Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

bimmerman

Member
  • Content Count

    829
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    bimmerman got a reaction from Delicieuxz in Where are 16:10 monitors above 24" size?   
    What he said.
     
    Using 16:10 and 21:9 side by side (2x 27" 16:10, 1x 34" 21:9) makes me appreciate my 16:10 all the more. After daily use of this setup, I'm likely not going to buy 21:9 again for a work computer. It's nice to have a spreadsheet splayed out across, or a ppt and word doc side by side, but it's not nearly as useful as a pair of 16:10s for everything that I do-- solid modeling, simulations, etc. Vertical height (physical, not pixel) is critical in non-media-centric work: 16:9 and 21:9 are unacceptably short.
     
    My 16:10s, at 1920x1200, are nearly two inches taller than the 34" 3440x1440 21:9 sitting next to them. This causes a lot of eye strain and actually reduces the amount of space I have to work on things, because pixel count (and required scaling) is not the same as physical height.
     
    If my 21:9 dies, I'm getting the 30" 16:10s if they still make them. My 27s are on their last gasp, and the 21:9 has been a massively disappointing replacement for them, for the work that I do. CAD is pretty annoying to use on the 21:9, if I'm honest.
     
    Content consumption is oddly similar story-- unless I'm gaming, which is very rare nowadays (I think I last played a game in...June?), streaming video services support 16:10 much better than 21:9. What's the point of having such a wide monitor for media consumption if it's got black bars on the sides? It sure is pretty, and really nice for spreadsheet work, so it's staying for the time being.
     
    Regarding multiple documents per monitor? Yes. Daily. Two side by side on the 16:10 is quite usable and nice. The 21:9 really just lets you put three side by side, four gets claustrophobic. 16:10 also fits engineering drawing prints much better than 21:9, allowing you to model on one monitor and reference part drawings and dimension on the other, in large size, allowing you to be very efficient and fast.
  2. Like
    bimmerman got a reaction from GoodBytes in Why choose U3415w/34UM97-S over Samsung S34E790C?   
    Here are my reasons for buying the Dell:
     
    A) Stand
    B) Warranty
    C) Professional look
    D) past history with Dell ultrasharps over the last 13 years.
     
    What I didn't do was obsess over the specs. Response time is irrelevant, fancy/variable Hz is irrelevant for my use-- I wanted a 21:9 monitor that had excellent ergonomics, inputs, dead pixel warranty coverage, and beautiful color reproduction, which I could use for professional work and game on if/when I have spare time and nothing better to do.
    That said, gaming is awesome on the thing.
     
  3. Like
    bimmerman got a reaction from Tedster in [Dell] 27-inch UltraSharp 1440p IPS Monitor $550 + $150 bonus gift card   
    This.
     
    Ultrasharp monitors are incredibly good value for professional grade monitors, but are total overkill for all dem fps type of people. You really won't see the benefits of them until you're using them for 10+ hours a day for years, without issue or degradation. They aren't the best monitors for gaming, but many people do more than just game with their computers.
     
  4. Like
    bimmerman got a reaction from tribaljet in [Dell] 27-inch UltraSharp 1440p IPS Monitor $550 + $150 bonus gift card   
    This.
     
    Ultrasharp monitors are incredibly good value for professional grade monitors, but are total overkill for all dem fps type of people. You really won't see the benefits of them until you're using them for 10+ hours a day for years, without issue or degradation. They aren't the best monitors for gaming, but many people do more than just game with their computers.
     
  5. Like
    bimmerman got a reaction from blu4 in 1440p 21:9 Ultrawide- which one?   
    The Dell U3415w is nice. Not sure if it fits your budget, check with your local Dell store.
     
    There are four main options for 1440p 21:9 monitors--
     
    LG (flat or curved, U34M95 is flat one, 34" 1440p)
    Samsung (some alphabet soup name, 34" 1440p)
    Dell (U3415w, curved 34", 1440p)
    AOC (curved 34", 1440p, euro zone only iirc)
     
    All are IPS, LG makes panels for Dell.
     
    The Dell has the best stand and great warranty. I know nothing about the Samsung besides its existence. The AOC doesn't exist here, so I don't know much about it.
  6. Like
    bimmerman got a reaction from Glenwing in Picking a monitor for CAD and gaming   
    What CAD?
     
    I personally find two monitors to be extremely useful for CAD-- design/reference material on one, modeling program on the other. Probably doubled my efficiency doing that.
     
    Your question though is one I struggled with for years, and have a good solution for: ~$300, 24" Dell monitor in 16:10 (1920x1200). 16:9 is noticeably claustrophobic in CAD for me, there just isn't enough screen height. 16:10 is great for CAD and I've yet to find a game that doesn't work with that resolution aspect ratio.
  7. Like
    bimmerman reacted to FloRolf in two r9 295x2 or one titan x   
    When i was 13 i was playing in the sandbox. Get off your computer and get a life while you can. Come join the community with real knowledge when you are older.
    Just wanting to have the most expensive stuff because you can isnt the way to go.
    Edit:
    I love the 'is only around 750$' part.
    You know how long people go to work to get 750$? Damn man the spoiled kids these days...
  8. Like
    bimmerman got a reaction from Scheer in The USA's most popular OS and browser   
    Your assumption is wrong-- there are those who buy prebuilt and never mess with it, but that doesn't account for even a fraction of the 42%.
     
