[HN Gopher] Ideal monitor rotation for programmers (2021)
___________________________________________________________________
Ideal monitor rotation for programmers (2021)
Author : AndrewKemendo
Score : 487 points
Date : 2023-12-29 05:39 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (sprocketfox.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (sprocketfox.io)
| linecept wrote:
| 45deg makes a hell lot of sense. No line breaks needed anymore.
| therein wrote:
| I thought you were making a clever joke until I visited the
| link.
|
| https://sprocketfox.io/xssfox/images/PXL_20211202_035205492....
|
| Something about this is hilarious.
| dexzod wrote:
| Just looking at it makes me feel dizzy
| _the_inflator wrote:
| Watching this picture, I am desperately waiting for some
| box2d animation to appear.
| dr_kiszonka wrote:
| This looks like I would be spending most of my day scrolling
| : - )
| starkparker wrote:
| (2021)
|
| Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29417484
| dang wrote:
| Thanks! Macroexpanded:
|
| _Ideal Monitor Rotation for Programmers_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29417484 - Dec 2021 (419
| comments)
| PDTao5Q2TMaTp7U wrote:
| 1 vert and 1 horiz is actually my favorite setup. I just dont
| have space for it next to my ultrawide.
| eru wrote:
| See the linked article for an improvement.
| raingros wrote:
| Maybe it would be smarter to use one of the these?
|
| Samsung 43" M70A 4K UHD Smart Monitor
| https://www.samsung.com/us/computing/monitors/smart-monitors...
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| I'm curious about these, but I feel like it's too much vertical
| space, which would require a lot of head movement.
| winrid wrote:
| I liked my Samsung ultra wide until it started to hurt my eyes
| from the terrible PWM modulation...
| SSLy wrote:
| How do I check whether my display is having fine PWM
| modulation?
| raingros wrote:
| Look for an in-depth review of your display model. Just
| checked for my Asus VG278QR and I found out that the
| background illumination isn't reduced by PWM.
| user_7832 wrote:
| It might be worth checking the modes available, perhaps
| cinema or eyecare modes may help if available. Not a monitor
| but on our Samsung TV some modes flicker visibly while others
| don't. Fiddling around the settings accidentally turned it on
| for me.
| bun_terminator wrote:
| Ever since I found out that many new monitors don't have an RGB
| subpixel layout, I've been paranoid. I can't find the layout
| for this one. any idea?
| ycombinete wrote:
| How do they layout their sub pixels?!
| bun_terminator wrote:
| I think BGR is most popular. Which breaks (some) subpixel
| font rendering
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| At 4k, I've found grayscale antialiasing quite sufficient and
| don't miss the fringing effect of subpixel AA.
| bun_terminator wrote:
| I worry about all the code I _don 't_ know about. Who knows
| what other software I can't control relies on RGB layout.
| Maybe irrational, but I don't want to risk it. Especially
| since you gain nothing in return.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| OLED often isn't RGB, and you gain a great deal there.
| bun_terminator wrote:
| I think it's completely orthogonal issues, no? You
| probably refer to OLEDs superior black levels etc. But
| this thread was about subpixel rendering. One can be bad
| while the other can not. It's unrelated.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| They're related because many OLEDs use a non-RGB pixel
| layout, so it's necessary to turn off sub-pixel anti-
| aliasing, and the net result seems worth that tradeoff
| now that screens are high-resolution enough that sub-
| pixel anti-aliasing makes less of a difference.
| bun_terminator wrote:
| But the high resolution is not a property of OLED
| displays. The tradeoff might be worth it, but it's still
| a tradeoff I'm not willing to risk.
| dsp_person wrote:
| +1 to that. Also get 120Hz if you can (but has it's own
| headaches to solve, including e.g. HDMI 2.1 isn't supported in
| open source drivers).
|
| I recently started using a LG 42" C2. Coming from two 27"
| monitors at 2560x1440, the 42" 3840x2160 is about the same
| pixel density and only 12.5% more pixels total
| (3840*2160/(2*2560*1440))
|
| The 42" screen is like portrait mode on demand. Whenever I
| tried portrait mode on the 27" screens, it was nice sometimes
| but usually felt limited in width. With the 42" a quick tile of
| a window to either side (Super+Left/Right) gives you the height
| of portrait mode, plus more width (and adjustable to your
| liking).
|
| Also for those now spare 27" monitors kicking around, I grabbed
| a vertical monitor mount to stack them (both landscape, stacked
| vertically) next to the 42". This has proven to be even better
| and I love having the zones this creates.
| ajross wrote:
| > get 120Hz if you can
|
| For reading static text? Why on earth would you care?
| ParetoOptimal wrote:
| I found the increased smoothness scrolling with 144hz to be
| both noticeable and nice compared to 60hz.
| nordsieck wrote:
| I really wish that someone would make a 43" TV/monitor in 8k.
|
| The smallest that I've seen is 55" and that just too big to be
| comfortably used as a monitor.
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| I used a 30hz 4k tv as a monitor back in the day, it was not
| enjoyable with substantial input lag making photoshop etc
| impossible to use. Be patient, it will happen eventually.
| LegitShady wrote:
| because its full of features I actively don't want (smart tv
| apps, integrated IoT hub, voice assistants, etc etc) and only a
| 60hz VA panel. Spending money on spyware while having a
| relatively low end panel.
| ajross wrote:
| That's what I do. Not with that specific product, but with a
| sub-$300 television from Amazon.
|
| I've done the separate monitors thing, I've done the "portrait
| monitors for text" thing. Really the best solution is just a
| big flat plane that subtends ~60 degrees horizontally and just
| about (9/16)*60 vertically, which is enough to put the top just
| above eye level and the bottom just above the table. Plenty of
| space to put your windows where you need 'em without all the
| fussing about optimizing layout.
|
| And it's dirt cheap.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| The 22deg solution is just missing a triangular window
| implementation, or perhaps a "split diagonally" window view
| option.
| lifthrasiir wrote:
| I do think the optimal screen is more or less a triangle or a
| semi-circle. A rotated rectangular screen is a very crude
| approximation.
| akho wrote:
| I think we need a wayland protocol for this, going forward.
| LispSporks22 wrote:
| 90 degrees is best for me and my Go code. Can fit tons more "if
| err != nil" blocks that way.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| You could do two column layout that way too, because nobody
| should write more than 80 characters wide.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| Why, so your friends using vintage vt100 terminals can read
| your code without scrolling?
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| No need to limit to 100 cols - VT100 with AVO (Advanced
| Video Option) or VT102 could do 132 columns!
|
| Would have been cool to pair up a terminal like this with a
| BBC micro or other similar vintage computer for code
| editing, although the terminal would have been more
| expensive than the computer.
| layer8 wrote:
| I find up to about 100 characters to be manageable from a
| readability perspective, but yes, not much more.
| Nition wrote:
| The actual "ideal" rotation for maximum line length would be
| closer to 23deg rather than 22deg, right? Because Atan(9/21) =
| 23.20deg.
|
| Also... could we go further? If we're treating the screen's
| content as an arbitrary plane, what about tilting the content of
| screen away from you like SNES Mode 7 or the Star Wars text
| crawl? Infinite screen height!
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Does character height affect that calculation? The longest line
| possible wont be able to render at the ends, so is it possible
| there is a shorter line on a different angle that can render
| more text?
| layer8 wrote:
| I believe you are right. For reasonably small character
| heights, it would decrease the angle slightly.
| layer8 wrote:
| Since the monitor is curved, it might even be closer to 24deg.
| isoprophlex wrote:
| The ideal obviously is a monitor spinning at the magic angle of
| ~54.74 degrees, thus removing the influence of anisotropic
| interactions
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_angle
| Hugsun wrote:
| This Wikipedia article reads like a joke. Very funny.
| Nition wrote:
| I love how it's all this advanced stuff and then like, it's
| also a great angle for your garden hose.
| huytersd wrote:
| When has line length ever been an issue? That 22 degree thing is
| hell. You can see like 5 lines, it would drive me insane.
| xxs wrote:
| >When has line length ever been an issue?
|
| The early 90s - even the glorious VGA didn't have much large
| than 80 columns, it took VESA to bring the 132x43 text mode.
| Then early '00, with whoever managed to come with the extreme
| anti-pattern of having extremely long class names in Java,
| 1024x768 was not enough by far (and 800x600 was a joke).
| tecleandor wrote:
| Although I think almost nobody follows it anymore, Python's
| PEP-8 still dictates lines of a maximum of 79 columns by
| default :D
| Nition wrote:
| The article is just for fun, I'm sure it's not their real daily
| setup.
| anonymous344 wrote:
| is this a joke?
|
| I have 2 to 4 monitors for full stack web dev (win10) and having
| separate monitors instead of 1 big one is just 100% win
| AndroTux wrote:
| No, this article is 100% serious. I just tried it and it really
| works.
| littlecranky67 wrote:
| +1 for team separate monitors for webdev. Although I am on
| macOS, I use 2x 24" (with thin bezels put next to each other)
| plus laptop screen. The handling of the OS "window manager" is
| just smoother for separate screens as opposed to ultra wide:
| separate workspaces per screen, shortcuts (via BTT) to move
| windows to a specific screen and maximize etc.
|
| Too bad apple decided that using two external monitors is a
| "pro" feature and requires at least an "Pro" M1/M2/M3
| processor. Even though my 2x 24" run at 1080p and I have been
| using them every since with my original MacbookPro from 2014
| without issues...
| TylerE wrote:
| Use the free square app and you can set up key combos for all
| your window management.
| littlecranky67 wrote:
| with my existing better touch tool setup? How does square
| replace the multiple workspaces in Mission Control? Etc.
|
| Plus, what is the URL for that app? "square app macos"
| google returns vastly different/unrelated results.
| tuananh wrote:
| > So this here I think is the best monitor orientation for
| software development. It provides the longest line lengths and no
| longer need to worry about that pesky 80 column limit.
|
| Author optimized for this metrics. If you dont need this, no need
| to try :D
| imiric wrote:
| If the author is serious, and works in a team, they would still
| need to worry about that "pesky" line length limit, though.
|
| I really don't get the argument against short line lengths, and
| that they're somehow a relic of old display resolutions. I find
| them genuinely helpful.
