[HN Gopher] How to pick a good monitor for software development
___________________________________________________________________
How to pick a good monitor for software development
Author : gmays
Score : 78 points
Date : 2022-02-06 19:32 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (nickjanetakis.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (nickjanetakis.com)
| jdjslskshdj wrote:
| Since everyone is just using this thread to post their own
| experiences with the monitors they use, I'm curious a bit
| further...what is actually on your monitors while developing?
| (Interested specifically in web dev, since that's what i do).
|
| For me, I am fine with 3 windows at a time, achieved by my laptop
| display, and my 4k screen split vertically. Code and SO/docs on
| the big screen, and then the testing browser (ptobably with
| console open) on the laptop screen. I don't really see any use
| for another monitor or more screen real estate.
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| I have a three 27" monitor setup with iMac. I tend to dedicate
| one display to communication and entertainment apps--Outlook,
| Slack/Mattermost, Spotify; I'll have my IDE in my center
| display, and on the third display I'll have terminals, utility
| editor windows, or browser windows--depending on what I'm
| working on, e.g. when writing front-end Javascript, I have my
| browser and developer tools open, and maybe a window open to
| MDN's docs.
| rubicon33 wrote:
| 2 32" monitors side by side.
|
| code on left monitor
|
| browser and dev tools (split vertically 50 / 50) on right
| monitor.
|
| separate chrome tab behind browser + dev tool, with docs, for
| quick CMD+~
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Similar here. Slightly smaller monitor, but 3 of them. Only
| two at a time is typically used for development. The third is
| for me to tile apps like Slack and Spotify.
| stock_toaster wrote:
| Wow, that seems like a lot of horizontal space to cover
| looking back and forth. Does your neck get sore at the end of
| the day?
| camgunz wrote:
| I've done 2 monitors and 1 monitor + laptop screen, and a
| single monitor, and I mostly prefer single monitor. Sometimes 1
| monitor + laptop is useful for webdev--or if I'm in a
| particularly chatty Slack (or whatever), but I've found the
| less I have to swivel my body/neck the better. The most
| successful 1 monitor + laptop has been is when I can put the
| laptop beneath the screen. But these days I find I don't want
| to suffer the laptop keyboard (well, really lack of TrackPoint
| --I have a ThinkPad USB Keyboard SK8855).
|
| Maybe the only problem I have now is "webcam looks down on
| you", which I don't like and makes me consider 1 monitor +
| laptop beneath again. MBP keyboards are better now so... maybe
| I can suffer the trackpad? Maybe it won't give me RSI?
| patrickthebold wrote:
| I have one 4k monitor no scaling,so plenty of space one one
| screen. The main thing I use the width for is the browser dev
| tools: I can have the site fully open and network requests and
| responses. Also, even horizontally there's plenty of height to
| see lots of code. But I really don't want to have to many
| things on the screen at the same time. Except when doing things
| like copying from one window to another.
| klausjensen wrote:
| In a co-working space, I am currently running 4x27" Dell screens
| @ 2560x1440px.
|
| Two stacked landscape + a portrait on each side. I split the
| screens in logical units with Powertoys FancyZones (I run
| Windows).
|
| For the very limited space I have there + value for money, I
| could not be happier.
|
| I prefer multiple monitors over a single large. Screensharing,
| managing windows just seems so much easier to me.
|
| Pic: https://imgur.com/a/2yJDxod
| eez0 wrote:
| I've been using a LG 27" 4k60Hz with a MBP for a few years.
|
| Recently got a 32" LG monitor from my employer, and I really
| tried to make it work, but it was plain impossible. It's too big,
| and due to scaling (which I don't need with 27"), fonts are very
| blurry.
|
| I ended up with my 27" again and using the 32" for my bike
| trainer :)
| keb_ wrote:
| I upgraded to a 1440p 27" monitor on my work PC and do love it.
| Kinda tempted to upgrade my personal PC (which has dual 24" 1080p
| monitors) but honestly have a hard time justifying it when both
| monitors still work just fine after 7 years of owning them.
| fuzzy2 wrote:
| Why not do it? I have a gallery of three unused displays.
| They're my backup now if anything goes wrong. I recently had to
| use one of them too, until I could repair my (also old now)
| 27'' display.
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| > my mom thinks that a 25" 1080p monitor is going to let her fit
| more things on her screen than a 22" 1080p monitor.
|
| She may be right, if she can reduce the scaling factor so that
| individual items stay readable and take fewer pixels to display.
| marvel_boy wrote:
| Exactly, as mentioned up this article if full of errors.
| WesolyKubeczek wrote:
| Just get a Dell P2415Q and thank me later.
| molszanski wrote:
| My opinion: today dell p2721q is a good choice.
| listenallyall wrote:
| Does anyone have a non-mac laptop that truly handles 2 monitors?
| I had an old Dell with both HDMI and Mini-DisplayPort ports, it
| drove two monitors well. But new laptops only have HDMI and rely
| on USB or Thunderbolt for additional monitor ports. My second
| monitor (connected via a USB-C hub with HDMI port) works, but it
| flickers and is not as bright as the first monitor connected
| directly to HDMI.
| softwarebeware wrote:
| I've been combining one monitor in portrait mode alongside one
| monitor in landscape mode for about a year. It's a great setup
| for software developers. I often open code and logs on the
| portrait monitor. Everything else on the one in landscape. With
| Rectangles.app I can place two separate applications on either
| monitor with a key combination. I place one window in the
| vertical top half and one in the vertical bottom half on my
| portrait monitor, for example. Or one window in the horizontal
| left half and one in the right half on the landscape monitor.
