I guess will have to stick with my LG Ultrafine for another year.
In other words - Macintosh's "retina standard" is the issue. Use a computer which is fit for purpose.
[0] https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-28mq780-b-dualup-monitor
Can someone explain what makes this monitor better for the average coder?
The 3:2 ratio suits reading and editing text, because our eyes have trouble following in lines of text that are too long (think about how a paperback page is shaped, or A4 or letter paper). The counter-argument is that 16:9 is actually better because it's functionally two 8:9 panels if you split the screen.
The light on the back reduces eye-strain in dark environments by lighting a wall (if there is one) behind the screen.
Less reveolutionary is automatic brightness adjustment and the dark/light controls, but they might be nice.
It basically just folds into one package a couple of things that are good practice for text editing and reading.
Frankly, though, while I probably agree for "reading", with my "coding" I'm very happy taking 16:10 (which is a pretty standard monitor size and I want to say is much more common than 16:9, at least on laptops) and splitting it into two 8:10s (which is itself a pretty familiar aspect ratio).
The Framework 13" laptop has a 3:2 screen. After almost 2 years using it, I... kinda like it? I think I would agree that I can see more code per screen. But on the occasion when I'm using another laptop, with a more standard 16:9 or 16:10 screen, it feels more "normal" somehow.
Personally I find bigger monitor available today is more than enough vertically. Horizontal space is actually quite useful to be able to put things side by side.
A traditional monitor is 16:9: that means for every unit of height, there is 1.77 units of height.
It sounds like a small difference, but it means a ~15% increase in height.
ex. my Visual Studio Code would show 70 lines of code instead of 60.
This is an especially good tradeoff for code, because we tradtional line wrap at ~80 characters, which leaves large swaths of width available.
The wideness of 16:9 means those monitors have too little vertical real-estate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_image_resolutions_used...
The BenQ monitor will be commercially available in the US.
Love the 3:2 aspect ratio. But I would expect at least 100 - 120hz these days.
4k at 120 Hz will need DisplayPort 2.0 and a powerful GPU to provide that bandwidth (40 Gbit/sec).
Practically useless for its intended purpose (coding). Will increase the cost for no benefit. Waste of money.
Vast majority of $250+ monitors are 100hz or over. This is not a cheap monitor, I think expecting a better refresh rate is a reasonable expectation.
https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/samsung/odyssey-neo-g...
Perfect for component.ts, component.ng.html, component.scss, and component_test.ts all to be open at once...
2560 x 1600 resolution is a bit disappointing though.
Too bad 1:1 display isn't common.
Do any exist at all that are being sold right now?