|
| Having to glance horizontally to read code is suboptimal
| compared to keeping my eyes fixed on a relatively narrow block.
| Being able to fit more documents open side-by-side without
| arbitrary line breaks is always helpful, especially when
| merging, even on ultrawide displays. This is why I still prefer
| shorter lengths, and try to keep it near the traditional 80 as
| much as possible. I compromise when working in a team and if
| someone has a different preference, but I never got the appeal,
| honestly.
| wakeupcall wrote:
| Agree. Shorter lines are more readable the same way narrow
| paragraphs in multi-column layouts are more readable, as it's
| easier to follow to the next line.
|
| I'm not strict on the 80 column rule. Readability for code is
| a balance in intent for me first and foremost, but I also do
| try to keep lengths close to it.
|
| I used to follow 2 source files side-by-side easily on a
| 16:10 monitor. I'm struggling to do that on my 16:9 now due
| to how long the lines are on my current codebase with a
| regular editor.
|
| Comparisons are hourly occurrences for me. Long lines require
| scrolling or word-wrapping, either of which is just horrific.
| If I try the same on github, which wastes even more
| horizontal space, two source files are barely fitting side-
| by-side even with 80 columns.
|
| I'm kind of surprised authors writing these long lines, which
| also will review those long lines in the future, and not put
| off by the inconvenience they're doing to themselves.
| user_7832 wrote:
| On a similar note, I once again wish more displays were 3:2, and
| more people knew about it. The human central (not peripheral)
| vision's ratio is very close to 3:2, yet due to economics of
| scale 16:9 is marginally cheaper and much more common.
|
| And if someone is wondering, no, rotating 16:9 vertically for
| more vertical space doesn't help because it makes it very narrow
| - for me IMO a square display would be the best. (There are also
| minor subpixel rendering issues, along with viewing angle issues
| if using a TN panel but those are still more minor.)
| mgoetzke wrote:
| A reason why i liked the SurfaceBook so much. Their aspect
| ratio was near perfect. Now I am back to MBP which comes second
| kookamamie wrote:
| Yawn. Get on with the times. I've been using ultrawide (21:9)
| for years, and would definitely not want to go back to peeking
| through a square'ish hole.
| user_7832 wrote:
| UW is fine if you've got a 28" or more desktop (or maybe
| larger even), but I'd take a 28" 3:2 like the Huawei Mateview
| over a 28" UW any day of the week. The UW probably has 20 or
| 30% lesser screen area.
| wtallis wrote:
| Ultrawides only start to make sense at about 34" and up,
| corresponding to 1440 pixels vertically. Anything less than
| that would be worthless for productivity (ie. not movies or
| first-person gaming) given today's UI trends of massive
| horizontal bars/ribbons sized for small touchscreens.
|
| Likewise, a monitor in portrait usually needs to be at
| least 1200(w)x1920(h) (ie. a 24" 16:10) to be usable for
| browsing today's web without getting served up a mobile-
| specific layout too often. A reasonably-sized 1080p display
| in portrait can be great for stuff like text editors and
| terminal windows.
| misterS wrote:
| Starting a comment with <<yawn>> immediately shows dismissal
| of and disrespect for the person you're replying to.
|
| You might want to refresh your memory of HN's guidelines.
| Link at the bottom.
| Wytwwww wrote:
| Imagine how useless a 21:9 laptop would be.. It all comes
| down screen size.
| LegitShady wrote:
| I only use 32:9 laptops for exactly that reason.
| supersrdjan wrote:
| yesss... I discovered how wrong the widescreen displays are
| after I had found an old IBM Thinkpad in my basement and tried
| it. To add to what you said, I will also point out that it's
| the vertical space that often gets pinched by toolbars and
| such, effectively squishing your working area to an even wider
| ratio. And when working with text (reading, writing), the left
| and right edges of my screen are just slabs of emptiness. Given
| all that, a taller display feels more roomy for the same
| surface area.
|
| The only disadvantage though is that putting two
| windows/panes/buffers of anything side by side would no longer
| be as convenient?
|
| Do you have a 3:2 screen yourself, which one?
| sveitly wrote:
| That's also part why I love the Firefox vertical tree-style
| tabs addon.
| spockz wrote:
| This is why and how I use a 5k ultra wide. It allows me to
| make two more-or-less square windows in the same monitor.
| user_7832 wrote:
| > the vertical space that often gets pinched by toolbars and
| such, effectively squishing your working area to an even
| wider ratio. And when working with text (reading, writing),
| the left and right edges of my screen are just slabs of
| emptiness.
|
| Absolutely agree, and it's amazing/infuriating when
| people/companies don't realise it. My mom's old Asus could
| barely fit a few lines of text on its small screen after all
| its toolbars in chrome. You shouldn't need to scroll multiple
| times to read a 3-paragraph email on a display where it fits
| if it were the only text! (And of course about 60% of the
| space on the sides was wasted.)
|
| I don't have a 3:2 display yet, though I do have an old 16:10
| 21" monitor which is alright. My ipad (10.9") is okayish as
| well, but I'm planning to buy a 16" 3:2 portable monitor
| soon. Do you have an 3:2 screens?
| supersrdjan wrote:
| No, I was only aware of the Eizo models, too expensive for
| me, but am at this moment looking at various
| recommendations people are sharing in this thread.
| TylerE wrote:
| At least on OS X, using a free utility, I can set two apps to
| exactly split the screen with two key presses and one mouse
| click. ON a 16:9 it comes back to being an actually decent
| aspect ratio for reading text.
| cylinder714 wrote:
| Eizo made a 1920x1920 display that I think has been
| discontinued; a very good review:
|
| https://youtu.be/gJG9HOQITrg
|
| The LG DualUp is an almost-square 16:18 monitor, higher
| resolution than the Eizo and almost half the price.
| user_7832 wrote:
| Thanks for the review link of the monitor, don't think I'd
| seen one yet!
|
| I've got my eye out the LG one, but unfortunately it's still
| a little out of my student budget. I hope to get it soon,
| fingers crossed!
| cylinder714 wrote:
| I checked this morning, and LG is selling it for USD$600,
| $100 off:
|
| https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-28mq780-b-dualup-monitor
|
| And Google is showing prices from other retailers as low as
| $500.
| dr_kiszonka wrote:
| This LG looks great for a dual setup and has a decent PPI.
| Thanks!
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| Unfortunately, unusual screen sizes and OLED aren't as
| available in combination. And since I spend all day in a
| terminal, having the black background be _off_ is wonderful.
| I would love 3:2, but I get more value from OLED.
| Keyframe wrote:
| Oh nice, thanks for this! I was disappointed when I went to
| buy EIZO one, only to find it was discontinued. 1:1 and OLED
| would be awesome, if such a thing existed of course. Not only
| for writing, but also for emulation purposes - close enough
| to 4:3 and 3:4 (yoko/tate modes) not to have to rotate the
| screen, just a bit of black on the sides.
| user_7832 wrote:
| If you're very interested and have the time/inclination,
| you can DIY a similar monitor using the panel and its
| driver from Aliexpress. Let me know if you want more info.
| Casseres wrote:
| I have 3 of these that I bought new back in 2018, that I'm
| considering selling in the Houston area.
|
| I haven't used them in 2 years, but coincidentally, earlier
| today I thought about setting up a new workstation that will
| use all three. So this comment is to gauge if there is any
| interest.
|
| I'm an Air Traffic Controller, and I discovered these
| monitors because we used them in a simulator. At the time,
| the screens we used for controlling traffic were 2048x2048
| (that our tech-ops said cost 20k), but recently we switched
| to larger rectangular monitors (also Eizo).
|
| If anyone in Houston is interested, email me at
| thomas@(username).com
| Wytwwww wrote:
| For laptops definitely. Screen above ~24"? I don't really think
| this is that relevant and if have multiple windows open side by
| side it's the opposite (16:9 is more ergonomic than 3:2,).
| okasaki wrote:
| Huawei makes a 3:2 28" monitor -
| https://consumer.huawei.com/uk/monitors/mateview/specs/
|
| It's 3840*2560
| user_7832 wrote:
| I'm aware about this monitor but unfortunately it seems that
| production has either stopped or slowed down, while it was
| available to buy some months/a year ago, now it's not.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _The human central (not peripheral) vision's ratio is very
| close to 3:2_
|
| That's irrelevant, though, when monitor size is much larger
| than our central vision.
|
| What does matter is neck strain. The reality is that you want
| to keep your head level while moving it right/left. Right/left
| doesn't have to work against gravity, while up/down does.
|
| This is why wider is better than taller for something monitor-
| sized.
| bdavbdav wrote:
| I have a Huawei MateView 3:2 4k(+) monitor. It's gorgeous.
| Justsignedup wrote:
| I love this. It reminds me of the two vs 4 spaces. And some dude
| will inevitably say 3 spaces fuck you. My point is... We need
| this in the office so that every time I turn on video chat I have
| to explain why I'm slanted.
| teekert wrote:
| I think a servo motor should be behind the screen and it should
| rotate depending on whether I look up or down or sideways. Added
| benefit: if you spin the screen fast enough you get a circular
| display! Of course this means you have to precisely time screen
| refresh rates and invent a new type of rotation resistant power
| and video cable.
| rypskar wrote:
| >>invent a new type of rotation resistant power and video cable
|
| That should not be difficult, plug cables into the base instead
| of directly into the screen and have circular donut shaped
| plates connecting the base and the screen instead of cables.
| The plates do of course have to have a spring to put the
| correct pressure to give a good connection even after some wear
| on the plates
| genpfault wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slip_ring
| zokier wrote:
| Instead of mechanical slip-rings use fiber-optic rotary joint
| so you avoid awkward bandwidth limitations. You could
| probably make do with plain off-the-shelf components here
| imp0cat wrote:
| Auto-rotating wallmounts are a thing!
|
| https://www.samsung.com/us/televisions-home-theater/televisi...
| LASR wrote:
| Tangentially related thought: Take my advice, don't go ultra-
| wide. Go with a large 4k. You get more pixels for cheaper.
|
| The only ultrawide that makes any sense is the 5k x 2k resolution
| one. These have more pixels than a single 4K. But they are
| expensive.
|
| Even then, a 16:9 5K monitor has more pixels.