| There's lots of possibilities and great flexibility. I'd
| recommend it.
| camgunz wrote:
| Let me chime in and recommend the Lenovo ThinkVision P32U-10 [0].
| Color repro is amazing, brightness is bonkers, it's matte. The
| only dealbreaker for some is it's 60Hz only. The reviews are
| pretty good and give a good idea of how it all performs [1] [2]
| [3]. Plus it's super cheap at Amazon right now; I'm pretty sure
| mine cost $700-$800 and it's down to $400.
|
| I did have to monkey a little with macOS to get color
| reproduction correct on a new M1 Max--which I found out isn't
| uncommon. Also 32" is big--they make a 27" but brightness and
| color reproduction suffer slightly, and it loses a Thunderbolt
| port. But that might be an OK tradeoff for you.
|
| [0]: https://smile.amazon.com/Lenovo-
| ThinkVision-P32u-10-Monitor-...
|
| [1]: https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/lenovo-thinkvision-p32u-10
|
| [2]: https://www.techradar.com/reviews/lenovo-thinkvision-p32u-10
|
| [3]: https://www.storagereview.com/review/lenovo-
| thinkvision-p32u...
| p12tic wrote:
| It's strange when monitor costs are being discussed while they
| are the primary tool for software development. If software
| developer produces $100k/year value, then it's worth spending
| several thousands of dollars for every percent of increased
| effectiveness. This can buy almost any monitor on the market.
|
| I've found the following worth considering:
|
| - It makes sense maximizing usable screen real estate, both in
| terms of pixels and area. Complex problems involve a lot of
| information and being able to view everything at the same time
| makes it easier to understand them. Personally I've found three
| 4K 32 inch monitors work well.
|
| - OLED allows working comfortably at low lightning conditions.
|
| - Many larger higher-end monitors support picture-by-picture,
| which allows splitting the monitor into multiple virtual monitors
| for separate inputs (2x or 4x per monitor). This is useful in
| case of multiple external test devices which can then be
| integrated into existing display setup.
| ranit wrote:
| > If software developer produces $100k/year value, then it's
| worth spending several thousands of dollars for every percent
| of increased effectiveness. This can buy almost any monitor on
| the market.
|
| This doesn't add up: 1% of $100K = $1000. You would spend
| _several_ $1000 for every $1000 of produced value per year.
|
| EDIT: Added "per year" at the end, thanks to Arcuru's question.
| listenallyall wrote:
| Thank you for noticing this as well! Further, if a software
| developer produces $100k per year in value, the company is
| likely underwater. Very few developers cost less than
| $100,000, especially when taxes, benefits, tooling, etc are
| all factored in.
| Arcuru wrote:
| How often do you buy a new monitor?
| ranit wrote:
| Every 2-3 years.
| Bancakes wrote:
| I don't understand this consumerist mindset. A monitor is a
| monitor. Programmers don't need color accuracy so any 4k will
| suffice. Your thinking just incenivizes "Programming grade"
| monitors that are just overpriced regular ones. I don't see how
| you could make a several thousand dollar 4k monitor if you
| tried.
| Gwypaas wrote:
| Really missing OLED in the post. After getting an OLED tv a few
| years back I can't imagine myself spending money on anything with
| less quality. Instant pixel refresh, amazing colors and no
| blooming and most importantly, a glossy display.
|
| Tried the Odyssey G7 for a while, so blurry with VA and matte
| panel. Ended up returning it. Temporary solution is my old 2x
| 1440 IPS 27". They look awful next to my 15 inch 4k laptop but
| gets the job done for now on the cheap.
|
| Nearly got the C1 48" but it is a bit too big for easy usage.
| When rumors for the C2 42" started coming I decided to buy it
| ASAP when it launches this spring.
|
| So annoyed by the monitor market. Phones have awesome screens,
| TVs have awesome screens, even laptops have awesome screens.
| Monitors are whatever is the cheapest per unit for large
| corporations or an ever increasing HZ number for gamers, without
| even considering pixel transition time or color.... At least
| there's some blingy LEDs on the back.
| deergomoo wrote:
| > When rumors for the C2 42" started coming I decided to ASAP
| when it launches this spring
|
| If previous LG OLEDs are anything to go by, you're gonna be
| disappointed using it as a regular computer monitor (gaming
| would be great though).
|
| The automatic brightness limiting kicks in hard for regular PC
| usage.
| Gwypaas wrote:
| That would be annoying, my use case is both but many times
| the hours of work to compared to gaming. I guess that is why
| my B6 is amazing, not the brightest out there compared to
| what is available today but no automatic limiting.
|
| I wonder how the crazy gamer ones are going to be, like the
| ASUS PG42UQ [0]. Also how much a premium above the regular LG
| one. Also would get annoyed by having that UFO on my desk.
|
| [0]: https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/4/22867178/asus-oled-
| gaming-...
| dogma1138 wrote:
| The ABL isn't that much of an issue as the WRGB sub pixels
| that it uses which make text fuzzy.
|
| Also even at 42" the PPI is not good enough for text
| rendering.
|
| And lastly the biggest issue is actual comfort there is
| almost no way to balance the right distance and scaling to
| prevent strain on your neck when working with such large
| monitors.
