How come 3440x1440 can fit more windows (3) horizontally compared to 4k?

[noobee]

I'm currently using 4K@27" monitor and wondering if I should buy 3440x1440 ultrawide monitor.

 

When I see the numbers in 4K, the resolution is 3840x2160 which is more space horizontally compared to 3440x1440?

But when I watch the reviews on YouTube, how come the 3440x1440 seems to have more space (3440 < 3840)? Is this just an illusion, or my understanding of resolution is wrong?

I tried to fit 3 windows on my 4K monitor, and I just can't fit them nicely, but on 3440x1440 I watched on YouTube, seems like 3 windows are fit nicely.

[Nick Neuburg]

4k horizontaly is 3840 i believe

 

[Nick Neuburg]

Just now, Nick Neuburg said:

4k horizontaly is 3840 i believe

 

i dont know

[Glenwing]

If you have Windows set to increase the size of text and windows on your 4K monitor, then they will become bigger and take up more space, and you won't be able to fit as many.

 

[spartaman64]

i mean you can alway put how many windows you want on your screen the question is are the windows big enough for text etc to be legible 

[PlayStation 2]

It's not exactly that 3840x2160 can't fit more windows, but rather that the windows just don't look as tall as they can if you sorted them in an equivalent form between 3440x1440 and 3840x2160. It is, basically, an illusion, but something that's probably tied more into taller windows feeling weird. 

That and display scaling can also make things bigger.

[Hairless Monkey Boy]

What scaling are you using?

[jaslion]

You have too look at it in forms of aspect ratio too. An ultrawide is just longer so logically it can fit more stuff vertically. Resolution has nothing to do with it really up to a certain degree.

[Zando_]

It's the ratio. My 13" MacBook Pro has a 2560x1600 screen, but my 2560x1080 ultrawide is better for putting things side by side. Resolution is lower, but it's 21:9 vs 16:10, a much wider resolution so spreading stuff horizontally is much better. 

Just now, handymanshandle said:

It's not exactly that 3840x2160 can't fit more windows, but rather that the windows just don't look as tall as they can if you sorted them in an equivalent form between 3440x1440 and 3840x2160. It is, basically, an illusion, but something that's probably tied more into taller windows feeling weird. 

That and display scaling can also make things bigger.

^^^ Yeah this. It's fucky to try and explain, but the aspect ratio changes more about the monitor than the total pixel count of the resolution. 

[noobee]

So basically 4K actually can fit more windows than 3440x1440 and my understanding is correct?

[Zando_]

1 minute ago, noobee said:

So basically 4K actually can fit more windows than 3440x1440 and my understanding is correct?

If you want really skinny ones, yes. 4K could fit more usable windows vertically because it has a taller aspect ratio than 3440x1440, but not horizontally. 

[noobee]

So it is basically useless, if I buy 3440x1440 monitor for more real estate on my workspace compared to 4K. Because I actually ended up with less space unless I buy 5k2k monitor.

[Alex Atkin UK]

7 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

It's the ratio. My 13" MacBook Pro has a 2560x1600 screen, but my 2560x1080 ultrawide is better for putting things side by side. Resolution is lower, but it's 21:9 vs 16:10, a much wider resolution so spreading stuff horizontally is much better. 

^^^ Yeah this. It's fucky to try and explain, but the aspect ratio changes more about the monitor than the total pixel count of the resolution. 

Depends what you are doing.  There are scenarios where I've docked a window to every corner at 4K, particularly web development.  In that case having an almost perfect preview of a 1080p monitor is useful.

I also do a lot of file management where I push the font size down as low as it will go to fit as much as possible on screen, so resolution becomes hugely relevant.  That and as I'm on Linux using Dolphin, those windows also support splitting into two.

So for me, I totally do not suffer from the "it looks weird so I can't use that" as my usage patterns make us of every pixel and I manage DPI scaling on an app by app basis rather than at the OS level.

[Glenwing]

People, it has nothing to do with aspect ratio. Window sizes are defined by pixel dimensions. It's a certain number of pixels wide by a certain number of pixels tall. If you size a window to be 1280 pixels wide, it will fill exactly half the width of a 2560-wide monitor, regardless of whether it's 2560×1600, 2560×1440, or 2560×1080. A 2560×1080 monitor is not any better at fitting things horizontally than a 2560×1440 monitor, and a 3440×1440 monitor is not any better at fitting things horizontally than a 3840×2160 monitor. The only exception is if your operating system has scaling enabled for one monitor but not the other, such as on a Retina display laptop, or if you turn scaling on for your high resolution monitor.

[Zando_]

Just now, noobee said:

So it is basically useless, if I buy 3440x1440 monitor for more real estate on my workspace compared to 4K. Because I actually ended up with less space unless I buy 5k2k monitor.

Again, aspect ratio. My 2560x1080 ultrawide has more real estate for work because I put windows side by side, even though the 2560x1600 resolution of my laptop is technically higher. Exactly this:

1 minute ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

Depends what you are doing.  There are scenarios where I've docked a window to every corner at 4K, particularly web development.  In that case having an almost perfect preview of a 1080p monitor is useful.

I also do a lot of file management where I push the font size down as low as it will go to fit as much as possible on screen, so resolution becomes hugely relevant.  That and as I'm on Linux using Dolphin, those windows also support splitting into two.

So for me, I totally do not suffer from the "it looks weird so I can't use that" as my usage patterns make us of every pixel.

Yeah, if you can actually take advantage of the extra vertical res on a 16:9 monitor, it'll be better for you. But just straight "this number is bigger" doesn't = better, since it depends on how you stack up your windows. 

[Glenwing]

4 minutes ago, noobee said:

So basically 4K actually can fit more windows than 3440x1440 and my understanding is correct?

Yes, if the text is scaled to the same size on both monitors, 4K can fit more than 3440×1440.

[noobee]

Ok, thank you very much for the answers and explanations. I confirmed that my understanding was correct. So it's all just illusion.

I agree that it has nothing to do with aspect ratio, but the aspect ratio causes this illusion.

[Glenwing]

5 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

My 2560x1080 ultrawide has more real estate for work [...] even though the 2560x1600 resolution of my laptop is technically higher. Exactly this:

This would be true even if your monitor was 2560×1600 like your laptop. It's not because the aspect ratio is wider, it is because text and windows are being scaled to take up way more pixels on your laptop screen. That's what a retina display does.

[Zando_]

Just now, Glenwing said:

This would be true even if your monitor was 2560×1600 like your laptop. It's not because the aspect ratio is wider, it is because text and windows are being scaled to take up way more pixels on your laptop screen. That's what a retina display does.

Fuck, you're right. Dunning-Kreugered myself. The Retina display at its highest scaling (which I run) is the same usable real estate as 1680x1050, it doesn't just do straight 2560x1600. That'd explain why it feels so much narrower than the ultrawide.