    The biggest single fraction of windows 7 users are businesses. Source: every engineer at my company have a <6 mo old computer, all running windows 7. This is because the slight changes in functionality that windows 8/8.1 bring absolutely do not justify the time (i.e., lost revenue) it takes to re-learn how to use the computer and the new UI.
     
    Your other claim, that people are using desktops from 2009, is also patently false in business land: ours are all haswell/broadwell i7 or Xeon, quadro/firepro, including our laptops. The business perspective is that your computer must make money, and anything that costs you money (i.e. learning a pointlessly changed UI) must be avoided. Most of us here have Win 8/8.1 computers at home, and the amount of hatred for that OS is quite amusing. 7 is still used because it is frankly better than 8.1.
     
    We actually have quite a few Win XP and earlier machines on dedicated lab equipment, because they work and don't need to be fancy or newer. Windows 7 will be here for a LONG time in the business world.
  9. Like
    bimmerman got a reaction from BestBOTEU in Will 21:9 reduce my fps dramatically?   
    This is super easy math.

    1920x1200 = 2.30 MP
    2560x1080 = 2.76 MP
     
    Delta = 0.46 MP
     
    0.46 MP / 2.30 MP = 20% additional pixels from what you are driving now, so you can expect to have FPS drop around 20%.
     
    Alternate calc: 2.76 MP/2.3 MP = 1.20 => 20% higher pixels per image.
     
    Drop MSAA or Textures and you can make that fps drop back easily.

     
  10. Like
    bimmerman got a reaction from Glenwing in 2560x1440 or 1920x1200 for a workstation? (12+hr daily usage)   
    Do keep in mind that my eyes aren't the best, but yea-- I find higher pixel density is great for entertainment/consuming content but isn't as helpful as greater usable screen real estate. 24" 1920x1200 is a great size in my experience for a workstation. The 32" 2560x1440 monitors that have started appearing have the same (approx) pixel density as the 24" 1200p monitors, which is awesome if you've got the desk space to fit them, and is further evidence that there is demand for low PPI but greater usable space. I would seriously look at the 32" x 1440 monitors....but would more seriously look at 30" 2560x1600 (16:10 ratio) monitors. PPI is a smidge higher, admittedly, but you also gain precious vertical pixel space back that you lose with the entertainment-focused 16:9 format.
     
    If you need color correct equipment though, I don't know if there are 16:10 options. It isn't really an issue with the work I do, so I haven't paid much attention to that feature.
     
     
    Unabashedly! If gaming/movies are all that matter, high resolution all the way. If your computer need is to make money over gaming/entertainment, greater usable space is a better priority (IME).
     
    My data points: I have 24" and 27" 1920x1200 displays and just added a 34" 1440p display to the mix. The extra horizontal space of the 34 is nice, but it has less vertical screen space than my 27" 1200p monitor and so I end up squinting to get work done, or zooming/scaling things....all of which means I'm less efficient when using it, so it got relegated to home use primarily. The 34" ultrawide format has the same PPI as the common 27" 2560x1440 monitors, hence my comparison comments. I like it a lot for many things, but I really wish it was both taller (physically) and had a 21:10 ratio.
  11. Like
    bimmerman got a reaction from lukky211111 in ultra wide or dual monitors?   
    Nope. No stuttering with the HD 5870 I had, nor with the R9 290 I now have. Gaming though isn't my primary use of the computer, so I'm likely less sensitive to it than others here. Games ran well enough, or I could turn details down enough, to play with smooth framerates.
  12. Like
    bimmerman got a reaction from SeanBond in ultra wide or dual monitors?   
    Data point: Flawless widescreen doesn't work with mass effect 1, at least not on my computer. Bioshock infinite and tomb raider are incredible in 21:9 though.
  13. Like
    bimmerman got a reaction from lukky211111 in ultra wide or dual monitors?   
    Went from dual 16:10 to 21:9 ultrawide (dell u3415w). The ultrawide is great for many things but I still prefer using the 16:10s for many applications. For entertainment only though, ultrawide is awesome.
     
    I use all three monitors now. Ultrawide requires too many compormises for my use case to be my only display.
  14. Like
    bimmerman got a reaction from Northmountain in 21:9 Owners   
    Honestly.....maybe. I bought my Dell U3415 to replace two dying Dell 2709W (16:10) monitors...and I've ended up using all of them. I don't know what I will do when the 27s die, as the 21:9 doesn't replace them well enough for my use case.
     
    The ultrawide 34" is NOT the same height as a 27 16:10, it is a good inch shorter despite the higher vertical resolution, possibly due to the 16:10 aspect ratio. This was surprising to me in wake of the reviews I read, and a bummer to see in person. I don't understand how people can deal with the 29 or even 25" ultrawides, you would have almost no vertical height!

    I use my computer differently from what a lot of folks do here, so keep that in mind. These monitors are used both for professional work and for home entertainment, hence my mini review below.