| HNSucksAss wrote:
| nicce wrote:
| There is a reason. OLED panels are still quite bad for
| "staying" images (burn-in). And not only that, there has been
| many other issues, which makes them hard to make outside of
| standard 55" TV sizes. Not many manufacturing lines for them.
|
| Lenovo Yoga Gen 2 used to have OLED screen, and it was causing
| huge repairs. On Gen 3 it was removed and they took a long
| break before introducing it on other products.
| molszanski wrote:
| Don't use it as a monitor. It is insanely easy to get a burn
| in. There are many YT videos where people daily drived OLEDs as
| monitors and it was pretty much a burn in disaster. Sadly
| csdvrx wrote:
| I have a thinkpad with Oled and external screens with oled
| too. No burn in so far. If it ever becomes a problem, I will
| just get new ones. The confort of oled when working at night
| is worth it.
| molszanski wrote:
| What kind of screens do you use? Glad that OLED is making
| progress with the burn in!
| csdvrx wrote:
| https://www.amazon.com/15-6-Portable-Monitor-External-
| Consol...
| csdvrx wrote:
| Check https://www.amazon.com/15-6-Portable-Monitor-External-
| Consol...
|
| I use 2 of them on a daily basis.
| Gwypaas wrote:
| Wow those seem amazing! Like the perfect minimal office on
| the go??
| extra88 wrote:
| > After getting an OLED tv a few years back I can't imagine
| myself spending money on anything with lesser quality.
|
| What about OLED's burn-in problem? Computers usually have a lot
| of GUI elements in the same place for long period of times.
|
| > and most importantly, a glossy display
|
| Glossy displays can be good for prettier colors but can have
| glare problems from other light sources. This post is about
| picking a monitor for software development, why would glossy be
| better than matte for that use?
| Gwypaas wrote:
| I have been using my 2016 55" B6 hooked up to my computer for
| years now, I write this on that screen. I babied it in the
| beginning. Nowadays I tend to forget it on. I have a tiny
| amount of burn in on the white subpixels from the top bar in
| windows due to previously having the default white layout.
| Turned on dark mode now to mitigate that. All other colors
| are fine. Completely invisible in regular usage.
|
| Got scared by that and moved the taskbar to the side, no
| burn-in at the bottom though. I guess because that was a
| darker tone. Also used it at maximum OLED light until I
| noticed the first burn-in, so it's not like I was nice to it
| even though I babied it regarding static elements.
|
| Sadly I can't find the "total hours on" setting on this one,
| seems to be removed from the settings.
|
| > Glossy displays can be good for prettier colors but can
| have glare problems from other light sources. This post is
| about picking a monitor for software development, why would
| glossy be better than matte for that use?
|
| Because I want clarity. Why put the perfectly crisp text and
| other elements through a blur filter??
| jseliger wrote:
| These are now available:
| https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-27ep950
| Gwypaas wrote:
| They are 60hz for $3K though. I was seriously considering
| trying one, but 120 HZ minimum does a lot for motion clarity.
| Same issue with the 32" version.
|
| I guess I should also have specified in the "not selling my
| kidney" range considering that the C1 48" go around $1K.
| modoc wrote:
| For me, 4k @ 32" native resolution is perfect (not pixel
| doubled). I drive two BenQ displays from my MBP and absolutely
| love the setup! I can't stand 4k or 5k at 27" as it's too small
| with native, but way too big when doubled.
| ledgerdev wrote:
| How about IPS vs VA panels for text rendering?
| georgewfraser wrote:
| I've bought two monitors that I really loved: an Apple Cinema
| Display 27" for $2000 in 2003, which was a crazy amount of money
| for a monitor at the time. I used it for 12 years. And an Apple
| Pro display with all the options for $7k last year, which seemed
| a little crazy but it's just unbelievably good, like looking
| through a window, and I won't be surprised if I use it for 10
| years. If you've got the money, a really good monitor is worth a
| lot.
| cehrlich wrote:
| Has anyone gone from a 27" 4k or 5k to a 1440p ultrawide? If so,
| how did you like it? I've been thinking about switching, but I
| don't know if having to run MacOS at 1x instead of 2x might be a
| significant downside.
| cloudengineer94 wrote:
| I'm currently using 3:2 displays by Huawei, they are named Huawei
| Mateview and feature a 4K panel from the Surface Studio.
|
| These are quite amazing to be honest and there's ton of vertical
| space for both VS Code and Terminals.
| yes_but_no wrote:
| I'm stuck between that monitor and 21:9 34" ultrawide. Any
| opinions?
| sandruso wrote:
| I tried 27" 1440p external monitor with macOS and fonts were
| blurry I had to sell it after 3 months. I don't recommend
| anything lower than 4k on 27".
| [deleted]
| csdvrx wrote:
| Hard disagree on the recommendations like about not bothering
| with 4k.
|
| I got 2x portable 4k oled displays. Great color reproduction,
| crispy fonts and windows 11 remember where the windows should be.
|
| Battery powered means I can easily travel with one or both and my
| laptop.
|
| Oled means I can work comfortably at night with a black theme or
| a white theme + NegativeScreen
|
| Check the InnoCn on amazon: there are others but I can vouch for
| this one https://www.amazon.com/15-6-Portable-Monitor-External-
| Consol...
| ldiracdelta wrote:
| 4k, 43" LCD Tv for $300 https://www.amazon.com/TCL-43-inch-Class-
| Smart-Android/dp/B0...