|
| I personally use 3 x 27 inch 4K - which is cheaper than a single
| 5k Ultra-wide and gives you a TON more pixels.
| danieldisu wrote:
| Always focus on PPI, some rough numbers
|
| 27" 5k (5120 x 2880) -> 218 PPI
|
| 32" 4k (3840 x 2160) -> 137.68 PPI
|
| 34" 5k (5120 x 2160) -> 163.44 PPI
|
| 39,7 5K (5120 x 2160) -> 139.97 PPI
|
| Apple Pro Display XDR 32" 6k (6016 x 3384) -> 218 PPI
| Kuraj wrote:
| PPI doesn't translate to screen estate, though
| notorandit wrote:
| And too many PPI won't make text easier to read, unless you
| magnify the screen, thus actually loosing PPIs.
|
| PPIs will display sharper pictures, provided that they have
| enough quality.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| The text _is_ sharper with a higher PPI even if the
| actual size of the text is the same. I have a 4k 24 "
| screen, and text is much _much_ sharper than on any FHD
| 24 ". Hell, it's noticeably sharper even than on my 14"
| FHD laptop. And sharper text helps with legibility, so I
| find I can actually use smaller font sizes more
| comfortably than the "regular" size on a lower-res
| screen.
|
| You don't get more real estate, indeed, since that
| depends on zoom level. However, depending on your setup
| and habits, you may actually gain some. In my case, I use
| 4k at 100% zoom. I don't care for window decorations,
| interface icons and so on, so it's not an issue if
| they're small.
| brandall10 wrote:
| If you go up PPI by a percentage you can reduce font size
| by a similar amount. Too small to be legible? Literally
| move the screen closer. No need to magnify anything.
|
| Have a 27" 4k monitor and a 42" 4k monitor? Move the 27"
| close enough that it takes up the same FOV as the 4k and
| you get the same experience.
|
| This isn't like home theatre where you're constrained to
| the dimensions of a room (ie. wall or console location a
| TV sits on top of and seat viewing distance).
| ParetoOptimal wrote:
| For eye health, I've gotten the recommendation to keep my
| monitor an arms length away.
|
| If that is true, I'd consider move the screen closer to
| not be an option.
| brandall10 wrote:
| You don't want it _too_ close, but it can be closer than
| that if you have normal eyesight. The line should be
| where your eyes have trouble focusing and add a small
| buffer. For me that 's about a foot. So wherever you're
| comfortable looking at a smartphone (or really any
| object) is a good point of reference.
|
| Otherwise this is a commonly propagated myth related to
| radiation from early TV sets.
|
| https://theopticalshoppetn.com/is-sitting-too-close-to-
| the-t...
| wongarsu wrote:
| My preferred setup in terms of screen real estate is 24" 2k
| (2560x1440) without scaling. In terms of PPI it's a bit low
| (122), but 244 PPI 24" screens are hard to get. 1.5x scaling
| is an option
| baq wrote:
| I like 25x14 on a 27" and the fact that on a mac you have
| to buy BetterDisplay just to make it work about 80% as good
| as on Windows makes me... not at all surprised since I'm
| supposed to use an apple display with an apple computer,
| right?
| pivo wrote:
| Why not just get a 4K 27"? They can be had for around
| $220 USD nowadays. I paid that for mine.
|
| I do dislike the fact that Apple removed decent support
| for lower resolution monitors, but I also don't see why
| anyone would prefer them to higher res unless it's a
| budget issue.
| baq wrote:
| 4k is... too low res for desktop use on a mac. 25x14
| upscaled to 5k only to be downscaled again to device
| native resolution by a $15 tool still gives me more
| usable screen real estate than a native 4k and the $15
| makes it so text is actually legible...
| pivo wrote:
| By 25x14, do you mean 2560x1440? If so, are you saying
| that a $15 device will magically make a 2560x1440 monitor
| higher resolution than 3840x2160? If that's what you're
| saying, do you have a link that provides some detail on
| this because I don't believe it.
|
| I'm also unable to believe someone would consider 27" 4K
| text illegible on a mac since that's what I use that
| every day and can read text comfortably. Edit: Unless
| you're using it unscaled, then yeah, text isn't that
| legible.
|
| These are strange statements to make without any detail.
| baq wrote:
| It isn't a device, it's a software tool. It doesn't make
| the monitor magically 2x the resolution; it can trick
| macos to render onto a 5k buffer and then downscale the
| output to the physical display so it looks not-broken.
|
| https://github.com/waydabber/BetterDisplay
|
| I'm saying macOS is unusable on native resolutions -
| everything is either too small or too blurry, so a 4k
| display won't do me any good. 25x14 is the sweet spot for
| me, but I guess Apple decided I'm holding it wrong,
| because they want me to get a 5k display to get usable
| 25x14.
| wongarsu wrote:
| The core issue with 4k on Mac is that unlike Windows or
| Linux, Mac doesn't have usable 125%, 150% or 175% scaling
| modes. But at 1x font rendering on Macs sucks, and at 2x
| you basically have a fancy 1080p screen; it just doesn't
| fit as much as an unscaled 1440p screen.
|
| This forces you into 5k screens, or tricks to make the OS
| do actually useful scaling.
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| My 5k2k LG 40WP95C-W is an absolute dream. Worth every penny
| for dev.
| liamwire wrote:
| Could you expand on this a bit? How's the ergonomics, window
| management, etc?
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| The curve is just right, the width is just right at ~60cm
| away. The ratio is the real winner. I can split it into
| thirds and each third has enough height (2160px) and width
| (1706px) to be useful. Each third is taller than it is
| wide, which is ideal for coding, web, documents.
|
| It's more like having 3 portrait monitors for productivity
| work. For media editing, splitting the monitor into 2 is
| like a classic dual monitor setup with enough width for
| widescreen video.
|
| Then, if you really need it, it works great as a single
| wide monitor without making the workspace too "letterbox"
| like other ultrawides.
|
| Honestly, for me, it is the absolute ideal.
| ethanbond wrote:
| I was within inches of buying this this holiday season but
| was offput by people's brightness complaints. Figured I could
| wait another iteration until either the brightness or the
| refresh rate gets better... the 5K2K seems like _the move_
| though.
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| In practice, the brightness and refresh rate have not been
| an issue in a software development / home office setting.
| It has been more than enough.
|
| For gaming it isn't as desirable. HDR also gives the
| brightness a boost for media so it is plenty fine for that
| too.
|
| The only thing that I found annoying is lack of inputs.
| There is 1DP and 1TB, and 2 HDMI (60hz). I wanted at least
| 2DP and 2TB to be super useful with a dock and a few other
| inputs.
|
| The size is perfect however.
|
| If LG release an OLED version better brightness, you bet
| i'll be ordering that too. It has been so ideal, the ROI
| has been better than any monitor setup i've used.
| ethanbond wrote:
| This is really useful. Maybe I'll just yolo it and give
| it a shot. Display panel advancement doesn't seem to be
| as reliably "it'll come next cycle" anyway haha. Thank
| you for your input!
| vakz wrote:
| On the contrary, I have a 49" 32:9 monitor, and for a laptop
| it's wonderful. The support for a single monitor is just way
| better than any dual (or more) setup.
|
| I can just connect it directly to my laptop, and it just works.
| When I had two displays I needed a docking station, and truth
| is most of those out there suck. Unless you go for the top
| models, and then you've lost all the money you saved on cheaper
| monitors. In addition you generally need a thunderbolt
| compatible dock, and that seems to come with it's own category
| of issues, assuming your laptop even supports it.
|
| Also found ultrawide easier to configure hotkeys for windows
| management.
| hau wrote:
| I think you could daisy-chain DisplayPort MST monitors, so
| that only first one would be connected to your laptop.
| superjan wrote:
| Does anybody know how to test if a monitor is compatible
| with that? And is it plug and play?
| liamwire wrote:
| My understanding is that, yes, it's plug and play. If the
| monitors have DisplayPort out, they should support daisy
| chaining.
| wongarsu wrote:
| On windows and Linux this works great. I have two Dell
| business screens, one with USB-C, a DP in and a DP out.
| Just connect another screen to the DP out, and you get two
| screens over one USB-C connection. Together with the
| charging and USB hub provided by the screen this replaces a
| docking station for me.
|
| However, Macs have spotty support for this. I believe it
| works on the newest Mac books, but not older generations,
| and not the Mac mini?
| Macha wrote:
| It doesn't work on Macbooks. References to macbooks
| supporting MST are about certain early high res monitors
| that behaved internally as multiple monitors due to
| bandwidth limitations on Displayport 1.2. That's fixed
| with higher bandwidth newer DP and HDMI revisions so the
| MST feature people care about these days is monitor
| chaining, and that is still not supported even in M2
| Macbook Pros
| barnabee wrote:
| The advantage I've found with multiple monitors is the
| ability to independently switch the "desktop" that's showing
| on each.
|
| I can have a desktop for coding, a desktop for reference docs
| and previews, another for working on non-coding tasks, one
| with general browsing, one for chat/email/calendar, etc.
|
| I've not found a satisfying way (on Mac OS on my Macbook or
| with various WMs -- Sway is my go-to) to quickly replicate
| this ability to have multiple task oriented sets of windows
| visible at the same time and make them quickly switchable
| without multiple physical screens.
| walteweiss wrote:
| How would you organise such a multiple display setup in
| sway?
|
| I use sway on my laptop only, but Gnome 45 and macOS is
| easier for me, for now. When it comes to multiple displays.
| The best feature of sway for me is the ability to assign
| apps to their workspaces, and also assign hotkeys to these
| workspaces. So e.g. cmd+alt+e opens Files app (nautilus)
| and it's always on its files workspace that I activate with
| cmd+e. Quite very useful for me. I almost never open
| windows tiled, very seldom that I have two at one screen.
|
| So with multiple displays, I am quite unsure how to
| organise that, which logic to apply here. Maybe I alt-tab
| out of old habit, but it's so much easier, cognitively
| speaking, comparing to remembering all the logic for my
| multiple displays setup.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I'm not sure what the high-level strategy is, but do note
| that there's the move workspace to
| output right
|
| and so on bindings to help out. I'll typically keep a
| workspace as "whatever windows I happen to have put in
| it, over time" and then I'll bounce them around to
| monitors as needed.
