GADGET GURU
Decide whether you desire side-byside or ultrawide monitors and smush together a superior smoothie
A
Guru is staring at his mismatched desk asking much the same question, reader; regular disciples will have spotted his drool-soaked yearning for finer screens in his previous editions of these pages. Realistically he is not prepared to give you a definitive answer, given that his own coin keeps landing on its side. But there are factors to consider.
Ultrawides trend towards the expensive, even when compared to buying two traditional monitors, and tend not to offer the same pixel density. It’s very, very rare to find anything above a 1440 pixel vertical, and far more common to find a (spit) 1080 pixel equivalent. They also mean twisting your neck more often. Delineating a primary and secondary monitor is probably a solid idea ergonomics-wise if you’re trying to focus on work in the same way that Guru doesn’t.
But then. Single monitors don’t let you get deep into games in the same way; they’re fine for singlescreen entertainment (better, even, if you’re keeping the resolution sensible) but spreading games over two or even three panels means butting up against immersion-spoiling bezels. There’s an inherent futuristic sexiness to ultrawides that individual screens can never hope to attain, and many are versatile enough to allow you to spread several inputs across their width.
Anyway, you want answers so here’s your answer, Answer-fan: stick with normal-sized monitors. Get a pair, get three, expand your desk in the way that makes sense for you. Lust for ultrawides, but know that 16:9 is a more practical ratio.
There’s an inherent futuristic sexiness to ultrawides that individual screens can never hope to attain