|
| Once you go 40 inch, you can never go back.
| Stratoscope wrote:
| I really like my current setup, a pair of 24" 4K monitors in
| combination with my ThinkPad P1's 15.6" 4K internal display.
|
| I don't use an external keyboard or mouse; I prefer the
| ThinkPad's keyboard and TrackPoint, along with its touchpad for
| two-finger scrolling.
|
| I run the internal at 300% scaling and the externals at 200%.
|
| One external is directly above the ThinkPad in landscape mode
| with the left edges aligned. The other is in _portrait_ mode to
| the left, with the bottom of the monitor an inch above the desk
| to allow cables to run under it.
|
| Because of my age, my eyes have lost most of their ability to
| focus at different distances. And sometimes I want to use the
| ThinkPad on its own. So I use a pair of single vision glasses
| corrected for the distance to the ThinkPad display, about 20". I
| highly recommend glasses like these. If you wear progressive
| lenses (as I do when I'm away from the computer), you will always
| be craning your neck back so you can look through the bottom of
| your lenses. This is a recipe for neck and eye strain, and only a
| small part of any monitor will be in focus at one time. The
| single vision lenses solve all these problems.
|
| The focus distance also determines where the external monitors
| go: all three monitors have to be at the same distance from my
| eyes. The landscape monitor sits where I can open the ThinkPad
| lid in front of it and have very little gap between them. The top
| of the ThinkPad bezel is just below the bottom of the external
| monitor's display area (so the bezels overlap). The portrait
| monitor on the left is also 20" from my eyes.
|
| All three monitors are angled so the center of the monitor is
| centered for my eyes: the laptop display is at a typical laptop
| display angle, the landscape monitor above it is more vertical
| (but not straight up and down), and the portrait monitor is at a
| more in-between angle.
|
| At my standing desk, the top of the portrait monitor is just
| about at eye level, and the top of the landscape monitor slightly
| below.
|
| Typical use is either Slack or documentation pages on the
| portrait monitor, or any kind of long form reading. The portrait
| monitor is also great for PDF files; I can view a full page
| without scrolling.
|
| Most coding work happens on the landscape 24" monitor. And the
| ThinkPad's internal display is used for whatever else I need.
|
| I run Windows on the ThinkPad in part because of its better
| support for different scaling on different monitors. At my work
| we use Ubuntu for development, so my Ubuntu virtual machine runs
| full screen on the landscape monitor. I use VMware, not
| VirtualBox, as VMware has much better display response, almost
| like running native. And I often run a second Windows VM on the
| ThinkPad display with the McDonald's Point of Sale system. (I
| work on a drive-thru voice agent and test it against the POS
| running in the Windows VM.)
|
| One reason to have the portrait monitor on the left instead of
| the right is that I can simply turn to the left to read it
| (turning my whole body, not just my neck) while having easy
| access to the cursor and PgDn/PgUp keys for scrolling. This
| doesn't work as well if the monitor is on the right.
|
| I've experimented with many monitor configurations and this has
| worked out by far the best for me. I tried a 32" monitor when I
| spent a week at a Google office some years ago, and had trouble
| with it because the difference in distance for my eyes to the
| center of the screen vs. the edges was too much. 27" monitors
| wouldn't work for my setup either: the top of the portrait
| monitor would be too high, and since the monitors are all 20"
| from my eyes, I just don't need big monitors. And the smaller
| size keeps the focus distance more consistent. A curved monitor
| might help with that, but it wouldn't give me the nice PDF and
| documentation reading that the portrait monitor provides. And
| most of the big curved monitors I've seen have rather low DPI
| compared to these 24" 4K displays.
|
| The two external monitors are mounted on AmazonBasics monitor
| arms. These are actually made by Ergotron and are identical to
| the ones Ergotron sells under their own name, but the
| AmazonBasics arms have a matte black finish instead of the silver
| of the Ergotrons. I like the black finish because it is less
| obtrusive visually.
| digitallyfree wrote:
| I wish that 4:3 monitors would come back, my personal dev setup
| uses a 23" 16:9 monitor in the middle with one 17" 4:3 on each
| side for a total of three. Three 16:9 monitors are too wide for
| me to work comfortably (have to turn both my body and my head)
| and two 16:9s have the bezel in the middle and require me to have
| my head skewed constantly when working. I've tried using
| vertically oriented 16:9 monitors on the side, but I find I need
| to move my head up and down too much for my tastes.
| stetrain wrote:
| It's not quite 4:3 but LG has a new 16:18 monitor coming out
| soon:
|
| https://www.extremetech.com/computing/329996-lg-announces-mo...
| wruza wrote:
| The never ending issue with these monitors is that it's
| almost always cheaper to just buy the same height and v-res
| 16:9 monitor and cut borders at the driver level. They try to
| squeeze every penny out of your non-16:9 demands.
|
| This entire x:y issue takes roots at OSes, which suck so much
| at window positioning out of box. Much easier and cheaper to
| use fancyzones or a similar tiling software and just ignore
| the wasted space, or use it only when needed.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I'd like to hear from people who develop with a 49 inch monitor.
| Especially the really curvy one.
|
| I had a 34 inch ultrawide for a while, but eventually got tired
| of the low resolution. Switched to a 32 inch 4K and I'm pretty
| happy with it. But it's a bit slow starting up, the refresh rate
| maxes out at 60Hz, and sometimes I find myself wishing for more
| space. Partially because I'm getting old and my eyes thank me for
| scaling up the size of fonts and such, which cuts down on the
| effective area of the screen.