| barnabee wrote:
| Roughly speaking, my Sway config:
|
| - Assigns most apps to a specific workspace
|
| - Assigns the standard hotkeys to focus specific
| workspaces
|
| - Assigns a hotkey for Rofi to filter and focus apps
| directly
|
| - Assigns hotkeys to move a workspace to the current
| output/display
|
| - Sets hotkeys to move a workspace 1 output left/right
|
| Now I can quickly bring the most relevant contexts for a
| task to each display, and can also quickly switch to
| another context and back as needed.
|
| It's not perfect, but it's pretty good. I'd like some
| apps to be on multiple workspaces, for example. And I am
| exploring the idea of a way to search for and bring an
| app onto the main display as a centered float temporarily
| then dismiss it back to where it came from with a single
| key -- for example to bring up a Slack channel front and
| centre, reply to a message, then quickly dismiss it
| again.
| bobwaycott wrote:
| I may be misunderstanding your description, but isn't this
| how macOS built-in spaces already work? I use this daily,
| and swap desktops with ctrl+left/right and the ctrl+num
| keyboard shortcut to get direct space switching (I have 4
| for roughly the same purposes as you describe). When using
| multiple displays, I can even make each display have
| independent spaces.
| barnabee wrote:
| It's exactly how it works but only if you have mutliple
| screens.
|
| My comment was that, for this reason, 2 or 3 smaller
| (ish- ~27") 16:9 4k screens [1] (previously, 4-6 even
| smaller 4:3 screens) works much better for me because I
| can switch the spaces on my Macbook and i3/Sway virtual
| desktops on my Linux machine individually for each
| screen.
|
| If we're talking about having a smaller number of giant
| screens it would need to be able to be partitioned into
| logical "zones" for virtual desktops to enable this way
| of managing sets of windows together, and I've not found
| anything that really does this, let alone does it well
| (though honorable mention to HerbstluftWM [2] which I
| think, with patience, could probably do something pretty
| close).
|
| [1] preferably 16:10 but that seems to have died out as
| an aspect ratio :(
|
| [2] https://herbstluftwm.org/
| barefootcoder wrote:
| I'm in complete agreement with you. I use i3 (still using
| Xorg) and find the ability to have multiple desktops that I
| can move atomically between monitors to be far better than
| having to position windows individually. I put reference
| material, chat, etc, on the side monitor and then can very
| quickly move it back to the primary monitor when I need it.
| I find a normal 16:9 monitor to be just right for two side
| by side windows, or a tile of three, with one tall window
| taking half of the screen and two terminals top and bottom
| on the other side.
|
| I hate using the mouse to manage windows, and having one
| huge ultrawide just feels like a nightmare to manage -- I'd
| need some way to split it logically into 2 or 3 virtual
| monitors.
| barnabee wrote:
| With i3/Sway having the limitation of 1 workspace per
| monitor AND each app only being in 1 workspace, I could
| still use that logical splitting at times even on normal
| 16:9 displays.
| jwells89 wrote:
| I do this too. Main monitor has sets of desktops for
| "primary" tasks (e.g. IDE windows) while the secondary has
| several "auxiliary" desktops (one for email, one for chat,
| one for documentation, etc).
|
| The ability to mix and match these between monitors is
| seriously powerful and basically eliminates window
| micromanagement and seriously curbs alt/cmd-tabbing.
| Everything stays put as switching desktops becomes the
| primary form of navigation.
| Scrounger wrote:
| > I needed a docking station, and truth is most of those out
| there suck
|
| Ain't that the truth.
|
| The "top of the line" CalDigit docks are incredibly expensive
| and buggy.
|
| ...and they're on their 3rd or 4th iteration.
|
| Plus not much competition, so not much choice either.
|
| If I could go back, I would have also gotten a single
| ultrawide monitor.
|
| Plus Macbook Pros multiple monitor support sucks relative to
| windows AFAIK.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| Dell docking stations have been rock-solid for me (the
| laptop is also a Dell) and they can be had for quite cheap
| (about 50% retail) on eBay. I also balked at the price of
| caldigit units.
| bartvk wrote:
| Be very careful about Dell docking stations. It's not
| always clear whether they're based on DisplayLink or real
| Thunderbolt/USB-C. The problem with DisplayLink is that
| a) you need a driver and b) after installing the driver,
| some websites don't show video (Udemy for example). This
| is on macOS, by the way.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| Mine worked great with the Dell laptop on Linux ;) no
| drivers and video shows just fine. (Anecdata, I know)
| cduzz wrote:
| At $work they had a variety of dell docking stations
| around the cube farm.
|
| I use an old intel macbook running macos, and found that
| the docking stations with usb-c didn't support secondary
| video, while those with thunderbolt (usb-c with lightning
| bolt) worked fine for all docking station needs
| (secondary video, charging, USB keyboard / mouse / camera
| / etc).
|
| A thunderbolt docking station and a 24 inch 19:10 monitor
| transformed my home office setup. Big monitor in portrait
| mode in front of me, macbook to left, old IBM M4-1
| (trackpoint) keyboard, webcam perched on top right corner
| of macbook so I can have windows in either screen and it
| kinda looks like I'm still looking toward the camera
| instead of being rude.
|
| I've found the biggest problem with the big monitor is
| where to put the video call camera -- if you're looking
| anywhere but toward the camera it looks like you're not
| making eye contact with the people on the screen and it
| seems "rude" because there's the impression that you're
| not engaged.
| jrmg wrote:
| Ditto for Belkin docks. A Belkin Thunderbolt 3 dock can
| sometimes be had from $20 on eBay if you're prepared to
| get one with no cables.
| bartvk wrote:
| What's buggy about them? They've been pretty good to me.
| cdstamper wrote:
| In my experience CalDigit docks are really solid. The only
| issue I've ever encountered is caused by my laptop
| demanding more power than the dock will provide: when I hit
| a power usage spike sometimes my laptop will briefly drop
| connection with the dock, causing my display to momentarily
| lose signal.
|
| This is easily fixed by plugging my laptop into a separate
| USB C power supply.
| jwells89 wrote:
| Same. I've had great luck with both the TS3+ and TS4.
| What few minor gripes I've had with them have been
| resolved by firmware updates.
|
| It's other brands, especially USB-C (rather than
| Thunderbolt) stuff that I find extraordinarily flaky.
| peebeebee wrote:
| I think 27" 4k with some scaling is a good spot indeed.
|
| 32" 4k is nice as well, if you scale down to 2560x1440, or
| 3008x1692. On 32" 2x scaling (1920x1080 is just too big, and
| native (3840x2160) is just too small.
|
| But if money is no problem, 3x 24" 4k, 2x 27" 5k, or 1x 32" 6k
| is really the endgame. That 2x scaling is just soooo crisp. :)
| grujicd wrote:
| There are 32" monitors with native 2560x1440. I still prefer
| that dpi to run Windows, where some apps still have problems
| with hidpi scaling. It's mostly about older and niche apps,
| but every now and then you encounter something that doesn't
| scale well.
| peebeebee wrote:
| I do find that 4k with scaling still feels crispier than
| native 2560x1440. And I also find myself switching between
| 3008 and 2560 a lot, depending on the workload I have.
| 2560x1440 is nicer for reading, 3008 is nicer for
| programming, video editing, ...
| fudged71 wrote:
| I've been doing this lately as well, more screen real
| estate for programming than for other tasks. It's been
| working really well.
| batperson wrote:
| The PPI ratio for 32" 4k with no scaling is actually pretty
| good (at least to my eye, since it's similar to my previous
| 24" 1080p, 27" 1440p monitors). If we can agree on that, then
| the solution is to just move the monitor closer to your eyes,
| 3rd party monitor arms help with that.
| peebeebee wrote:
| 32" 4k = 137.68ppi. 27" 1440p = 108ppi. 24" 1080p =
| 91.78ppi.
|
| Significant difference. 32" 4k is not pleasant to read
| natively, and bringing it that close that is would be
| readable means you are putting things out of your focus and
| you need to start moving your head a lot.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| > then the solution is to just move the monitor closer to
| your eyes
|
| Depending on how close we're talking about, it may not be
| so great, especially with a non-curved screen, because the
| actual angle at the edges is possibly not so great anymore.
| That's the case on my 32" LG, for example (with an IPS
| panel, FWIW).
| larodi wrote:
| I find it difficult to actually figure the proper position
| where the 27" Dell 4K (still very top notch) is just as far so
| that I can see it and not have to move my head left and right.
|
| Anything beyond this size may be OK for games, but too much
| space and too much windows is actually too much of cognitive
| load.
|
| It is not a surprise that many ppl (not me though) start to
| prefer full screen terminal rather than dozen windows arranged
| in some disarray on a large screen.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| I'm very happy with a laptop monitor and 1920x1080. Browser
| goes on laptop monitor and code on the monitor.
|
| I always will be. I am about condensing information to just
| what I need.
| sys_64738 wrote:
| This is my work method but use just code (terminal window
| driving tmux) on laptop monitor and 1920x1080 LCD for
| browser and sundry.
| carlhjerpe wrote:
| Font rendering was my biggest QOL improvement with higher
| PPI
| williamdclt wrote:
| I always thought that moving my head to look at another
| monitor isn't really faster than pressing a key to make my
| fullscreen terminal appear, especially if we start taking
| cursor hunting into account
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| I agree it's not faster, especially when using a simple WM
| with no animations.
|
| However, I also find it easier to recall where I was
| looking by moving my head between static content instead of
| having it change.
|
| FWIW I use a 32" screen positioned so that I barely need to
| move my head to see it all, and try to have all things I'm
| looking at visible at the same time.
| globular-toast wrote:
| I did think that for years and I scoffed at multi-monitor
| setups thinking they were a poor imitation of the virtual
| desktops that have been present on *nix systems forever.
| But they are both good and complement each other.
|
| I use virtual desktops as more to separate unrelated areas
| of work (like different projects). It's like having a
| completely different desk with different books open on it.
| Having more screen space is just like having a bigger desk.
| It's like having multiple books open on your desk at once
| as opposed to picking up one at a time to look at it.
