2 screens or 1 ultra wide?

[cambsnomac]

Getting my home office setup sorted, currently have a couple of dell 22" screens plus MacBook. Only use the Mac screen for Zoom, and the other two for proper work (normally google docs, excel, Salesforce). Have multiple screens is essential as I often need to enter data on one sheet from another source (salesforce or excel).

1 of the screens goes back to wifes work soon so left with one. Two screens have been fine but tempted by a larger (29 or 34") ultra wide, it appears its easy to split that screen and do what I need to. Anyone done this?

 

[Lammers]

I’m replacing 2x23” and 2x24” displays with 1x34” across several thousand desks at work. User feedback is almost entirely positive, and I think the simpler cabling and monitor arm arrangement are also nice benefits.

 

[xraydoc]

Getting my home office setup sorted, currently have a couple of dell 22" screens plus MacBook. Only use the Mac screen for Zoom, and the other two for proper work (normally google docs, excel, Salesforce). Have multiple screens is essential as I often need to enter data on one sheet from another source (salesforce or excel).

1 of the screens goes back to wifes work soon so left with one. Two screens have been fine but tempted by a larger (29 or 34") ultra wide, it appears its easy to split that screen and do what I need to. Anyone done this?

While a year or so ago I would have said one ultrawide (and probably did say just that on several posts), these days with a lack of ultrawide displays that have proper support for the Mac's retina display modes, I'd suggest two smaller 4K displays (or one large 4K) instead of one ultrawide. Each display will have much better HiDPI font rendering. Meanwhile, an ultrawide will be stuck with Apple's lousy low DPI font rendering.*

*low DPI modes were horrible in Big Sur; I've not looked to see if they're any better in Monterey, but I'm not holding out much hope.

 

[Amethyst1]

As said above: I’d stay the hell away from any ultrawide with a resolution lower than 5120×2160. The reason: You won't get the HiDPI (Retina) modes on macOS with their vastly improved font rendering on, say, a 3440×1440 ultrawide. And macOS' font rendering is absolutely terrible in non-HiDPI modes. The only 34" 5120×2160 ultrawides I know about are the LG 34WK95 and the MSI PS341WU. Both aren't cheap but... I wouldn't bother with any lower-resolution ultrawide for macOS.

 

[boultonn]

I’d reiterate what others have said, I have a 4k LG and an ultrawide and while the ultrawide is nice for having a bunch of content on screen, for me the resolution is just too low (1440p) for daily use so I’d go for multiple 4k monitors.

 

[cambsnomac]

Not the most literate when it comes to tech stuff like this! Currently have a couple of Dell screens, one is at least 2 years old, probably 4 or 5 - bog standard 22" and I don't have a problem with the display.

I only use it for excel, CRM and other work apps, no gaming or anything like that so unsure if what the last few posters have said will be relevant.If the old Dell is fine (just a bit small) then even a standard 34" would be fine?

 

[Amethyst1]

then even a standard 34" would be fine?

Assuming the two old Dells are like 1680×1050 each, a single 3440×1440 ultrawide will provide slightly more horizontal estate but noticeably more vertical estate. If you don’t mind macOS’ font rendering on non-HiDPI screens that should be fine. I’d still consider a 5120×2160 UW though for the vastly better font rendering though. You can scale that to give you the same screen estate as a standard 3440×1440 one and it will still look better (be sharper).

 

[cambsnomac]

Assuming the two old Dells are like 1680×1050 each, a single 3440×1440 ultrawide will provide slightly more horizontal estate but noticeably more vertical estate. If you don’t mind macOS’ font rendering on non-HiDPI screens that should be fine. I’d still consider a 5120×2160 UW though for the vastly better font rendering though. You can scale that to give you the same screen estate as a standard 3440×1440 one and it will still look better (be sharper).

Budget will not allow for that - was only going to go for a couple of £130 24" when I started looking at a widescreen - £350 max would probably be it.

 

[Amethyst1]

Budget will not allow for that - was only going to go for a couple of £130 24" when I started looking at a widescreen - £350 max would probably be it.

I see. What MacBook do you have? If it can run two 4K screens at 60 Hz, something like this might be worth looking into:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/203672022441

(Disclaimer: Not my auction! I have no experience and am not affiliated with this seller!)

I use a P2415Q myself and have no complains - they'll run in the pixel-perfect, pin-sharp 1920×1080 HiDPI mode out of the box - so two should provide at least the same amount of screen estate you have now but be noticeably sharper.

