agneum

I've had Ikea's Markus for like the better part of a decade. If you want comfort you want an ergonomic office chair, that usually will cost $1000+, not any kind of gaming chair

TB2 = 20GBPS TB3= 40GBPS Maybe as simple as that?

The panel is 3840x1600. The first post must have been a typo. As for the resolution, it's pretty much perfect for browsing, coding and the like, 1600 is such a huge step up from 1440 even if it's "just" 160px. Will be nice to view 4K content as well, if it's cinema stuff with blackbars.

Hi, I've noticed that in programs such as Adobe Indesign you can work in both RGB and CMYK. However I am a bit confused. If I have a monitor that has 99% Adobe RGB coverage I would like to use it to show CMYK accurately, since normal SRGB monitors do not fully cover the colorspace of CMYK. I would prefer however to just use the monitors capacity to preview how the printed version would look, but want to use SRGB for everything else... Any articles I can read up on this?

The fix to this is usually to unplug the monitor's power cable for around 5 minutes and reconnect again to unload a capacitor or something.

Asus PG27UQ is probably going to cost around $2000, which is doable, but a really hefty investment. It's a lot fatter (I guess it has to be) but also isn't the ultrawide format. Would probably pass on it, but I'm sure the colors are amazing. LG will come out with an HDR monitor and an ultrawide, but still not mention on that ultrawide monitor having HDR (it's being marketed as a gaming monitor). Would a haswell i5 be able to pull 4k video? It's at 4,5GHz, I'm guessing it won't, but you mentioned Kaby Lake specifically..

I’m a person who uses my monitor for a variety of tasks. In order of use - browsing, programming, watching movies and gaming. I’m not a diehard gamer who plays any competitive games and I much prefer quality and color over refresh rates. Recently I’ve decided that I’m in need of more screen real estate, to better multitask and manage my workspaces. My current 21:9 (2160x1080) monitor feels cramped. I really do love this aspect ratio, which has gained more popularity since my purchase of it many years ago (also known as ‘Ultrawide’). It’s great to see this format getting traction, as it’s great for watching movies without letterboxing amongst multitasking and game immersion. For me, refresh rates for games aren’t a necessity but a nice-to-have for my everyday browsing and the very occasional AAA-title. I like to play games sometimes, and would love to have 100hz+ refresh rate, but I can’t say that I really need it. I’m not a gamer and I’d probably need to upgrade my graphics card to a GTX1080 (from my 970) in order to pull that kind of fps on a higher resolution. I’ve decided that I’m either going for a 34” 21:9 IPS monitor from LG, but am also looking into other options such as multiple displays. The thing I don’t like about the LG monitors is that they support only freesync tech and that they are not HDR. If I’m going to spend $1000 or more on a monitor, I might as well wait for HDR? My doubts are the same for refresh rates as I’m worried I might “crave” a higher refresh rate if I don’t do it now. I’ve seen a few HDR monitors on youtube, but those seem at least a year away. Currently I haven’t spotted any ultrawide monitors with this capability though. So this is what I’m looking to get: 21:9 ultrawide IPS display at least 30” with 3440x1440, 100hz refresh rate and HDR capability. Gsync big plus. Any links or info on when we can expect such a monitor? For the reasons mentioned previously I’m having a difficult time investing a larger amount for tech that might get old just a little bit too fast. HDR would seem like an absolute must to me at the moment because I dislike the IPS glow of current monitors. My concerns: I have tons of blurays that come in mostly 1920x800 resolution. Wouldn’t the image looked “washed out” on a display with such a high resolution? (Although 4k ultra HD is hitting the market) Will my GTX970 be able to handle a 3440x1440 monitor even at 60hz? Would getting multiple screens be of more bang for the buck? How far away is and HDR ultrawide screen, are there any that have been shown anywhere?

Because using your own face to replace an iconic Steve Jobs image can in no way infer that one is trying to compare themselves to said image, being a somewhat famous person themselves? If I had a software company that was doing alright, would I ever think to mimic an iconic Bill Gates or would that just make me look like a person with a huge ego? And what if my company wasn't even within software, but say, tech journalism? Whatever, I'm done here.

If nobody else cares, then I guess this thread exists to assert that. I guess Linus is just about as famous as Steve Jobs? Once a person becomes popular their egos tend to sky-rocket so using an image of an iconic entrepreneur could only be used to prove this fact. If you see it as self-indulgence, of course. See reply above.

I'm not here to suggest that it should be changed, just that it bears no relevance to the actual content. Because I do in fact spend all my time on it, it's simply that important to me. Never implied otherwise. No, it's the default picture if you register with twitter. The "great checkers player" in this case would be LTT. The journalism, the #1 spot and everything, I don't deny any of it. However, it's not even remotely (even as a parody) comparable to the type of work that Steve Jobs did, or the Apple brand as a whole. I just don't see the resemblance. Probably not, since they have not changed it for years. How is my personal economy relevant? Oh wait it's not. I'm not the one with the Steve Jobs wannabe pic m8. It's not like calling you out for Sauron, not even the same ballpark. I think you've missed my entire point. Well, obviously you cared just enough to reply.

It's not that it hasn't been changed in a while but in my opinion you're not 'worthy' of associating with an iconic entrepreneur when all you're doing is making youtube videos. I get that it's cute, like it's supposed to be a parody? From my perspective Linus has a huge ego to use a a pic of someone so iconic. As if to assert that the two are somehow comparable (they're not). Self-indulgence at its finest? Hopefully the subscribers and the dirty sponsorship money hasn't changed him, but this pic of him makes me want to question that.