If I change the text slider to just a bit more, from 100 to 110, it seems like the text is shouting at me. If I turn the second slider (size of apps and main text) to 100%, it's too small for me.
Monitors; Dual or Ultrawide?
- Thread starter bobpbx
- Start date
OK, to get the effective PPI for you current setup, 105/1.25 = 84 PPI. Using that calculator again, a 27" HD screen (1920x1080) has a native resolution (the 100% setting) of 82 PPI which is just about the same as what you have now. That would let you see more on the screen while keeping everything about the same size.
To get an idea what that means, set your current screen at 100% as a test. That will show how much fits on a 1920x1080 monitor. With the 27" monitor, you would see the exact same amount of space, but everything would be bigger. When you set a 1920x1080 screen at 125% scaling, you are not getting the full benefit of all the pixels, since they are magnified.
To get an idea what that means, set your current screen at 100% as a test. That will show how much fits on a 1920x1080 monitor. With the 27" monitor, you would see the exact same amount of space, but everything would be bigger. When you set a 1920x1080 screen at 125% scaling, you are not getting the full benefit of all the pixels, since they are magnified.
And so Boyd, if I went for the 32" monitor, I could always dial the resolution lower if everything seems too small, right? I know I'd lose some sharpness though.
A little late to this party, but I wanted to put in my vote for a single widescreen monitor. I used to have dual monitors and in 2019 I went for an LG 34 inch curved monitor. I’ll never go back to dual monitors. I’m in IT so I spend all day staring at my screen, but even for the causual user, everything about it is better. (My humble opinion).
But, you've likely not had a 32" regular display, right? What is your sense...would 'that' be better than your widescreen?
Also, does your widescreen scrunch people or photos compared to a regular screen?
Yes Bob, you could enlarge it just like you are now doing. However, with more pixels it could affect performance. The native resolution of that screen should be right between the 100% setting and 125% setting on your current screen. I find that very comfortable to read and my eyes have always sucked and I can't even remember the last time I got new glasses. 
Give it a try at 100% scaling, you will have considerably more "desktop space" for using multiple windows.
I will say, however, regardless of how it looked in the store, when you replace your 22" screen with a 32, it will seem overwhelming at first. Did to me... but in a good way.
Give it a try at 100% scaling, you will have considerably more "desktop space" for using multiple windows.I will say, however, regardless of how it looked in the store, when you replace your 22" screen with a 32, it will seem overwhelming at first. Did to me... but in a good way.
Do you mean would a 32 be better than my old dual screen set up? If that is what you are asking, I say absolutely. I really enjoy having one continuous screen where I can configure multiple windows at all different sizes, depending on what I'm doing. One other piece of info I'll add: Since I'm not a PC gamer and I don't watch moves on my computer, I originally went with a 34 in, 1080p display, but with a display that large (at least on Mac) there was noticeably text aliasing. It continuously reminded me that I went cheap
so I exchanged it for a 34 in 1440p version and am very happy. I don't know if that would bother you or if you would notice it, but definitely did. I have not noticed any unnatural "scrunching" or size issues. I have changed the size of the text in various apps to adjust in some cases.
What kind of Mac are you using? What kind of graphics (integrated or discrete)? I have a 2018 Mini with the Intel UHD630, which is the same as Bob's PC. I don't think that can adequately drive a ultrawide monitor, the MacRumors forums are full of complaints. An eGPU or internal GPU card could fix that, but I gather they have gotten very expensive recently.
Anyway, I'm delighted with my 32" 1440p BenQ monitor. I think the 16:9 aspect ratio is more useful to me than ultra-wide would be.
Really happy with mine, has been trouble-free since I got it last summer. I have the i7 with 64gb and the 2tb SSD, runs Windows in Parallels much better than my old PC did and it makes life so much easier to have everything on the same machine. So, you really don't have any issues with the ultra-wide on yours with the integrated GPU? No fans running at high speed or UI lag? It's hard to understand exactly what the issues are based on forum posts. Many complaints of problems, but a few people (such as yourself) seem to do fine. Perhaps it's related to the software you use? People who only have 8gb RAM almost always have problems because the GPU uses 1.5gb right off the top which doesn't leave enough for other things.
I'm sorry, I may have been complicating this discussion. I was not calling a 32" monitor a "wide" monitor because the aspect is still 16:9. But is your 34" monitor 21:9? That would be ultrawide, correct? You called it a widescreen. So my question is restated: did you find your 32" (if it had the 16:9 aspect) almost as useful as your 34" ultra-widescreen?
After a lot of reviewing, and thinking, and taking breaks from thinking, I chose a Dell 34" wide curved monitor. I had several reasons for choosing it. I really like it so far.
One thing I really like about it is that Dell created a program within their monitor management system for it titled "Easy Arrange". It will take awhile to get used to it, but it's very flexible.
