Not with 60hz or 5ms response time at low pixels with its cost.
I need DP, USB-4/TB-3 but with 144hz minimum with 5ms or lower response time. I’ll look for these in a 34-38” with 200ppi
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
CES 2021: Dell Introduces 40-Inch 5K2K Ultrawide Monitor With Thunderbolt 3 Connectivity for Macs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I need DP, USB-4/TB-3 but with 144hz minimum with 5ms or lower response time. I’ll look for these in a 34-38” with 200ppi
If you like them there is; if you don't like them you shouldn't get them.
Seriously, it's that simple.
Personally I'll try to find a curved one the next time I upgrade; if, and only if, I'm going to only use a single display on a not that deep desk. It's just more comfortable having that curve when working with multiple documents up close like that; it becomes more natural than with a straight display. Don't think I could use it for watching movies, though.
I'd still prefer a proper desk and multiple displays, at the proper distance, though.
At that kind of width, a slight curve might just make sense.
(I have a setup with two separate monitors, which of course isn't as nice — you get the fat bezel in the middle, you can't easily have windows span both screens, etc. And I do have them at a slight angle.)
But when you need a UltraWide for lot of work tasks, there are no big options in one set of display. The other way is get two displays. But widescreen without bezel into middle are really awesome. Maybe Apple decides to make UltraWide 8 k 49" display
I can see how 1 widescreen works if you use a single window in a single program, and it takes advantage of being very wide.
But I can't see how it's a big benefit if you're using multiple windows.
I tend to use full screen mode most of the time, so to me having multiple screens (I use 2 x 24" at the moment) means i can have up to four 'columns' - with an ultra wide that wouldn't work the same way.
That's all I want, is a wide display with retina resolution. Don't really care what the actual size or resolution is. Just give me at least 32" wide and retina quality.But when you need a UltraWide for lot of work tasks, there are no big options in one set of display. The other way is get two displays. But widescreen without bezel into middle are really awesome. Maybe Apple decides to make UltraWide 8 k 49" display
Oh dear, it most certainly does. I need wide because I need multiple windows visible at the same time. I want to use BetterSnapTool as I have for ages to align 2 or 3 windows (Browser, Editor, maybe another) at full height but 1/3 to 1/2 width.
On a 27" iMac, its still way too narrow for 1/2 and impossible for 1/3.
Like I said, IMO, for anything where you're using multiple windows, multiple displays side-by-side works at least as well, if not better.
I don't agree because:
1. I don't want a double bezel in the center of my view. gross.
2. Multiple displays don't look great and take up extra desk space, and keeping them aligned is an OCD nightmare.
3. Macs don't lend themselves to the multi display environment. I can't use an iMac next to another display, it looks ridiculous. I can't use a Mac mini, because its far too limited in capability...running multiple displays on it isn't even supported with the new M1 Mac mini. And they don't offer anything resembling a $2-3 Mac tower.
What?
The m1 Mac mini, an entry level computer supports two displays. The intel based minis support three, or with an eGPU can support 4 or possibly more.
If your concern is about how it looks on the desk first, and how it works in a distant second, I don’t think we have much else to discuss.
The problem is how do I know if I like it? I have to buy one and use it for sometime to know.
I sort of want to give a snarky reply here, because isn't this just life…?
You see something you haven't tried, so you take inventory of your feelings about it (and your wallet); and you either try it, or you don't.
How it looks is how it works. It's a display.
The M1 Mac mini supports ONE TB3 display. It supports another HDMI display. That's useless to me because I can't even use 2 of the same display, let alone any modern high quality display as the second display.
And no, having a a hideous desk setup is not just "how it looks on the desk". Having 2 displays side by side where the center of your eye line looks 2-wide bezel is an unacceptable user experience.
This is literally a thread about an ultrawide display. If you don't find those interesting to discuss, you do you, but why police those who do?
And the inability (without asterisks) to have a window open on both screens or in the middle of them is about how it works.
(Personally, I have a two-monitor setup. It's much cheaper, I can physically easily adjust the curve, and it's good enough. But I can see the appeal, although I think all these ultrawide offerings aren't great before their ppi increases significantly.)
You understand it.
2 monitor setups can work, but have many drawbacks.
1 ultra wide monitor would be great, if the current market for them weren't all terrible displays.
i'm working in 3 applications simultaneously and this is big deal when you don't have that bezel into middle. Before i had two 27 inch and using three softwares at the same time are hard, now i have the same size in that 49 inch display (likie two 27 inch into one) and the lack of bezel give me oportunity to put one app into middle of screen. So it is a big to go in that formfactor
I believe that better PPI, realistically and in not so far future, will come through a 8k 48” TV that LG might do from the leftover of the 77” panels, Kinda upgrade from the 4K 48” Cx/C1 Series that are currently loved by the gaming crowd. Ultrawide Apple Display seems totally unlikely, and I feel all others manufacturers really don’t give a damn about PPI, it seems to be all about size and refresh rates...would love a 48” Apple TV set usable as Display.
If you don’t do audio, then I’d say you’ve got the wrong setup, therefore your conclusions are misleading yourself.
Try a 3 monitor setup, centre and two satellites (on angles comfortable to you).
example:
centre - 76cm 2560x1600 can have your main app here or two browser windows with nice vertical height.
left and right - on angles have 69cm 2560x1440 displays these can have your email, notes Finder windows, activity monitor etc and or additional tool palettes for you main app.
The two satellite monitors are 600mm wide but they could be about 500mm, the centre is about 640mm wide which could be about 600, so a total of 1600mm and a 400mm height would be ideal. If I could choose the PPI it’d be between 110 and 130 for macOS since the GUI is already very large.
Id like to try a single curved but there isn’t anything with the width or vertical height (400mm) of the above 3 monitor setup, the largest ones have very small vertical which isn’t good for Audio, CAD or Pixelmator type apps.
https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/ultrasharp-u4021qw vs https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/apple/studio-display
Rtings being subject matter experts on displays a) use actual evidence to determine the better option and b) don't rely on pointless hyperbole like most of the articles on here.
Media creation is the Dell's primary purpose, Ultrasharp is range targetted at professional use.
Unpopular opinion around here - Studio Display is distinctly average when compared to displays in general, compute the cost into the equation and it becomes a situation of pissing money down the drain.