Had an ultra wide for a while, went back to 2 27" monitors after 2 years. 2 monitors is more convenient imo. I can flip one vertical whenever. Less fiddly to have multiple things open at once. One is centered while the other is on the side and angled, much nicer way of separating what's my focus. Easier to screen share. I always found the curve distracting for text.

[–] CoderKat@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The ultra-wide's big appeal is definitely more for gaming than programming.

[–] magnus@lemmy.ahall.se 2 points 1 year ago

I have a 49" ultrawide, running a tiling window manager under Linux.

I heavily utilize virtual desktops in my workflow. Always 10 on each monitor, accessed by Ctrl-{0..9}. Switching between monitors by AltGr+{1..n}. Programs always stay on the same virtual desktop no, so terminals on 2, browsers on 3 and so on. This enables me to access more or less any window in under a second, never having to look for it visually.

I usually work with 4 or 5 24" monitors, as a single program seldom needs more space for me. What he ultrawide brings to the table is the capability under Linux to create arbitrary virtual monitors.

I can for example have two evenly created monitors (two 27"). My usual for development is three, split as 2:3:2.

Another possibility is using a small script that analyses movie resolution and creates two monitors, one with the exact aspect ratio of the movie, eliminating black borders, and another for using while watching said movie :)

As Linux sees them as separate monitors, I can also have easily managed screen sharing.

Having the flexibility of software defining my monitors has been great as a developer; separation of many, screenwise often small, applications is highly useful to me. A couple of quick scripts to switch between different setups has integrated it nicely into the workflow, and I usually changes monitor config at least a couple of times per day.

[–] JC1@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

I use a Ultrawide as my main monitor, a 1440p vertical one on the right and 2 portable 15" 1080p under the Ultrawide.

When I need to share, I share one of the 15". I keep my notes and the call on my Ultrawide. I think it's a great setup.

But if you don't want as many monitors, for sure 2x 16:9 is much better than 1x 21:9 or even 1x 32:9.

[–] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You might have just saved me a heap of money.

Screen sharing would suck with an ultra wide.

[–] VanillaGorilla@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

It does, but it depends on the tool. Zoom lets you simply draw a rectangle which will be shared, I typically select 2/3 of my screen. It's great when all have the same screen though.

[–] sneakattack@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

I set up my wife with a single 39" ultra wide instead of two separate monitors and it lets you use two cables so each half of the display acts as it's own unit. Then it's like having two monitors without a seam in the middle and doesn't take over the whole desk. I use two 43" 4k monitors side by side in the same way as you though and definitely prefer that.