|
| One big monitor would be ideal (it could be split into an
| odd number of frames, for example), but in practice
| multiple monitors is a good compromise between flexibility
| and price.
| joshspankit wrote:
| Another thing that would be nice if it was easy to make: a
| button to place the cursor where you're looking.
| thfuran wrote:
| I don't know whether the software side is there or if the
| box, but it certainly seems like
| https://gaming.tobii.com/product/eye-tracker-5/ ought to
| be able to do that.
| Arrath wrote:
| I've always wanted window focus to go where I'm looking,
| it would be so nice.
|
| Probably with a modifier key though so I don't move out
| of a game just to read a wiki page though.
| pjerem wrote:
| My dream monitor is a 22" 4K monitor. I searched it for a
| decade and this creature just doesn't exists. There have
| never been a single 4K monitor under 27".
|
| The only thing that somehow could do the job would be iMac's
| panels but I'm just not interested in an All in one and I
| already have good enough computers.
| kzemek wrote:
| > There have never been a single 4K monitor under 27".
|
| There's a few 24", Dell has at least a couple.
| RodGodKiller wrote:
| There used to be a 21-and-bit'' 4K LG Ultrafine. You might
| be able to find it used.
| robin_reala wrote:
| There's four 24'' 4K monitors on Newegg right now, all LG:
| https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=101702297%20601205242%2060130
| 5...
|
| There's also this refurb 21.5'' 4K LG on Amazon:
| https://www.amazon.com/LG-22MD4KA-B-UltraFine-
| Display-4096x2...
|
| And I've no idea about the quality, but the Dragon Touch S1
| Pro 4K Portable Monitor is apparently 4K at 15.6'':
| https://www.dragontouch.com/products/s1-pro-4k-portable-
| moni...
| barnabee wrote:
| > I find it difficult to actually figure the proper position
| where the 27" Dell 4K (still very top notch) is just as far
| so that I can see it and not have to move my head left and
| right.
|
| > Anything beyond this size may be OK for games, but too much
| space and too much windows is actually too much of cognitive
| load.
|
| I find the oppposite. The goal is not to be looking at
| everything all of the time but to make anything I might want,
| from key chat channels or monitoring dashboards, to my
| calendar, reference docs, secondary source files, etc. to all
| be "glanceable" within a given context.
|
| I find a glance, even if it requires a turn of the head, is
| far preferable and breaks my flow/immersion much less than
| having to switch windows/desktops in place. It feels much
| more natural to me to place things like my calendar in a
| consistent physical place than to have everything intrude on
| one place, and I find it much easier to build the muscle
| memory for these glances.
|
| The biggest downside is that travelling, even with a small
| second monitor, completely breaks the setup.
| zone411 wrote:
| A 43'' 4K monitor in the middle and two 28" 16:18 LG DualUp
| monitors on the sides is my recommendation for an unparalleled
| setup for a large desk.
| Joeri wrote:
| It is surprising how much more affordable 4k displays are. I
| was stuck finding a suitable display for my macbook being used
| to the 5k iMac, and ended up with the 32 inch samsung m8, which
| is one third what apple charges for the 5k studio display. I
| find myself liking it more in practice than the 5k imac,
| because while it is a bit less crisp, the colors once properly
| set up are equally nice and the size is luxurious.
| SomeoneFromCA wrote:
| Well M8 is a VA. Good for movies, not as good for everything
| else.
| hosteur wrote:
| Why is that? And what type is better and why?
| wil421 wrote:
| IPS panels have the best color accuracy and viewing
| angles. VA can produce the best blacks but pixels are
| slow to change. TN are the cheapest and historically have
| the best refresh rates.
| graphe wrote:
| Among LCDs currently. Micro LED and OLED produce better
| blacks.
| layer8 wrote:
| It depends. If text contrast is a priority, VA provides
| better blacks. Personally I also can't stand IPS glow and
| rather live with the VA off-axis gamma shift. OTOH, my
| favorite VA monitor is now 15 years old and there is no
| current replacement with the same picture quality. I'm
| hoping for more OLED monitors coming out.
| SomeoneFromCA wrote:
| IPS black imho better choice (I own one). VA looks very
| very bad with dark themes in IDE. Also, I do not know any
| Eyesafe certified VA's. I am sensitive to blue light and
| my eyes love Eyesafe certified panels.
| andix wrote:
| I don't get the point of a lot of monitors. My current setup is
| a 4K 32" 16:9, which I do 98% of my work on. Everything on one
| big screen.
|
| I have another monitor next to it, which I sometimes use for to
| put documentation on, a hot reloading web app I'm working on,
| maybe a video I'm watching while doing some work, or a video
| conference while I'm screen sharing. But turning my head to the
| secondary monitor is too much of a burden to really use it a
| lot. 80% of the time the second monitor is just empty.
| xattt wrote:
| I've got the LG 2-UP monitor and a plain-Jane 1080p monitor
| in portrait mode. I use the second monitor for mostly-PDF
| mostly-letter paper document review. I would love to find an
| ergonomic reason for my org to purchase an eink monitor for
| that, but I haven't come up with any excuses ;)
|
| Two monitors let me compartmentalize my workflow. Window
| management is otherwise too messy for my needs with a single
| display.
| ethanbond wrote:
| What are your thoughts on the LG DualUp for programming
| workflows?
| BatFastard wrote:
| I have a dual up from LG and it is the greatest coding
| monitor ever made!
|
| In Intellij and VSCode, I can see project outline, 120
| columns of code, and DB details all on the same screen. I
| use it as a side monitor, with main monitor being a Dell
| 32 inch 4k.
| xattt wrote:
| I use it for R Studio occasionally, and I appreciate
| being able to see my code and my data at the same time.
|
| My main use is writing, and it can a little overwhelming
| to see all my copy at once. I tend to fill out my screen
| with other resources that I'll use.
|
| Since it's an odd-ball ratio, built-in Windows 11 window
| snapping also has some weird default behaviour that
| assumes that I want my windows a third of the height and
| stacked.
| folkhack wrote:
| I used an EIZO FlexScan EV2730Q (1:1), and upgraded to a
| DualUp.
|
| It is the best configuration I've found for programming
| and CLI work. For gaming I typically use one of the
| normal widescreens to the left/right of it.
|
| Only downside I've found is that I screen share often,
| and the odd aspect ratio means sometimes I have to use
| one of the normal widescreens instead to avoid small text
| on the audience's side.
|
| Also I ran into some scaling issues on Mac but got past
| these using BetterDisplay.
|
| Overall - _love_ the LG DualUp, my only suggestion is to
| pair it with a normal monitor :)
| bloopernova wrote:
| Does the LG display appear as 1 or 2 monitors in the OS?
|
| I'm intrigued by it, potentially as a replacement for a
| vertical screen, but I'm unsure if it would work well with
| my Mac-based work environment.
| xattt wrote:
| It shows up as one device. The res you get depends on
| your source. You won't get full res if your device only
| has an older HDMI or Display Link output.
|
| I've got it set up for occasional PIP with a Bay Trail
| home server. That device has an HDMI out that does max
| 1920 x 1080 and won't do the full width of 2560 x
| whatever.
| sbarre wrote:
| I think it's down to personal preference, so obviously do
| what works for you!
|
| I have the triple-27" monitors @4k setup described
| elsewhere..
|
| Left-side monitor is Slack and Discord, and sometimes a File
| explorer or other misc apps that usually live minimized
| (Spotify, etc)
|
| Center monitor is my IDE and terminal, or whatever "main" app
| I'm working in at the moment (sometimes Lightroom etc)
|
| Right-side monitor is work browser (we use GSuite so lots of
| various tabs in GDrive, Calendar, Gmail, Docs etc)
|
| You can certainly do this all on one screen, but I like to be
| able to glance at those things while still having my main
| screen laid out for ongoing work.
|
| I also use multiple desktops so I have one for work and one
| for personal, and I can swipe all 3 monitors over to a
| different workspace with one key command, which makes macro
| context switching easier.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Similar setup here since about 2015. 5K iMac in the center
| and a thunderbolt display on either side (2560x1440). IDE,
| terminals, and/or primary task in the center, application
| output on the left side,
| documentation/browsers/e-mail/calendar on the right.
|
| My only complaint is one of the thunderbolt displays is
| getting flaky. It likes to briefly turn itself off and on
| again, and unfortunately Apple's braindead software flashes
| all three monitors on and off when this happens. I've tried
| replacing the display's power supply, main board, and
| thunderbolt cable with no luck. Other than that, the setup
| has been rock solid and being surrounded by monitors makes
| me feel like I'm running The Matrix.
| jwells89 wrote:
| I have one of those Thunderbolt Displays and it's been a
| trooper. Sitting at around a decade old now and still
| works great. Its connector is getting worn out but as
| long as I don't bump the TB2 - TB3 adapter it's connected
| with it's solid.
|
| It'll be a bummer when it finally goes. In addition to
| being a secondary monitor it also gets used to test how
| graphics appear on"normal" DPI displays (main monitor is
| a Studio Display) and while decent 2560x1440 are now
| cheap and ubiquitous none of them are going to be
| controllable via keyboard without third party software.
| andix wrote:
| I heard about this kind of set up often, dedicated monitors
| for dedicated applications/tasks. Great that it works for
| you, for me it just doesn't seem to make any sense.
|
| I usually use all the monitors for the task I'm currently
| working on, and not for different serial tasks. For context
| switches I use Alt+Tab or sometimes virtual desktops.
| sbarre wrote:
| Totally get that.. I actually don't like alt-tabbing
| between windows, I find it clunky.. Much like you don't
| like to turn your head to look at other screens.. :-)
|
| Last detail to add is that I use Powertoys FancyZones in
| Windows 10 to set up zones in my screens that let me snap
| windows into specific layouts easily on the side
| monitors, so setting up dedicated layouts per-monitor is
| more intuitive and easy for me.
| bhouston wrote:
| You setup is similar to mine in terms of workflow but I
| just have a single 48" split into three vertical panels.
| J_Shelby_J wrote:
| This kills deep work.
| sbarre wrote:
| Thanks for sharing your opinion! I don't have the same
| experience, thankfully.
