Is a Full HD 21.5" the perfect monitor?

>>59383728
yes

>>59383728
24", the resolution is right

>16:9

No.

>>59384173
>not 16:9
No

>>59384159

This. I use 27 at work, and 24 at home. 27 is just too large

>>59384179
27 inch is fine unless you kike to stick your face into your monitor

>>59384159
This with 21.5" portrait.

>>59383728
Way too small. 24" 1080p is sweet spot if you want to go without scaling. In general you shouldn't buy a screen smaller than 24" if you want to use it in landscape.
BTW, if you really want a good setup get a 16:9 for landscape and a 16:10 for portrait.

>>59384186
>stick your face into your monitor

Literally arm's lenght. Posting from the phone at work, extended my arm and the fingertip 'just' touches the panel. Unless you want me to shove the monitor through the wall, too large.

>>59384257
I should have specified, 32" 1440p landscape and 24" 1200p portrait.

>>59384268
That's clever. 1440p at 32 inch should produce the same PPI as 1080p at 24 inch, right? I'm in the middle of shopping for a new monitor and this sounds like the most reasonable option I have seen so far.

I tested one for a while, but returned it and got a 23" (and later 24") instead. Couldn't make out any fine details even from a mere arm's length away.

>>59384173
/thread

>>59384159
This.

>>59384178
>Literally only good for movies
>Watching movies on a computer anyways
medium kek

>>59384352
You could be a cheeky cunt and get a 1440x900 screen at the same DPI as a 1440p screen, and use it portrait as a 900 pixel sidebar monitor

dă-mi 5 lei și îl infuzez

>>59383728
>21.5"
Go fuck yourself pretty boy.

>>59383728
23.6inch is perfect for 1080p, as 21.5 is a bit small, and 27 is way too big for 1080p

My dick's 21.5 inch

At least 35", it's not 2012 anymore

>>59386482
>no 4K
Or are you one of those gaymun manchildren?

>>59386026
excellent

>>59384159
21.5" 1080p
25" 1440p
28" 4k

Any other answer is wrong

>>59387360
>16:9
>16:9
>16:9
But all your answers are wrong.

>>59383728
Pretty much. I wouldn't want resolution higher than 1080p on my main desktop. My Surface is a 2k screen and a number of applications don't scale properly.

In the future that will definitely be fixed, but until then 1080p is fine by me.

>>59387394
On a desktop it doesn't matter dumb dumb

You can just resize windows

>>59387842
It matters anywhere

24inch 16:10 @1080p is the sweetspot imo
Also when will /16:10/ become mainstream?

>>59388080
what's a good 16:10 >60hz monitor?

File: (Yuu).jpg (108KB, 966x440px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 966x440px

24inh 4k 60hz is the most superior format

>>59383728
I used to think so, but then I bought a 24" 1080p Dell Ultrasharp. Now it's my primary.

>>59388220
Dell U2515

27" 1440p in landscape
21.5" 1080p in portrait.

You could pixel/size match with a 20" 1440x900 in portrait, but that horozontal rez is too low for most modern applications and websites

File: desktop.jpg (3MB, 5120x2880px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5120x2880px

34" 8k is ideal.
27" 5k is probably the best you and I can get at the moment
24" 4k is the lowest you should be using, it's 2016 not 2006.

>>59388301
That's 60Hz tho.

>>59388653
>using scaling ever
end yourself

>>59389637
You're using "scaling" right now, retard. There was a time when UIs were designed for 72ppi instead of 96ppi.