|
| I've been toying with the idea of getting the Samsung CRG9, but
| I've no idea if it would be a good choice for primarily software
| development. A big upside is that it's a single monitor, which
| will make my M1 MBP happy.
| adflux wrote:
| I have the odyssey version of this. Excellent for frontend
| work, where ill have some 3 or 4 windows up at the same time.
| varjag wrote:
| I develop with that 49" curved Dell. Works really nice when you
| can fit 7-8 full height terminals side by side in single
| workspace.
|
| And of course
| https://twitter.com/varjag/status/1120709771022221314
| epiecs wrote:
| I use the CRG9. Combine it with the ms powertoys and you'll be
| a happy camper. I divide mine in 3 where i have vscode in the
| middle and 1 column left and right.
|
| I do reccomend getting the one with the 5120x1440 resolution. I
| still have the old 3840x1080 one and I miss having more pixels
| sometimes.
|
| One downside tha you have to take into account is that you can
| never share your whole acreen when using teams when the other
| persons don't have an ultrawide. It will look super small on
| their screens.
| mlmartin wrote:
| I'm running a couple of 28" 3:2 ratio displays (
| https://consumer.huawei.com/uk/monitors/mateview/ for the exact
| model). The extra vertical space is great, been wanting desktop
| displays in this ratio ever since getting a Surface Book and I'm
| upgrading to a Framework partly down to the 3:2 display there
| too.
|
| Downside of this particular monitor is the lack of VESA mount, it
| could be a tad brighter (but is fine for the office), and I'd
| prefer 120Hz vs 60. I'm really hoping there is more choice in
| this 3:2 space down the road. Like if Microsoft released that
| Surface Studio as a monitor..
| mpettitt wrote:
| I've recently switched from using a 15 or 17 inch laptop along
| with a 27 inch curved screen to a 13 inch laptop with a pair of
| 28 inch 4k flat screens, and am really liking it. I run Linux,
| and have various gnome extensions to allow for quick placement -
| main browser, second browser window for Comms stuff, slack,
| terminal, ide, etc. Combined with a dual monitor stand allowing
| me to grab a screen and move it closer for particular tasks, or
| further away for calls, and USB webcam and microphone for calls
| so people aren't looking at the side of my head while I'm
| watching them on a bigger screen, and it's a really productive
| setup.
| deergomoo wrote:
| It's nuts to me that Apple never sold the iMac 5K 27" display as
| a standalone monitor. There was/is the LG UltraFine, but by most
| accounts it's rather unreliable and of poor build quality for the
| price--not to mention it seems to be totally discontinued outside
| of the US.
|
| It would be the perfect Mac monitor, especially with macOS' odd
| scaling method making 4K @ 27" really suboptimal. It would be
| overpriced I'm sure, but considering it would be less than the
| price of the iMac that normally contains it, I think it would
| still have been a popular choice. Unlike the Pro Display XDR
| which blows right past overpriced and lands squarely into
| unattainable for the vast majority of people.
| rigelbm wrote:
| I went from 2 wide screens to a single ultra wide, and I'm never
| going back. It's like you have two screens (well, more like 1.5),
| but they are optimally positioned, and there's no bevel in the
| middle.
|
| It's worth mentioning that I use i3, which helps a lot organising
| all that screen real state. I can see how obnoxious it could be
| to use it with other desktop environments.
|
| Bonus: It's awesome for gaming. Most games support it nowadays,
| and it's very immersive.
|
| Edit: The monitor -> https://www.techadvisor.com/review/aoc-agon-
| ag352ucg6-369041...
|
| Edit 2: Got it at a Black Friday for PS550, which was a pretty
| good deal. I would probably not buy it at full price.
| howinteresting wrote:
| Agreed, ultrawide monitors really just "heighten the
| contradictions" of non-tiling window managers, and show how
| unfit for purpose they are.
| beebmam wrote:
| It depends on the game. I much prefer 24" 240Hz+ monitors for
| competitive reaction-based games. But yes, ultra-wide monitors
| are incredible for productive tasks.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > ultra-wide monitors are incredible for productive tasks
|
| But they always seem really short? The wider they get the
| shorter they seem to get. Not sure why that is. Doesn't work
| for viewing code or text does it?
| phkahler wrote:
| Just use a large TV - curved.
| beebmam wrote:
| What do you mean by "short"? Do you mean like, the monitor
| support structure is short?
|
| You can put ultra-wide monitors on monitor arms; just make
| sure the monitor arm supports the weight of the device.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| When I look on Amazon for ultra-wide, I find monitors
| that are for example 3840 pixels wide... which is ok...
| but only 1080 pixels tall?! And the wider they get the
| fewer rows of pixels they seem to have. My 14-inch mid-
| range laptop is 1964 pixels tall. My ancient standard-
| format monitor is 2160 pixels tall. Why are these brand-
| new, fully mains-powered, desktop monitors so stupidly
| low on pixel rows? 1080 rows isn't enough for a good
| amount of code or text at a reasonable resolution.
| einherjae wrote:
| I assume they meant the opposite of tall, I.e vertical
| size. And there I must agree, the ultra wide screens come
| of as very... wide.
| searchableguy wrote:
| Which ultrawide and what size?