 

[LeeW]

I used to use 2 screens then changed to a single 34" about a year ago, never been happier dropping that annoying split between the 2 old ones. So much space on the 34" to just have multiple open windows or split it different ways so they snap as required.

 

[MrGunnyPT]

It depends, I currently have a 34" inch ultrawide X34 Predator next to my Huawei Mateview. I'm having a fight between 3:2 vs 21:9 aspect ratio lol

 

[Amethyst1]

I'm having a fight between 3:2 vs 21:9 aspect ratio lol

For macOS, the battle is already decided. You want the highest ppi you can get.

 

[MrGunnyPT]

For macOS, the battle is already decided. You want the highest ppi you can get.

Well yeah, I'm enjoying the hell out of my Mateview to be honest, it's quite an awesome panel! And the 3:2 aspect ratio is awesome for VS and Terminals.

 

[ascender]

As said above: I’d stay the hell away from any ultrawide with a resolution lower than 5120×2160. The reason: You won't get the HiDPI (Retina) modes on macOS with their vastly improved font rendering on, say, a 3440×1440 ultrawide. And macOS' font rendering is absolutely terrible in non-HiDPI modes. The only 34" 5120×2160 ultrawides I know about are the LG 34WK95 and the MSI PS341WU. Both aren't cheap but... I wouldn't bother with any lower-resolution ultrawide for macOS.

I've just made the switch to the above LG screen and its brilliant. I thought about adding a second 27" screen, but I love the format of Ultrawide screens. It was expensive, but I really like having one panel and as its LG, its a single cable to connect to my MacBook Pro (via a Caldigit).

Not having the "join" of two monitors means I can have one main window with less important apps off to either side, or just a series of apps arranged vertically across the screen with no interruptions.

I previously tried a 49" Ultrawide, but as mentioned on this thread, its a big shock to drop below something which isn't retina-like. I got loads of space, but the drop in resolution wasn't an acceptable tradeoff.

I guess one benefit to having two monitors is probably price - you can probably get a pair of 27" 4K screens for about £800 or so?

 

[Amethyst1]

I've just made the switch to the above LG screen and its brilliant.

Cool. What scaled mode are you running, just out of interest?

I previously tried a 49" Ultrawide, but as mentioned on this thread, its a big shock to drop below something which isn't retina-like.

Yeah, people shopping for an ultrawide may be in for a surprise if they don’t pay attention to PPI.

I guess one benefit to having two monitors is probably price

Yep. You can get a 24” “4K” for around £200 — three of them would provide much more real estate than a single 34” UW — but you have to deal with the bezels then.

 

[ascender]

Cool. What scaled mode are you running, just out of interest?


Yeah, people shopping for an ultrawide may be in for a surprise if they don’t pay attention to PPI.


Yep. You can get a 24” “4K” for around £200 — three of them would provide much more real estate than a single 34” UW — but you have to deal with the bezels then.

Currently in "looks like" 3840x1620 which seems to be a nice size of text.

 

[ascender]

Someone on another forum was asking about the screen so I took some pics to show overall size, possible arrangement of windows etc. These are all on the 3840x1620 resolution and the desk is 140cm wide.

 

[Amethyst1]

These are all on the 3840x2160 resolution

Do you mean 3840×1620 (3840×2160 wouldn't be the right aspect ratio)? I don't mean to nitpick, just wondering. Your desk setup looks great. Very clean and focused. ?

 

[ascender]

Do you mean 3840×1620 (3840×2160 wouldn't be the right aspect ratio)? I don't mean to nitpick, just wondering. Your desk setup looks great. Very clean and focused. ?

Yip, that's right, I guess its been a long day! Not sure how I managed to transpose those digits, sorry! Will edit post.

 

[cambsnomac]

Think I have decided on a 1 screen setup - I have seen these but worry its a bit 'cheap' - as in all the other 43" are almost twice the price https://www.laptopsdirect.co.uk/ele...curved-monitor-eiq-43cvsuwd120fsh/version.asp

It will be rare I use it for video or photos (and I would resort to my MBP for anything like that) or gaming. It will be for webcam/Microsoft Office/Google Sheets/CRM/email/web so business style apps in the main, using multiple windows. Hence I don't need an all singing/dancing 4k one. To those that understand these things, any pitfalls to be aware of or worth getting?