Question Anybody else really dislike 1080 monitors?

[mikeford]

Couple or so decades ago I upgraded from 13" color to a full page portrait screen, and haven't liked short screens much ever since. Lately this has me running a string of various old Dell 1200 height monitors, until my cheap nature is dragged into the 4K era. Anybody else dislike 1080?

 

[SAAA]

I do dislike it a lot, especially as it's been a fraud speaking honestly as my previous monitor had almost the same pixel height: from 1280x1024 to 1920x1080 felt like a very small upgrade even if resolution is higher, the decent jump was with two of them side by side.

Then consider my older CTR screen had even higher resolution with 1600x1200, there were even 2048x1536 ones around... it's been a decade of wait for 4K flat screens to get down in price enough and finally overcame the gap with old tech. Yes image quality is phenomenal today but aspect ratio kills it for anything but gaming.

As a cheap solution if you never tried: going portrait with 1080p screens feels very comfortable for documents and web browsing, then two of them side by side make an insane 1920x2160 almost square monitor who looks like alien tech by how much space it has for anything... with half the pixels of 4K.

 

[potato masher]

Try to find a good 30" 1600p... you might like them as much as I do. Not as easy to find good ones anymore as it used to be, they are getting up there in age. Many have developed visual defects. Also they tend to eat up electricity and make lots of heat. But yeah if you can find a good one.. actually slight visual defects won't matter much for general desktop use. A lot of these originally were used by artists who have moved on to newer stuff.

 

[potato masher]

Or run multiple 1080p monitors in portrait orientation..

 

[SAAA]

What I noticed moving from landscape to portrait and back is that 16:9 is really, really flat, like you don't think about it every day as you are used to this but it's absolutely cramped vertically!
It doesn't affect as much the portrait orientation that should look narrow, instead most content aside for videos and games fits perfectly, with tons of visibility without scrolling say on documents, folders or web.

4K with 16:9 doesn't really solve the issue as you get excess of pixel density in a narrow screen, resulting in the need of text scaling to read any comfortably.

To get the best of both worlds there are some 1920x1920 panels… I think only Eizo sells those, they cost over a grand but I'm really tempted to get one and enjoy it for years. Till some ludicrous 3840x3840 gets its place!

 

[Natani]

I dunno I like my 1080p for gaming. I have a new lg 24" freesync and an old acer 21.5 that doesnt even have hdmi

 

[potato masher]

IMO a large 16:9 4k could be an acceptable solution. Key word being large. Go oversize and ignore the extra real estate on the sides. If there exists a 16:9 price advantage over the less mass produced square screens, it would be my choice.

 

[mikeford]

I dunno I like my 1080p for gaming. I have a new lg 24" freesync and an old acer 21.5 that doesnt even have hdmi

The catch is you might not notice info missing from the bottom of the screen etc. I think it was either WOW or LOL where using my 1080 was hazardous to my health.

 

[Shamrock]

Yes, I hate 1080p monitors.

Give me a 1440p 32" monitor anyday!

 

[piokos]

Couple or so decades ago I upgraded from 13" color to a full page portrait screen, and haven't liked short screens much ever since. Lately this has me running a string of various old Dell 1200 height monitors, until my cheap nature is dragged into the 4K era. Anybody else dislike 1080?

Well, yeah, 1080p may not be that great for some. 1920x1200 is much better for office use.

But it's not exactly a big issue as 1920x1200 monitors are actually quite easy to get.
Now, if you're looking for a more gaming-focused panel, 1080p may be inevitable, because that resolution is in the gaming "canon" and 1920x1200 isn't.

Of course it's an absolute revelation that we're starting to see 16:10 or even 3:2 panels in laptops after years of 16:9 dominance. Hopefully they become a standard in 2-3 years (at least in the business/workstation segments).

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

There's the argument of 1920x1080 vs 1920x1200. I prefer the latter as 16:10 is more conducive to general productivity.

With that said my first 1200 height monitor was the Dell 2707. That's over a decade old. By 2011, Dell moved to 2560x1440 with the U2711, and today's offerings like the U2719 are also 1440p, with 4k monitors becoming the mainstream.

So my thought is 1080p is just way obsolete in 2020.

 

[Midwayman]

1080 sucks because there isn't enough vertical height and the pixel width isn't enough to be real useful. OTOH a 1440p screen is more useful than my old 1200 screens. More vertical height and enough pixels to do two apps side by side most of the time. If you're having issue with 4k you must be on a really small monitor. There are also monitor management tools out there that allow you to define custom snap zones.

https://github.com/microsoft/PowerToys/wiki/FancyZones-Overview

 

[aigomorla]

I run a 32inch 4k in portrait as my side monitor, and absolutely love it.
I am quite addicted to having a monitor on portrait, as it makes viewing pdf/word/documents, and web pages leagues easier.