[oz]

I have an Asus 21:9 29", 2560x1080, not 3440x1440 like the LG you mention (which I've considered). The extra width is nice, and the aspect ratio is perfect when watching movies, but I find I need more vertical pixels.

Instead of the 34", wouldn't make sense to just go 4K (3824x2160) and get it over with? You're getting more vertical AND horizontal pixels. Personally, I'm salivating at the Seiki SM40UNP (40"). Anything smaller at 4K resolution and you'll need display scaling, negating the size gain. I don't think my 2013 ultrabook can drive it at 60Hz, but there are apocryphal reports that I may be able to eke out 50Hz.

[iwintermute]

>> Anything smaller at 4K resolution

I have 32" 16:9 Benq at 4K and it's perfectly usable without scaling. You can think about it this way: 32" is double 16" monitors, and 15,6" monitors (rather popular in notebooks) with 1080p are quite usable. And it took me few days to adapt from previous 27" 1080 monitor.

[protomyth]

Well, when I bought it before the 4K was available, but LG is supposed to have a 4K equivalent coming in 21:9 which would have the same vertical of 2,160 pixels (giving 5,040 x 2,160). I'll get that when it comes out because I like ultra-wide versus buying 2 monitors.