[azhenley]

They are measured diagonally so the width of 2x24 is not the same as 1x48. Also the bevels do take up a noticeable amount of space, but will likely get better.

I definitely agree about the window management though. I went from 2x27 to 1x34 and found it much easier to organize windows on the two displays.

[karmakaze]

Measured diagonally it's still the same head turning (ignoring bezel) whether the second display is level with the first or not.

  +------+
  |      |
  +------+------+
         |      |
         +------+

[nickjj]

Good call on the diagonal measurements but it's not a big difference in the end. Both of my monitors have about a 1/4" inch bezel. So there's 1/2" of extra space and this monitor isn't made to have slim bezels. If you need to move your neck to see an extra 2 inches, that's not really going to make a noticeable difference in the end. You can also choose to sit back a fraction of an inch further to fit more in your field of view.

[the_pwner224]

> Good call on the diagonal measurements but it's not a big difference in the end.

This makes a huge difference. 2x24" will give you half the total surface area of 1x48". For example, if you have 2x24" side-by-side, you could put another copy of that pair above the original pair (to get a 4x24" grid), and that would be equivalent to having a single 48" monitor.

If you cut your current X inch monitor into 4 quadrants, each quadrant is diagonally X/2 inches. So having two of those would be like having just the bottom half of your current monitor.

[kaftoy]

In the original article they are talking about Ultrawide single monitor setup. In practice, all ultrawides don't have the same aspect ratio as normal wide minitors (16/9 or 16/10). I have seen ultrawides from 21/9 to even 32/9 (just search for ultrawide, I'll not provide links). So it's not as easy as to divide 48" by 4 to get to 24".

Also, only very expensive setups give good resolution, to not waste all the metric space.