uhm.. only 75hz when for 150€ difference have samsung on 240hz to 1 ms, gsync and same resolution..?

Ghostfox:

uhm.. only 75hz when for 150€ difference have samsung on 240hz to 1 ms, gsync and same resolution..?

I think you misunderstood. The price information is for the 49 inch models, not these new 45 inch models. For those there is no pricing information yet. They might be substantially cheaper than the 49 inchers. Plus these are not meant as gaming monitors, these are aimed at business users that want more screen reel estate.

Crazy Joe:

Plus these are not meant as gaming monitors, these are aimed at business users that want more screen reel estate.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I never understood this. I would so much rather just have 2 smaller monitors than a single very large ultrawide for productivity purposes. Having multiple monitors allows you to actually split up your workflow an an organized and intuitive way. While it is possible for an ultrawide to function as 2 separate displays, it's not as intuitive of an experience. There aren't any situations I can think of where an office or productivity workflow would benefit from a single application maximized to be that wide. Maybe it would be fine to show some really really long charts, but at that point, the visualization must be pretty impractical. Conversely, there are situations where such a workload would benefit from an ultra-tall display. In particular, that would be developers (who want to see more of their code at the same time), web developers (so they can get a phone-like experience), journalists (so they can get a high-res zoomed-out view of their articles and how it looks with ads), or perhaps working with spreadsheets without the need to scroll as much. Also... this Philips monitor is just too large. Let's say you're writing code on the left side of the display. Lines of code typically aren't very long, so you're looking pretty close to the left edge of the display. Then, you get a notification in the system tray. With a display this large at a normal desk sitting distance, that would probably be completely outside your peripheral vision. That's impractical.

schmidtbag:

I would so much rather just have 2 smaller monitors than a single very large ultrawide for productivity purposes. Having multiple monitors allows you to actually split up your workflow an an organized and intuitive way.

Agree in general for a general user, but if you use something like powertoys and fancyzones you get the benefit of snapping to wherever you want, then you gain from not having bezels. So for example you have a left side (Code window), middle portion (Cat videos) and right portion (Email/Teams). Personally I'd rather have two though if im being honest.

gUNN1993:

Agree in general for a general user, but if you use something like powertoys and fancyzones you get the benefit of snapping to wherever you want, then you gain from not having bezels. So for example you have a left side (Code window), middle portion (Cat videos) and right portion (Email/Teams). Personally I'd rather have two though if im being honest.

Other than having a middle portion, Windows already comes with the ability to maximize on one half of the screen. Even if it didn't though: installing additional tools to make the display more usable kinda emphasizes my point that it really isn't practical, when you could just simply pay less, have 2 separate monitors, and not need anything to fix the UX.