Originally Posted by aweir
Old thread, but still relevant.
A couple thoughts on 21:9. These 29" monitors are as tall as as an 8.5X11" sheet of paper. It is a little over 11" high. Yet, I never hear anyone complain about a sheet of paper not being "tall" enough to read. I really don't see what the problem is. They make scroll wheels for a reason, right? And as far as multitasking, 16:9 is not a viable option because if you do open two windows side by side, you won't have the same horizontal expanse as you do with a 21:9 and the windows will appear to be squished together to make room for both.
IMO 16:9 makes too many tradeoffs and doesn't excel in any one of the two categories of; 1) being widescreen enough to watch movies, and 2) having alot of vertical space to cure your phobia of the scroll wheel. Vertical height is compromised vs. 16:10 to make room for widescreen movies (which can't even be displayed right in the first place). So, while 21:9 might not have the height that users like, at least it excels in one area and doesn't compromise on both.
Well - when talking about productivity then these screens are outright horribly priced. For 700 you can get 3x 23'' DELL IPS ultrasharps plus
MST hub to run them from a single displayport. 3x 1080p in portrait are 3240x1920 and you can easily move documents with win + arrow keys between displays. Hell, even better, you can get two 27'' Koerans for ~700 which would be even greater for productivity.
Now for media consumption these screens clearly have their niche as unlike in productivity if you are working with multiple windows with media bezels actually do matter. I think the ultrawide aspect ratio is interesting idea, however, for it to be actually viable the price per pixel should be at least in the same ballpark as higher end 16:9 screens.