|
| I'm confused between getting 2 27 inch 4k monitors vs a QHD
| (low res) 34-38 inch ultrawide.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| 38" 3840x1600 (109ppi) curved ultra-wide here (since five
| years now). It's an old monitor so by now there are better
| 38". I love it for software development.
| rigelbm wrote:
| AOC Agon AG352UCG6, 35", Curved, VA, 1440p, 120Hz
|
| https://www.techadvisor.com/review/aoc-agon-
| ag352ucg6-369041...
| michaelmrose wrote:
| I have several issues with this analysis.
|
| > Scaling support is spotty at best, and many applications simply
| do not support it properly.
|
| Although I admit I only use a modicum of applications on windows
| scaling seems to work great on anything using an even halfway
| modern toolkit. On Linux it works quite well for example. If you
| are still running some oddball app from the 90s may I submit that
| you ought to throw it away rather than buying your hardware based
| on it unless it is truly essential.
|
| > A 4k monitor technically has 4x the screen real estate of a
| 1080p monitor. That means if you drew a big ass rectangle and
| split it into a 2x2 grid, you could fit 1x 1080p monitor in each
| box of the grid.
|
| This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Real estate is inches not
| pixels. More pixels means a clearer, more realistic, and more
| pleasant to look at work area in the same space not more area
| which can only be obtained by buying more physical space. There
| is absolutely no reason anyone ought to use a higher resolution
| to squint at increasingly smaller text that they can increasingly
| just make out because of the higher pixel density. Indeed nobody
| on earth uses monitors that way. At the point of logical
| absurdity. There was an 8k 20" screen at CES a while back.
| Imagine flipping it from 1080p resolution to 8k.
|
| Nobody on earth would display a document first in full screen and
| then at higher resolution in a 5" diagonal. You would view the
| same document in the same space.
|
| > Then there's the whole problem of managing windows. Having 1
| monstrous monitor is going to make it difficult to manage
| individual windows. You're going to be spending a lot of time
| micro managing floating windows at various sizes.
|
| People add windows based on physical real estate. Inches not
| pixels. Adding pixels doesn't add any complexity in window
| management whatsoever.
|
| > If you took a 4k monitor and scaled it up to 200%, you would
| end up with exactly the same screen space as a 1080p monitor.
| Things will look quite a bit smoother, sort of like a Retina
| display, but you're not really gaining anything.
|
| You are literally gaining it looking smoother. It's the whole
| thing.
|
| > Physical size doesn't constitute how much you can fit on a
| monitor. For example my mom thinks that a 25" 1080p monitor is
| going to let her fit more things on her screen than a 22" 1080p
| monitor. Don't be my mom!
|
| Your mom is correct. Lets say your mom is hip and is running
| xterms with vim and because she knows what she likes she has an
| an exact character size in mm. Because physical size is what
| makes something pleasantly readable which is why your phone with
| its very high resolution doesn't have incredibly tiny pixels.
| Your mom can decrease her font size on her 25" monitor and have
| the exact same resulting physical size as your 22" and display
| more characters on her screen than yours. This is course at the
| expense of losing clarity which is why you also want a higher
| resolution.
|
| > I mentioned earlier that my Chromebook is 1080p at 13.3" and I
| can comfortably code on it with Sublime Text at a typical laptop
| viewing distance which is about 12 inches away. Viewing it from
| 24" is far too much eye strain for me.
|
| > Using this logic, I can deduce that a 27" 4k monitor at 163 PPI
| would likely strain my eyes a bit because the Chromebook's PPI is
| 165 PPI. Yeah sure, I can technically read the text, but it takes
| way too much effort.
|
| It doesn't take more work for your eyes to process higher
| resolutions. For one the your eyeballs have better resolution
| than your screen for another books are generally 300ppi or
| better. It becomes increasingly straining because the font size
| that is appropriate for reading up close is increasingly small.
| You can simulate the same experience by trying to read a book
| from increasingly far away.
|
| My primary monitor is literally a 27" with 163 DPI with a 1080p
| screen beside it. It's scaled so that text is the same size on
| both displays. One isn't harder to read than the other.
| causality0 wrote:
| I desperately wish there were commercially available 3:2 desktop
| displays in the 24-30 inch range. Hell I'd even take a 16:10
| 2560x1600 but they're simply not available unless you want to set
| a thirty inch monstrosity on your desk.
| [deleted]
| torginus wrote:
| I can't recommend getting a 40 to 46ish inch 4k TV enough.
| They're crazy cheap, and are the size and resolution of 4 regular
| 1080p monitors glued together.
|
| And the real superpower is being able to have a double height
| display for code, that allows you to view twice as many lines of
| code at the same time, meanwhile still leaving half of the
| display for displaying your app/debugger/docs/git diff etc.
|
| And window management is a breeze. Windows allows snapping to a
| quarter or half of the display by default, Gnome shell can be
| configured to do the same, and Mac has an app called Magnet that
| does this.
| gnufied wrote:
| Does anyone know why manufactures don't make 34,36 inch 4k
| monitors? There are plenty of 32 inch 4k monitors but next 4k
| resolution is 42-43 inch. Nothing in-between. The whole segment
| of 32-40 inch monitor is dominated by ultra wide monitors.
| zokier wrote:
| 120-130 PPI sounds like really awkward zone. Either you have
| really good eyesight and run it at 1x scale, or deal with
| scaling issues by running it at 1.25x without actually being as
| sharp as proper hidpi. In comparison, 31.5" works well with
| 1.5x, and 43" at 1x.