| bluGill wrote:
| Apps and window managers understand full screen. With my wide
| monitori often want full height, but not full width this
| needs manual adjustment to work. Windows can sometimes be
| made full height (tripple click), but this somehow always
| seems to get the wrong width
| andix wrote:
| I'm using most applications not in full screen mode, and
| don't have a lot of issues with that on windows. I think
| the only thing I commonly run in full screen is IDEs.
| bloopernova wrote:
| My setup has evolved over time and fits how I work now.
|
| 3 screens, all 4K, in | - - arrangement (portrait, landscape,
| landscape)
|
| Left, vertical screen: terminals, Dash app, and
| documentation.
|
| Middle, horizontal screen: Emacs showing org-journal+org-
| roam, VSCode, Firefox.
|
| Right, horizontal screen: Chats and email, devtools from
| Firefox, separate VSCode workspaces, etc.
|
| Main problem I've ran into was the newer M1-based non-
| Ultra/Max Macbook Pros don't support more than 2 external
| displays unless you use DisplayLink which is CPU-based and
| lags enough to notice. I wasn't able to convince our client
| to buy a laptop that would support my layout :/
| nbenitezl wrote:
| I also have similar single monitor (a BENQ EW3270U) set to
| 200% scale. I use Linux, and my productivity is good by
| binding F1 to F5 keys to switch to different virtual
| desktops.
|
| F1 -> Terminals. (Wezterm showing 4 terminals in a 2x2 grid)
|
| F2 -> Code editor or IDE. Sublime Text in my case.
|
| F3 -> Internet Browser. Firefox with Container extension.
|
| F4 -> File Manager or any other misc apps.
|
| F5 -> unused
|
| I'm so used to these keybindings, that when I'm on foreign
| computers I involuntarily find myself pressing F1 or F3 when
| I want to enter some command or browse some web page.
| walteweiss wrote:
| I do that as well, and I'm on a MacBook Pro. So when I'm on
| MacBook Pro that has macOS, well, that's funny, as it takes
| some time to remember what macOS is and how I had been
| using it before.
| gonzo41 wrote:
| I started with a lot of monitors and I've ended up with just
| one 27" UHD monitor. It works great and i like the focus it
| forces on me.
| andix wrote:
| My 32" 4K is configured with 150% zoom on Windows. So it's
| usable resolution is in practice the same as an UHD
| monitor, just a bit sharper and bigger. More crisp fonts,
| icons and images. Totally enough.
| paholg wrote:
| I use two displays with the same specs as yours, but have
| them both vertical. Code goes on one, browser/documentation
| on the other, and I don't have to turn my head too much to go
| between them.
|
| But then I _really_ like a vertical display for coding.
| phil21 wrote:
| It all depends on your workflow of course. I run 3 monitors
| for my main workstation. Admittedly the third is mostly for
| rare events (e.g. debugging a performance issue across many
| services) or most of the time background TV/security cameras.
|
| I get motion sick on anything over 27" so that kind of limits
| my screen real-estate. I also like to be able to quickly
| reference material across two apps without having to mess
| around with window sizing or the like.
|
| It's sort of like having two computers from back in the 90's
| I guess, which is likely where I picked up the habit.
|
| I still find it difficult to work on a laptop due to the lack
| of a second display. It's fine, but not quite as mentally
| satisfying to me.
|
| I would also argue any ops-oriented position where you need
| to have a lot of graphs and logging displayed at once can
| benefit from multiple screens - or at least screen real
| estate. Using multiple monitors for these setups is usually
| more practical just due to desk layouts.
| RoyalHenOil wrote:
| I use three monitors for my multimedia development work, and
| I can't imagine using fewer. I would get a fourth one if I
| could.
|
| #1: My main 4k monitor, where I do the bulk of my work. I
| need the whole screen for this.
|
| #2: My second 4k monitor, which I use for looking through
| documentation, taking notes, and working with the file
| system. (I have it split into quarters using PowerToys, but
| it's still very busy with many overlapping windows that I
| have to flip between frequently, which is why I wish I had a
| fourth monitor.)
|
| #3: My old Cintiq, which I use when I need to hand draw
| something. In the meantime, it is dedicated to monitoring
| communication with colleagues (it's too low res for much
| else).
| wil421 wrote:
| 100% disagree. I went with 2 4K monitors years ago. When I
| switched to an ultra wide lat year it was a night a day
| difference. I wish I never bought 2 4k monitors (or dual
| monitors at all). Ultra wide is perfect and has a more
| functionality than a massive piece of each monitor's border in
| the dead center of your vision.
| graphe wrote:
| Did you go with one large 4k monitor in front like he said?
| penguin_booze wrote:
| I, too, am in the ultrawide camp now. I initially bought a 4k
| monitor. The default rendering was too small for my eyes. My
| Linux didn't support fractional scaling; 200% scaling kind of
| defeated the purpose of having a 4k monitor in the first
| place--net real estate I got felt the same.
|
| I then returned it and went for a flat 34" monitor (HP X34),
| and I'm happy for it.
| thfuran wrote:
| Yeah, bezels midfield is no good. That's why _three_ monitors
| is where it 's at. Or perhaps one of those 32:9 ones. But
| many window managers make it easier to deal with multiple
| monitors than one enormous one.
| blocko wrote:
| There's some jank involved depending on which combo of
| x/wayland, window manager, and compositor you're using, but
| if you can manage to get virtual monitors working on an
| ultrawide it's great.
|
| A lot of recent models also support "picture by picture"
| mode, allowing you to connect two separate inputs to the
| monitor and avoid doing anything in software.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| They said one big one front and centered, and one to the
| side. Who voluntarily sticks a gap right in front of
| themselves?
| dheera wrote:
| I use 2 4K monitors, often with one connected to work
| computer and one connected to personal computer.
|
| When I'm not working I sometimes connect the work computer
| display to a Chromecast or as a 2nd monitor to personal
| computer.
|
| Work computer is much shittier than personal computer and
| doesn't support 2 monitors.
| rollcat wrote:
| Since this is now a personal preference/setup thread, I use a
| single 43" 4k display at 1x.
|
| Stacking window compositors do much better than tiling, it's
| quite natural to just spread things around, wherever the best
| place may be.
| CPLX wrote:
| I use a single 43" as my main display, and then also two 27"
| displays in portrait mode on either side.
|
| The 43" is where I actually work. The other two are like
| static displays, the left one is slack on top and iMessage on
| bottom. The right one is task list app on top and calendar on
| bottom.
|
| You get used to it pretty quick. It's just great for like
| having a few conversations in progress without being
| interrupted and so on. They're right there I'm just not
| looking at them.
|
| Not sure if it's decades of driving or something in the brain
| but having static readout displays like that really doesn't
| bother me the way trying to juggle everything on one screen
| does. Reminds me of how a dashboard full of indicators in a
| car can be constantly changing without feeling like it's
| "interrupting" my ability to look at the road.
| fudged71 wrote:
| I'm on my way to this setup :) I have a 43" 4K and a 4K 27"
| on a swivel. But driving 3 displays I'll need to upgrade
| from an M1 MBP.
| CPLX wrote:
| I'm using a Mac Studio and love it.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I use a 5120 X 1440, 49" ultrawide.
|
| It's one of those things that I never knew I couldn't live
| without, until I had it.
|
| Running my laptop (with a much greater pixel density) is
| downright painful.
|
| Disclaimer: I'm 61, so all those packed-in pixels are wasted on
| me.
| batch12 wrote:
| I have both, an ultra wide in the middle and two curved
| monitors on each side with the edges touching. It works great
| for me
| nickjj wrote:
| > I personally use 3 x 27 inch 4K
|
| Are you able to read text at 1:1 native scaling?
|
| I believe once you reach 150% scaling, you end up with the same
| screen real estate as a 2560x1440 monitor. 200% scaling is the
| same as 1080p.
| spiffytech wrote:
| Indeed: I like ultrawides so I can see more stuff at the same
| physical size. I only want greater pixel density to he crisp
| rendering.
|
| If I had a taller, 16:9 version of my 49" 32:9 ultrawide, I
| think that much screen would swallow me alive.
| bdavbdav wrote:
| That's true - but the text is soooo nice (especially on Mac
| OS)
| beezle wrote:
| I'm working on a new build to replace my 11 yr old system.
| Monitors are a vexxing issue as I have competing needs -
| general/coding use and photo editing. As I'm working with 40+MP
| images, I'd like to have a screen with as high a resolution as
| possible to minimize the need to zoom in and out.
|
| However, then you run into the need to do display scaling for
| UI elements for everything else. Windows mostly works in that
| regard and when it does not it is often the program in use that
| is not quite up to snuff.
|
| After a lot of research, it seems to me the best approach is
| trying to get the resolution you want at a physical size that
| doesn't require excessive scaling (like 300%) as after all, we
| all want more desktop real estate and scaling reduces the
| effective resolution for most non-photo/video apps.
|
| I've been looking closely at the Dell Ultrasharp 32" 6K
| monitor. The dpi is a little high at 223 but it will fit about
| 75% of an uncropped photo. I'd likely also get one of the LG
| dual UPs as well.
|
| The one issue with both monitors, disappointing for the price
| of the Dell, is they are 8bit+FRC panels. Don't want to find
| out that I'm one of those who are sensitive to flicker or that
| the panel does not age well. At least the Dell is a 3yr
| warranty and the LG can be had in a commercial version that has
| 3 yr too.
| kadoban wrote:
| It's unclear to me why we'd be optimizing solely for pixels or
| pixels/$.
|
| I personally like my wide monitor, and I don't even
| particularly care to go for more pixels when available, ie my
| preferred resolution is ~1440p. They're nice and cheap, they
| look good to me, and they're easy to drive for the gpu.
|
| I go more for deep blacks and good colors, pixels just look
| good until your eyes adjust and then it's all the same.
| calfuris wrote:
| For me, it's about screen real estate, not looks. More pixels
| is more usable space, until you have to start scaling things
| up for comfort. I find a 27 inch 4k monitor to be comfortable
| without scaling, but I think it's just about the limit for
| me, and I expect that the PPI limit varies from person to
| person.
| nevir wrote:
| 5k x 2k has been worth every penny
| zeitlupe wrote:
| The problem with multiple monitors for me is that you have to
| turn your head very wide to look onto the adjacent screens'
| center, which is definitely not ergonomic and healthy.
|
| That being said, it is still my current setup as this wide turn
| holds me off from looking at the second screen, where slack and
| other distracting stuff is placed.
| johmue wrote:
| you sir, should go to prison for your crimes :)
| pxtail wrote:
| I'm using 3 monitors currently (one vertical) and I'm used to
| utilizing keyboard shortcuts for moving windows between screens -
| for example I can move window onto vertical screen and then into
| bottom half of it, all using keyboard.
|
| The question for people using single ultrawide screen instead of
| multiples - is something like this possible to achieve? are you
| able to define virtual "regions" on the screen space to move
| windows there?
| zakary wrote:
| Yes you can. On Mac keyboard maestro will do exactly that. On
| windows it's Autohotkey.
| crogre wrote:
| Sure, you can use xrandr to create virtual monitors. Works
| great with i3 at least!
| tuzemec wrote:
| I'm using Rectangle[1] on Mac for this. But Raycast also has
| some functionality in that direction.
|
| [1] - https://rectangleapp.com/
| JoachimS wrote:
| This triggers my OCD! Esp having a single degree off.
| CrzyLngPwd wrote:
| I have three 2160x3840 27inch screens in a H layout, with the
| side screens vertical. I use FancyZones windows PowerToy to
| create drop zones on the side screens, and so can just drop
| terminals/slack/browser windows there.
|
| It's been a transformative layout for coding and managing
| machines.
| JoachimS wrote:
| The multiple screen setup from Swordfish is starting to feel old.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/geek/comments/1ds9en/from_the_movie...
