 7 don't use aero.
For a desktop screen I don't see (literally) the point in more than about 100 ppi so that LG is right on that score but I think 43" at 16:9 is just too tall.
One of the issues I've found with a 3440x1440 curved monitor is that some websites display based on your monitor resolution, rather than the size of the actual window. Presumably they aren't aware that not everyone runs everything full screen?
This had the unfortunate effect of some crucial menu options being waaaaaaaaaaaaay over to the right, with a small section on the left displaying the actual content. When I was running this in a window I initially thought the menu was simply missing. That's a lot of scrolling, and then you can't see what effect an option has had until you scroll back left again - unless you like viewing your websites as if your eyes were 3ft apart :)
I'd hope so, I do like CRT but it's mostly a solved problem. There's Gsync/Freesync and ULMB to solve the refresh rate issue, the inbuilt monitor scaling is way better than it used to be, and application compatibility has improved. Some modern TFTs are even decent at handling some of the old CRT timing tricks used by old games and consoles.
Also, it's increasingly more difficult to drive a CRT through modern systems, they've simply dropped support.
Fortunately I have a very large desk (re-purposed kitchen table), and a small room to fill with computers, so I'm not in a hurry to save a bit of space.
OMG I would kill for 1:1.... 2K x 2K.
All that acreage and still a shit vertical resolution. Avid folk trying to work with 1080 video would be looking at this monitor and asking where's the space for my timeline? I'll be getting a 3840 x 1600 soon that at long last will give me back the vertical workspace I had before MS inflicted The Fucking Ribbon™ upon us.
The Ribbon is intended to be like training wheels on a bike, once you've figured out where the actions you need reside, right click on it and minimise.
When I was responsible for supporting a couple of thousand Office users, I had a team of three dedicated trainers who offered free classes on how to use Word, Excel etc. I'm certain their activities allowed the helpdesk to operate with half the staff that would have been needed otherwise.
Now the assumption is that everyone 'just knows' - clearly that assumption is false.
Minimising the ribbon gives me my screen space back but it guarantees an extra click. With it shown you just might already be on the right tab for a task, with it minimised there is no right tab. Do I inconvenience myself further or lose screen space? What a choice.
With the old button bars I would customise them so only the actions I use most were visible, 90% of tasks I needed were there to be accomplished in a single click. Usually that was one row of buttons. Loads more tasks I had the keyboard sequence or shortcut (not the same thing) committed to memory. Now the keyboard sequences are hopeless and The Fucking Ribbon™ takes loads of clicks to do anything.
Example: Visio - I want to rotate a shape. Click on home, click on position (because obviously a rotate task would be under position), hover over Rotate Shapes, click on the rotation you want. Visio 5 - one click.
I know what tasks I want, I know where those tasks are. Being stuck with training wheels means those tasks are clicky and slow.
ALT-E, S, V Excel hackery 101 - still use that frequently, even though there is no longer an 'Edit' menu.
All Office products (and most MS products) now include a "Quick Access Toolbar" that allows you to place your frequently used actions just one click away, Right-click on your 'Rotate Shapes' icon and add it to the toolbar.
This is exactly what I mean, people haven't been given appropriate training (even if it's just an hour or so) on how to use a product - I can't imagine how many man-hours are wasted in this way, and it really bugs me.
This is exactly what I mean, people haven't been given appropriate training
Clearly this is true. If people had adequate training they would know that subcommands from the ribbon cannot be added to the quick access toolbar. Top level commands that are already a single click (left / centre/ right align text for example) can be added to the quick access bar. Nested stuff such as the rotate tools cannot.
Nor can they be added to a custom ribbon tab, they simply don't exist as top level commands any more. I can add a higher level group object that saves one operation compared to the 4 in my earlier post but I cannot make it a one click job.
...place your frequently used actions just one click away...
I want them to be no-clicks away. I'm using the keyboard to enter the data - I don't want to have to move my hand all the way to a mouse, move it to a toolbar icon, to expand another window, to select an option. Just leave me with the keyboard control.
I've previously done (company mandated) excel training and it was terrible - if you tried to use keyboard shortcuts to menu options it complained you were doing the wrong thing, even though you were applying the same ultimate controls, just not using the mouse!
I bow to your greater Visio expertise, it isn't a tool I've used much. Maybe it suffers from being (by origin) a non-MS product, but the problem you describe doesn't exist in Word or Excel (though it gets belly-ached about a great deal), which is where 99% of Office users live.
It's always best to stay ahead of the curve.
Goodness gracious me...
Nah, I'll rather prefer to have two (or three) 1920z1080 monitors instead of one YUUUUGE monitor.
I have a 34" Dell curved monitor, with 3440x1440 and it is a great step up from 2 24" monitors. Not having the black bar in the "middle" is a huge benefit, as is being able to automatically maximize spreadsheets etc. to cover the whole display, as opposed to having to manually stretch the window over multiple screens.
It varies. I have three monitors, a 1920x1200 screen in the middle, and two 16:00x1200 monitors each side. Although there's the black bezels inbetween, it does at least mean that I can very easily snap three applications on the screens at once. For two screens however, I can accept that a single wider monitor would be better.
Is it not physically possible to remove the bezel ( or bend it at right angles, or replace with a mirror ) on ONE side of a display ?
That would make it possible to stick two cheap monitors together to make one cheap large one.
There's a monitor brand who make a stick-on bezel that acts as a prism for joining monitors. It minimises but doesn't eliminate the bezel.
Samsung have touted monitors without bezels at trade shows which can be joined seamlessly - but it doesn't appear to be consumer-ready yet. I imagine the alignment is tricky and that the tolerances have to be smaller than a pixel.
"Samsung have touted monitors without bezels at trade shows which can be joined seamlessly [...]"
I have an Asus 27" 1920x1080 that claims extremely thin side and top bezels of just over 1mm. They are - until you switch it on - then you find the black edge of the picture is actually indented by 8mm. So no different in function than a "normal" bezel.
That's one way to make sure Samsung don't ask for it back...
You're very naughty. Just the way we like our commentors
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018