| gnufied wrote:
| Heh I am running currently at 32 inch;4k at 1x. I do find it
| tad small and I was thinking a 36 inch will be almost
| perfect.
| pottertheotter wrote:
| I've wondered the same thing, and assumed it had to do with the
| GPU you would need to run them. I just looked and there appear
| to be at least a couple models:
| https://pcpartpicker.com/products/monitor/#r=512002160
| NathanOsullivan wrote:
| Ultrawide are actually still quite standardized.
|
| The most common size is 34" . They are the same height as a
| 16:9 27" and the same amount of vertical pixels - one of
| 1080,1440, 2160. It is derived from the same panel as what goes
| into a 27", just longer.
|
| The next common size is 38" @ 3840x1600 . I haven't done the
| math, but these are presumably derived from 16:9 42" 3840x2160
| panels, with the bottom 560 pixels cut off.
|
| I'm not aware of any '32" 16:9 but longer' ultrawide yet, but
| they will likely happen at some point.
|
| I think you are right that there's nothing readily available
| between 32" and 42", but ultrawide do not contradict that UW
| panels are a niche product line so they use existing panel PPI
| arrangements.
| grujicd wrote:
| On Windows I still prefer to run 100% scaling. Yes, most new
| software correctly handle hidpi, but you'll encounter issues here
| and there.
|
| That said, if you run 1080p on 24", and want to upgrade to a
| larger display, 1440p 32" will give you the same dpi. You can
| have them side by side and everything will look the same at 100%
| on both screens.
| epx wrote:
| Picked a ultrawide because some IDEs like XCode need a lot of
| horizontal real estate.
|
| My LG 34" is a bit limited in vertical size, so would buy a 38"
| or bigger next time. The 1080p resolution is limited but not a
| dealbreaker for me since I look at it 70cm away (corrective eye
| surgery = focus locked to infinity).
| karmakaze wrote:
| One thing to watch for is that macOS often uses YPbPr mode
| (instead of RGB) with non-Apple (or Apple-store LG) displays.
| I've especially noticed this with Dell's and some others. Using
| DisplayPort may help, but the `patch-edid.rb` was always my go-to
| solution.
| rambambram wrote:
| > "This will make fonts and porn...I mean professional Photoshop
| graphics that you design look really sharp."
|
| Author about retina displays.
| WesolyKubeczek wrote:
| Make no mistake, good fonts ARE porn.
| [deleted]
| camhenlin wrote:
| I'm currently using a 43 inch LG monitor (43UD79). I transitioned
| to this monitor from a 27" iMac + 27" Apple Thunderbolt Display
| setup, but was forced to switch to a single external monitor when
| work bought me a MacBook, and I wanted more real estate than the
| single external thunderbolt. I think the large 4k is a step down
| from the two _nice_ 27 inch screens. I'd like to switch to the
| Apple pro display but haven't been able to justify the price to
| myself as of yet.
| lnsru wrote:
| Have this huge Philips 436M6VBPAB/00 43" monitor. I don't want to
| go back to anything smaller. Designing printed circuit board on
| it is a pleasure. The quality of the picture is not very good,
| but it does the job. Of course, I need another shelf behind my
| table to put this monitor far enough from my eyes. For text only
| tasks I would take a widescreen monitor directly on my table.
| molszanski wrote:
| There is another good article about monitors and how to configure
| them https://tonsky.me/blog/monitors/
| WestCoastJustin wrote:
| 3 x 4k vertical. One you do that you'll never go back. Like
| looking into the matrix.
| zuwvcfxanh wrote:
| All I really want is a 96x2 PPI monitor because I'm mainly on
| Windows and that's what widgets look their best at. 24",
| 3840x2560 (for 96 x 2 PPI, 3:2 aspect ratio), 120Hz, 10 bits per
| color, topping out bandwidth at exactly two lanes of UHBR 20 of
| DisplayPort 2.0 would be my holy grail.
| amiga-workbench wrote:
| I've got 3 1200p IPS panels on a VESA stand, I think its pretty
| ideal.
|
| I really do wish 1600p 16:10 panels were more common, as I think
| its the ideal sweet spot for pixel density and not pissing away
| compute power.
| salamandersauce wrote:
| I would also pay attention to reviews and keep an eye out for
| problems like DisplayPort deep sleep. I have two monitors, one
| goes into DP deep sleep with no way to disable and the other
| doesn't. The monitor that doesn't will always wake first and all
| windows will end up moved onto that monitor since the DP deep
| sleep monitor is technically "off" for a few seconds. As you can
| imagine reorganizing all your windows every time you come out of
| sleep is a bit of a PITA. Fortunately this is one area where
| Windows 11 helps as they added some feature to better help
| laptops reconnect to external displays. It's still a problem on
| other OSs IME though.
| NavinF wrote:
| Pretty much every high end monitor has that issue. It's a
| conflict between idle power savings regulations and the
| hardware needed for 4K 120hz.
|
| I just disable "turn display off after x minutes" in windows,
| set a black screensaver, and leave the monitor and PC fully
| powered 24 hours a day. This does waste power, but unless
| reasonable sleep modes that only power off the panel become
| available that's what you gotta do.
| notreallyserio wrote:
| Have you tried Powertoys FancyZones? I'd be curious to hear if
| it helps to persist window positions or at least reset them
| quickly if they end up in the wrong place.