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| I've had 3 monitor setups for decades. Then I got an ultra wide
| Samsung CRG9 at 49" and 5120x1440... Which was terrible. Too wide
| and not tall enough.
|
| Now I have the LG 40WP95C-W at 40" and 5120x2160 and it is
| perfect. Especially with window tiling that does thirds well.
| LegitShady wrote:
| I've been using the CRG9 for 3 years without issue. I use
| fancyzones to create 3 "window" areas - a thin chat window, the
| main middle window, and a side research/reference/video window.
|
| When I'm not working it makes for amazing ultrawide gaming. A
| video card to push the resolution is actually possible without
| a new mortgage. I don't understand the whole too wide thing
| tbh.
|
| Only thing I wish is that it had better HDR with more zones,
| but it was a pretty early example of this kind of thing I think
| so can't have everything.
|
| Maybe if I find an LG c2/c3 43" OLED for a good price I'll get
| that instead, but for now this thing is awesome enough.
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| I just found I spent more time battling the aspect ratio than
| anything else. It isn't that it was too wide (though it was,
| for me) ... it's that it wasn't tall enough (pixel wise) for
| the width. This meant I never quite had enough height for ANY
| comfortable IDE/document/web usage.
|
| Being able to have 4 or 5 non-ideal height windows side-by-
| side was just 4 or 5 times as annoying for me.
|
| The LG solves all the issues I had with the Samsung. I get
| the same width in pixels, in a smaller dimension (so reduced
| head movement) and I get more pixel height.
|
| For those benefits, as I am not a gamer, I happily sold the
| CRG9 and accepted lower (but still fine on the eyes) refresh
| rates.
|
| Couldn't be happer. I used the CRG9 for a few years, it had
| to go.
| ulrischa wrote:
| I use one 90 degree and one 0 degree
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| While this article presents it in a humorous way, some air
| traffic control systems actually do use a diagonally rotated
| screen, with that "long line" being lined up with the primary
| approach to the airport. The setup I got to observe involved
| large displays that worked with stylus input.
|
| These weren't ultra-widescreen displays; they were relatively
| standard aspect-ratio displays, rotated at an angle.
| bobowzki wrote:
| I would love to see a photo of this setup.
| greggsy wrote:
| I just scrolled through half a dozen ATC tower tour videos on
| YouTube and didn't see any skewed displays, but it's possible
| that they 1) they tidied it up for the tour, or 2) they just
| didn't apply this approach in those particular sites.
|
| I'm still very interested to see this novel application.
| mike256 wrote:
| I think most replaced them with ultra wide screens
| marcosdumay wrote:
| I've been in a few airport towers in Brazil, and never seen
| a diagonal screen.
|
| It may be a regional thing, or a small clique. Or it may be
| best for some software that is long gone.
| bobowzki wrote:
| Really, I would be pretty interested to hear your story.
| I've been a lot to Brazil.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| It's not that interesting, I used to work inspecting
| airport fire-fighters. That required talking to the
| people on the tower.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| This was more than a decade ago, and they may have moved to
| a different approach since then. At the time of the tour I
| took, ultra-widescreen monitors didn't exist.
|
| IIRC it was a large Wacom or similar display.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| I tried to google as well (like another commenter), I did find
| a lot of 1:1 ratio screens though; I wouldn't mind that I
| think.
| bboygravity wrote:
| I use a phone with a 1:1 screen. Unihertz Titan in case
| you're curious.
| walteweiss wrote:
| Tell us more! Why is so, is it useful?
| ponector wrote:
| The second question is about keyboard. Is it useful?
| meowface wrote:
| This is not a complaint about the phone but, God, visiting
| that website is a nightmare. Immediately hit with a sudden
| sound notification, a chat widget, a popup, and random
| decorations scattered all over the screen.
|
| https://i.imgur.com/CgOMjio.png
| pwg wrote:
| UblockOrigin - set to default block all javascript on the
| website, and one gets no "sudden sound notification", no
| "chat widget", no "popup" and no "random decorations".
| somat wrote:
| The blackberry passport had a square screen as well, I
| thought it was pretty great.
| intrasight wrote:
| I was involved in the US air traffic control system upgrade
| in the early 90s as a software subcontractor. They were using
| Sony 2k square CRT monitors. If I recall correctly, they cost
| about $20k each - in 1990 dollars - partially due to the
| hardware subsystem for antialiasing.
|
| Googling, I see that this is the replacement monitor:
|
| https://www.aydindisplays.com/2k-x-2k-air-traffic-control-
| di...
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Why would anyone make an LCD specifically for ATC
| displays!? From what I can see, it's just an ordinary LCD
| monitor! Sure the 1:1 aspect ratio is a bit weird, but
| that's not worth $20K...
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| The ability to have a redundant power supply seems like
| it might fill a niche
| evil-olive wrote:
| looking at the datasheet [0], it has a lot of specialized
| ports that I would never need, but I wouldn't be
| surprised if an ATC tower somewhere needed it for obscure
| compatibility reasons. 5x BNC for analog input, for
| example. also multiple serial ports for remote controls
| of some kind, and SNMP support.
|
| the field-replaceable backlight seems to be a big selling
| point too.
|
| 0: https://440148.fs1.hubspotusercontent-
| na1.net/hubfs/440148/A...
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Typical enterprise logic: $20K for an ordinary display
| that can be "repaired in the field" and comes with
| "support", instead of $200 for a display that can be
| replaced _in its entirety_ for... $200.
| bogantech wrote:
| The $200 monitor can be replaced in its entirety but then
| union rules mean you need a full-time union tech to swap
| it out and you need a bunch of them on payroll to ensure
| you have 24/7 coverage vs a vendor support contract
| seanp2k2 wrote:
| Not just enterprise logic, but _enterprise serving the
| public sector_ logic. Get those sweet, sweet tax dollars.
|
| You should see how much medical displays are for things
| like looking at ultrasounds / MRI / xray images.
| faeriechangling wrote:
| Biggest change in mentality I saw moving from SMB to
| enterprise is that in SMB I just kept bought through
| consumer, often on sale, sometimes used, and kept extra
| stock.
|
| Enterprise as little as a 8gb sodimm is treated as un-
| obtainium and costs like $200 or something because it's
| special compatibility tested and supported ram. I would
| see hundreds of 1080p monitors replaced with... hundreds
| of new 1080p monitors from a different vendor because
| management bought everything as a package deal form the
| vendor. The monitor was treated as an essential part of
| the vendors enterprise offering and one couldn't very
| well use another vendors monitors with their docks.
| jeffrallen wrote:
| Another example of "Wayland breaks everything". I mean, come on,
| 2021 and it can't even arbitrarily transform the screen with
| matrixes?" /s
| flexagoon wrote:
| To be fair, since Wayland allows nested sessions, you can
| probably implement a Wayland compositor that can only display a
| single app full-screen with a given rotation, and then use that
| to launch any other Wayland session (eg. gnome)
| krisoft wrote:
| I don't know about the ideal orientation, but i prefer my monitor
| to not spin relative to my desk. :) Which of course means that it
| should slowly rotate around once a day to keep it in sync with
| the Earth (when seen from an innertial fixed coordinate system).
|
| But that made me think. Maybe the optimal solution is one with a
| circular table (rotating in sync with the Earth, thus appearing
| motionless) and a monitor which spins around the normal axis of
| the table to force me to chase it around. Maybe it could have
| different tempo settings. A slow one which makes the user
| reposition every half an hour or so, a faster one for cardio, and
| an even faster one for volumetric persistence of vision
| applications.
| camillomiller wrote:
| The visual disorder this creates would kill my productivity
| INSTANTLY.
| reqo wrote:
| I am sorry but is that a password on the pink post-it note?
