Discussion about switching from square to widescreen monitors...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I bought my 27's at Costco, there return policy is very easy, something to think about.

The one thing that would drive me crazy is not having all of the screens on the same plane.

Which 27 in did you buy at Costco? I was looking at one in store last weekend, and online this week, and have talked myself into buying.
Thanks
 
Probably smaller footprint if you ran the 27s in portrait mode. You could measure the width of 19" (x4) and the height of 27" (x3), and compare. The benefit of having 3x 27"... if you ran them in portrait mode and 2 big windows per monitor, it would be like having 6x 19" (over/under) in the space of 3x 27".

Seems a "no-brainer" for your applications.

The 3 monitors on the left are 24", 1920x1200 in portrait mode.
Lets play guess the chart. I have no idea about the other ones, but the most left one looks like gold?
 
WinstonTJ consider the have one big widescreen and the others either side and above so you can look at all info - this is how and why I am set up. 1x 30" and 6x 20" 1 either side, 4 vertical along the top.
 
I think the problem is what I'm using these things for.

Maybe its because not many people are truly using multiple RDP windows. It won't matter if the orientation is portrait or landscape, Remote Desktop by default maximizes to the whole window.

I may actually try three square monitors in portrait and see how that flies... The problem I have with a widescreen in portrait is the wasted space - like maximizing a Google homepage window... a ton of wasted space. When I'm in an RDP session it's just mostly command prompt or a Powershell window and that would blow out a whole monitor.

I'm thinking if I can't squeeze three square monitors I'll bite the bullet and just do another traditional 2x2 quad setup. Not what I want but 3x widescreens isn't exactly what I want either.
 
Maybe its because not many people are truly using multiple RDP windows. It won't matter if the orientation is portrait or landscape, Remote Desktop by default maximizes to the whole window.
I use a bunch of rdps, vms or otherwise. I think, your issue is the low res monitors. That simple. There are quite a few KBs on this..
Also, mixed resolution monitor farms can wreak havoc on rdp sessions, as the primary monitor res can override the rest, a whole bunch of solutions on that issue as well.
 
I buy them at Costco or Sam's Club. To me, they are just another commodity item. I seem to have good luck with Samsung.

The stands to run Quads I usually buy from Amazon.
 
I use a bunch of rdps, vms or otherwise. I think, your issue is the low res monitors. That simple. There are quite a few KBs on this..
Also, mixed resolution monitor farms can wreak havoc on rdp sessions, as the primary monitor res can override the rest, a whole bunch of solutions on that issue as well.

Nice to see someone who knows their stuff! I'm not totally up to snuff on monitors and standard resolutions. I rarely buy them and if anything try to use up what I have in my used pile before getting new.

I see this monitor has a 1600 x 1200 resolution - but it's a ~$700 monitor... And also it's a 21.5", a little obscure from the standard 19" we are all used to.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824002563

The rest that are brands I'd buy at prices I'd like to pay all seem to be back to 1280 x 1024.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA0ZX1AJ7120
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824260173

So when you say low-res what do you mean? Is 1280 x 1024 low-res these days?? I find it hard to believe that people are running around paying $500++ per monitor to trade with these days...

And yes, fully understand the implications of mixed-resolution monitor farms. Not so bad with VNC but absolutely sucks for RDP. I'd like to stay with a single size/resolution exactly for this reason. Either all 19's or something else all the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top