| salamandersauce wrote:
| No, I hadn't heard of it. Windows 11 also sort of works
| around it you just have to wait a few seconds for it to
| rejigger the windows so I no longer need a workaround. I did
| use it with tiling window manager (stumpWM) on Linux but that
| just resulted in an even worse problem where I couldn't even
| use the 2nd monitor after returning from sleep.
| wruza wrote:
| Someone told here earlier it's now built into w11.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| This behavior is the single biggest drawback DisplayPort has
| over DVI.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| 24" 4K or 27" 5K is ideal, though the latter are still fairly
| expensive if you buy them outside of getting a retina iMac.
| Frankly, if you develop on a mac and can choose/buy your own
| computer, the 27" retina iMac is a pretty sweet deal (though I'm
| curious how it will be refreshed this year). Dell has a 32" 8K
| now, but that is sort of too big and could cause neck strain if
| used for programming.
| Kon5ole wrote:
| I got a 8k 55" tv for just under 1000 usd a while back and can't
| imagine spending a cent on anything less now. Maybe a 2x2 grid of
| 27" 4k's but I'd be annoyed by the bevels being right in the
| middle of my view.
|
| Unfortunately I recently discovered it was a fluke of history,
| prices have gone up and I can't even seem to find 55" 8k anymore.
| I really hope someone puts the same panel in a consumer monitor
| with displayport inputs soon. I'd pay out of my own pocket to
| have this setup at work.
| Okkef wrote:
| I recently got a 27" 4k monitor that I use at 2x scaling, and I'm
| never going back to fewer pixels per inch.
|
| When I now have to look at monitors with a lower PPIU it hurts my
| eyes. I can see the individual pixels very clearly and letters
| are blurry. Much less eyestrain on 4k, can recommend!
| MrBuddyCasino wrote:
| Even considering a resolution below 4k on a large monitor is
| absurd. This invalidated the whole article for me.
| vosper wrote:
| 3440 x 1440 works well for me. Planning to stack another.
| colordrops wrote:
| 100% agree. I don't understand how anyone uses lower DPI
| screens at this point. I got one from work and immediately
| packed it up and returned it once I founded out it was lower
| res. A large curved display at 1080p has pixels the size
| peanuts.
| fwoty wrote:
| For text rendering, 4k doesn't really work for 27" or bigger.
| It'd work for 24" because you could do true @2x, but there
| aren't many out there. For 27", besides the UltraFine 5k, I'd
| prefer just using @1x with 1440p too.
| colordrops wrote:
| I don't understand you comment. My 4k 27" renders fonts
| just fine.
| bladegash wrote:
| Same here - have three 27inch 4k Ultrafine monitors and
| fonts render just fine (and are generally amazing).
| Meritiooo wrote:
| My eizo 27" 4k likes to tell a different story.
| pivo wrote:
| Everyone's different, I guess. For me, I'm often struck by
| how lovely things look on my 27" 4K monitor. I have several
| older 1440 monitors that I no longer use because they look
| so grainy and unpleasant now.
|
| (Edit: I'm using macOS, might be different for other
| systems)
| odshoifsdhfs wrote:
| I have one like that, and having a MBP retina driving it below
| it, I can't not notice the pixels on the 4k monitor. I wish we
| could have more options either 24@4K or 27@5K. Having a retina
| display next to it makes the differences quite apparent.
| dan1234 wrote:
| I'd second the more 24"@4ks! I've had 2x24" 1080ps for years,
| and I really think they're the sweet spot for my setup. I
| think 2x27" will be too large, and the super wide monitors
| lose too much real estate vs 2x monitors.
| secondcoming wrote:
| Funny, I'm the opposite. I don't think the price increase for
| 4k is worth the PPI gain. I 'upgraded' to [0] and I would have
| stuck with 2k but my laptop was 4k (also not worth it IMO) and
| having a thunderbolt connection in the monitor is quite useful.
|
| [0] https://www.samsung.com/uk/monitors/high-
| resolution/tu87f-32...
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Funny I have a 27" 4k and it's _low_ resolution compared to for
| example a basic MacBook Pro laptop screen.
| hyakosm wrote:
| The lack of options for 27 inch 5K monitors is disappointing.
| There is nothing cheaper than the old Ultrafine 5K.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| There used to be more options in that market segment but
| lack of interest kinda made them extinct.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| Gamers and business buyers drive the market. Neither care
| about pixel density.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Business buyers care about text... which is better with
| higher pixel density.
| conartist wrote:
| I've been on the fence about updating to 4K from an Ultrawide
| but the eye strain is the big reason I want to.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> 4k monitor that I use at 2x scaling, and I'm never going
| back to fewer pixels per inch.
|
| Doesn't that scaling make it effectively 1080? I use a 55"
| curved 4k TV and will never go back. The ability to "spread
| stuff out on the desktop" is unmatched.
| colordrops wrote:
| Depends on the scaling. They are probably not talking about
| pixel scaling, but font and UI scaling, which means things
| stay just as sharp when scaled up.
| sgt wrote:
| No, the point of 4k and scaling is that you still have a very
| high pixel density, so things look smooth and sharp. I would
| not think a native resolution using a 4k 27" screen would
| make much sense, as things would be tiny.
| wruza wrote:
| Don't try 144hz then, because it is as addictive, but no cheap
| 4k/144hz options exist yet in IPS category (although the
| situation is much better than say 4-5 years ago).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-06 23:01 UTC)