    The ultrawide is not fantastic for CAD use, as I prefer a squarer workspace for that application. Coding/matlab/simulink use, it is fantastic for: you can place the workspace and the code and the plots all side by side. Movies could be great but I've only tried it via Netflix/Amazon streaming, which doesn't support 21:9, so that was incredibly disappointing. Gaming is nice when the game is compatible, but most of the games I play are too old to have fixes/hacks to work well with the resolution. The monitor is great for Excel use for large datasets and models, being able to have word docs open side by side by side is great, or side by side with powerpoint slides. I generally use it split in thirds, I find that has the best workspace/workflow for me.

    I do still use my 16:10s though. I much prefer that aspect ratio for a lot of things, specifically CAD use and things that are more height limited (often, certain excel and powerpoint situations). I also prefer using them for streaming video since it scales much nicer. I really don't care for 16:9, which has been reinfoced by needing to force the 21:9 into that aspect ratio for certain games (curse you, ME1).
     
    Would I buy the ultrawide again? Yes, absolutely. I really like it for most of my use and it really helps productivity (again, for most of what I choose/get paid to do). Would/could it ever replace my 16:10s as my only monitor? No. Not unless 21:10 becomes a thing. Vertical height needs to come back into vogue. Until then, it is a great primary display with the 16:10s as great supplements.
  15. Like
    bimmerman got a reaction from Glenwing in 21:9 Owners   
    Honestly.....maybe. I bought my Dell U3415 to replace two dying Dell 2709W (16:10) monitors...and I've ended up using all of them. I don't know what I will do when the 27s die, as the 21:9 doesn't replace them well enough for my use case.
     
    The ultrawide 34" is NOT the same height as a 27 16:10, it is a good inch shorter despite the higher vertical resolution, possibly due to the 16:10 aspect ratio. This was surprising to me in wake of the reviews I read, and a bummer to see in person. I don't understand how people can deal with the 29 or even 25" ultrawides, you would have almost no vertical height!

    I use my computer differently from what a lot of folks do here, so keep that in mind. These monitors are used both for professional work and for home entertainment, hence my mini review below.

    The ultrawide is not fantastic for CAD use, as I prefer a squarer workspace for that application. Coding/matlab/simulink use, it is fantastic for: you can place the workspace and the code and the plots all side by side. Movies could be great but I've only tried it via Netflix/Amazon streaming, which doesn't support 21:9, so that was incredibly disappointing. Gaming is nice when the game is compatible, but most of the games I play are too old to have fixes/hacks to work well with the resolution. The monitor is great for Excel use for large datasets and models, being able to have word docs open side by side by side is great, or side by side with powerpoint slides. I generally use it split in thirds, I find that has the best workspace/workflow for me.

    I do still use my 16:10s though. I much prefer that aspect ratio for a lot of things, specifically CAD use and things that are more height limited (often, certain excel and powerpoint situations). I also prefer using them for streaming video since it scales much nicer. I really don't care for 16:9, which has been reinfoced by needing to force the 21:9 into that aspect ratio for certain games (curse you, ME1).
     
    Would I buy the ultrawide again? Yes, absolutely. I really like it for most of my use and it really helps productivity (again, for most of what I choose/get paid to do). Would/could it ever replace my 16:10s as my only monitor? No. Not unless 21:10 becomes a thing. Vertical height needs to come back into vogue. Until then, it is a great primary display with the 16:10s as great supplements.
  16. Like
    bimmerman got a reaction from JER_RLA in Need help in choosing a monitor for Auto Cad works (architectural to be specific.) :) and occasional gaming.   
    Dell 24" ultrasharps have the option. I don't know which all do, but tthe u2412 is 16:10.
  17. Like
    bimmerman got a reaction from JER_RLA in Need help in choosing a monitor for Auto Cad works (architectural to be specific.) :) and occasional gaming.   
    MechE here, I use Solidworks for a living
    Anything 16:10. No other resolution aspect ratio is as good for CAD as that. 16:9 is too wide for the height, ultrawide is worse (unless you splitscreen), and pro engineering applications have very poor high dpi support since there is no benefit to the user.
    Gaming-wise, I gamed throuhout undergrad and grad school on a 16:10 display just fine. It isn't an issue.
    Also, if Autodesk is opengl, get a quadro/firepro card or build a separate engineering workstation (i7, lots of ram, workstation card). Huge difference if you intend to make money/get jobs using cad skills.
  18. Like
    bimmerman got a reaction from Glenwing in Need help in choosing a monitor for Auto Cad works (architectural to be specific.) :) and occasional gaming.   
    MechE here, I use Solidworks for a living
    Anything 16:10. No other resolution aspect ratio is as good for CAD as that. 16:9 is too wide for the height, ultrawide is worse (unless you splitscreen), and pro engineering applications have very poor high dpi support since there is no benefit to the user.
    Gaming-wise, I gamed throuhout undergrad and grad school on a 16:10 display just fine. It isn't an issue.
    Also, if Autodesk is opengl, get a quadro/firepro card or build a separate engineering workstation (i7, lots of ram, workstation card). Huge difference if you intend to make money/get jobs using cad skills.
×