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Nothing to see here, just Azure's storage master encryption key
| or something.
| timeinput wrote:
| Looks like base64 text but when I run `echo aHVudGVyMgo= |
| base64 -d` the output is just `*******` weird.
| yonrg wrote:
| I love that
| notorandit wrote:
| I use two monitors. A 28" UHD for running the code editor and
| (sometimes) a few terminals. A 24" FHD for one or two browsers.
| They are set side-to-side, not aligned to somwhow mimic curved
| displays. They are set at 0 degrees.
| amelius wrote:
| What is the correct terminology for "monitor rotation"? I want a
| monitor that can rotate, but using "rotation" as a keyword does
| not bring up many relevant results.
| edward28 wrote:
| It depends on the stand really. You can get VESA compatible
| monitor arm and rotate as many degrees as you like.
| liamwire wrote:
| Perhaps _monitor orientation_?
| gfiorav wrote:
| programmers will literally rotate their screen 22 degrees instead
| of embracing the 79 columns limit
| KronisLV wrote:
| Right now, I have four 16:9 monitors at 1080p each. Previously I
| used some of them in vertical orientation which is great for
| reading code, but window snapping used to be a bit weird
| sometimes.
|
| It's not too much of a problem on Linux, but on Windows I
| absolutely needed FancyZones: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-
| us/windows/powertoys/fancyzon... (hold SHIFT and drag window to
| snap, supports custom zones, like vertically splitting a monitor
| into two etc.)
|
| As for larger resolution monitors, I had one at work and it was
| nice, but my own GPU would struggle with most fullscreen stuff
| and games in my free time, so maybe 1080p isn't all that bad
| (especially when wanting to record something without downsampling
| or struggling with DPI making things unreadable at anything below
| 1080p in the video file).
| tbyehl wrote:
| I wasn't aware that PowerToys had that, so thanks for pointing
| it out. In general I've been satisfied with the built-in Snap
| feature but since getting a 49" 32:9 1440p monitor I've been
| wishing the 3-column options offered horizontal splits.
| user_7832 wrote:
| > I've been wishing the 3-column options offered horizontal
| splits
|
| If you're referring to the PowerToys feature, you can
| customise your own layout too btw
| bhouston wrote:
| I just purchased a 48" monitor as my primary monitor. No need to
| worry about rotation, I just have a massive screen in front of
| me.
|
| I think that for some people people are scared of large monitors
| in front of them, but once you use one, you realize that using
| small monitors (e.g. 27 or 32") in single or dual or triple
| arrangements is just ridiculous complex. One big monitor is way
| way better.
|
| Large monitors are the future, it is just that people are not yet
| comfortable buying them for some reason.
| sapiogram wrote:
| Might be an issue of software support, it just "feels" easier
| to have two monitors instead of using one monitor as two.
|
| Related: what's your window management setup?
| bhouston wrote:
| I am on MacOS so I use RectanglePro. Simple but it works.
|
| My main layout is 3 vertical panels, one with vscode, one
| with web browser and debugger and the last is utility
| (another vscode or browser or slack or discord etc.)
| codingdave wrote:
| I've got a 48" monitor, too. I also have 2 27" monitors, one
| one each side in portrait mode. But I'm not sure why you think
| multiple monitors is complex - plug them in, drag windows over
| to the side as needed, and go about your work.
| aldanor wrote:
| I had 2x27'' at work for years and now I have 1x49'' at home.
| Main difference is, on the 49 I can place a single 27''-sized
| window in the centre.
| bhouston wrote:
| I mean managing space on small multiple screens. The
| technical aspects are not complex but having to manage a
| small amount of screeen real estate is annoying, especially
| across multiple screens.
| sys_64738 wrote:
| I don't always want to use the full screen of any monitor so I
| find I prefer smaller so I can switch off the other monitors
| when needed. That presents its own challenges but I like to use
| fullscreen for web browsing and such like. That doesn't work on
| massive screens.
| dsr_ wrote:
| If you have a 48" 4K monitor, what you have is:
|
| + 4x 24" 1080P without bezels
|
| - 4x 24" 1080P in a fixed grid with no flexibility
|
| Different people have different preferences, and that's ok.
| cpach wrote:
| So, one size fits all?
| norir wrote:
| I am uncomfortable buying them because I find working at a desk
| with a large monitor uncomfortable and I don't see any personal
| advantage to the extra real estate for coding. I have plenty of
| space on a 16" laptop for three vertical terminal panes: One
| for editing, one for docs and one for shell commands. If I need
| to search something on the web, I can cmd-H to switch spaces
| and cmd-L back to the terminal. Since my workflow works on my
| laptop, it works _anywhere_ I go.
|
| Obviously, my workflow is not for everyone, but I pretty
| strongly doubt that large monitors are the future for most
| people and am almost positive that they aren't the future for
| me.
| leptons wrote:
| I'm waiting for an 8k curved 55" screen. Has to be curved.
|
| I'm currently using three 4k 32" screens in portrait, which is
| equivalent to about a 55" single screen.
| downboots wrote:
| Upgrade: attach accelerometer to monitor and have it update as
| you rotate it
| davidy123 wrote:
| I haven't seen this config mentioned yet, but I have two
| displays; a LG SDQHD 28" 8:9 2560x2880 on the left, and a LG 49"
| 21:9 55120x2160 ultrawide curved on the right, with a slight
| angle joining them in a "hinge."
|
| I use multiple virtual desktops, for dev I have a terminal on the
| left and the IDE on the right. This was the best config I could
| find where I had enough on the screens I didn't need to flip
| between panes frequently, yet it wasn't overwhelming and lets the
| actual window view behind the displays through, and I can
| comfortably focus on key areas and look around with craning my
| neck too much.
|
| If the displays were backing a wall, I might try an 8k 65"
| display, but I would mainly use the comfortable part of it, and
| let the rest be ambient info. That could be magnificent with an
| OLED display. Though I think it would make sense to be curved and
| they aren't common anymore. Who knows, maybe a VR headset will be
| a better choice in a few years.
|
| I've been working a lot on the idea of ambient info. I use KDE's
| html wallpaper feature to provide a dynamic graph view of my
| environment.
| Bellyache5 wrote:
| I would love to see a picture of your setup.
| davidy123 wrote:
| Sure, https://i.imgur.com/drvwqhj.png
|
| The displays are connected to a workstation. I use barrier
| between the systems (except the right hand locked down one).
|
| Like anything else it's a constant work in progress, but I'm
| fairly happy with it.
| stopyellingatme wrote:
| This is pretty much my exact setup and I love it. One ultrawide
| with an LG DualUp on the side. Highly recommend.
| vermaden wrote:
| Its just another Xorg/X11 feature that overrated Wayland does not
| have.
|
| It works the same on FreeBSD and Illumos - its not limited to
| Linux in any way.
|
| Below example from my http://vermaden.wordpress.com/freebsd-
| desktop setup.
|
| - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GChSlZHXIAEgT8T?format=jpg&name=...
|
| - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GChSlbFWUAA0x6G?format=jpg&name=...
|
| Regards,
|
| vermaden
| tchaffee wrote:
| Who is overrating Wayland?
| petecooper wrote:
| Since we're sharing...
|
| I use 3x Dell P2715Q in portrait mode, side by side, 1440 x 2560
| for an equivalent resolution of 4320 x 2560 (27:16), at a stand
| up IKEA Jerker desk.
| pcx wrote:
| This is really neat! Loved it
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| Hah, before looking at the link I was going to say two monitors,
| one over the other, top turned 45deg clockwise, bottom 45deg ccw,
| forming a big ">".
|
| You know, to fit the huge nest. :)
| hahamaster wrote:
| Ever since I got presbyopia a couple of years back, I have lost
| tolerance for large screens. You constantly have to move yourself
| to have things in focus. Alt-tabbing on a smaller screen is much
| easier.
| kkfx wrote:
| I've had a handful of setups, a classic single monitor from 4:3,
| then 16:10, than 16:9 and now 21:9. I've added a second vertical
| monitor, two twin large vertical, main vertical, secondary
| horizontal... Well in the end I'm happy enough with a single 21:9
| FLAT WQHD. Game devs might not like the aspect ratio, but with
| EXWM, Firefox with tab-center reborn, casual simple split view
| etc it's good enough.
|
| I prefer avoid curved ones because they feel strange if we are
| not "at the right distance" and I like to be distant a bit and I
| use a standing desk with a magnetic treadmill for the standing
| part so my distance vary, but the real conclusion is: a good
| monitor is a LARGE one. Rotation does not matter much if the
| overall dimensions are large enough.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| If you've got an ultra wide monitor, maybe spin it and go for
| persistence of vision effect and a huge circular display? Could
| double as a fan to help spread all the heat generated by the GPU
| having to redraw it nonstop!
| mrblampo wrote:
| Made me laugh out loud
| Y_Y wrote:
| One day such a thing might be so common that society will be
| forced to invent an abbreviation for that
| lanternfish wrote:
| And maybe even one day, the abbreviation will become so
| ubiquitous that it becomes divorced in practice from the
| original referent.
| riwsky wrote:
| this hertz to think about
| fudged71 wrote:
| There was a "spinning gaming monitor" on my YouTube feed just a
| few days ago: https://youtu.be/J6P3o6zrqsc?si=NUB7YviQNYoSW7Vi
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| Neat, but imagine the sheer fear factor of a 34" ultrawide
| monitor whipping around at 60Hz 18" in front of your face!
| graypegg wrote:
| Adrenaline is good for gaming!... I bet?
|
| If you have it going 3600rpm for 60hz uh... th axis refresh
| rate (?), you have a pretty tough monitor. Now I'm
| wondering if you could mount it to 2 really fast linear
| actuators perpendicularly attached each other. One
| connected to the desk vertically, and the other fixed to
| it, with its business end mounted to the monitor.
|
| Now (considering the monitor doesn't explode from the
| inertia) you could tile an area larger than the monitor
| itself. Could even adjust on the fly, so you can drag a
| window off the screen and it just starts vibrating more and
| more violently.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| Yes, that sounds truly terrifying! :)
|
| Combination of vibrations and actuators fighting the
| gyroscopic effect of the off-axis spinning monitor would
| risk the whole thing violently ripping itself off the
| desk.
|
| Would certainly be exciting!
| BuildTheRobots wrote:
| I feel the need to point out that this is why mechanical
| TV never scaled. From very old memory, if you wanted a
| 40" screen then the wheel needed to be two stories high.
|
| Ben Heck[0] and Technology Connections[1] videos.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI0TtyVEcs8 [1]
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5OANXk-6-w
| riwsky wrote:
| Huge fan
| cranky908canuck wrote:
| It sure would be!
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Most compositors already do redraw constantly, because it takes
| almost no work on a modern chip. An extra shift and rotate
| would not be noticed.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| Well, normally only when something changes.
|
| For a rotating persistence-of-vision display you need to
| redraw everything as soon as it's physical position has
| shifted a "pixel". i.e. non-stop, regardless of whether the
| content has changed or not.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > normally only when something changes
|
| Do they bother? Throwing a dozen windows together is really
| easy.
|
| > For a rotating persistence-of-vision display you need to
| redraw everything as soon as it's physical position has
| shifted
|
| You do have to redraw. Which means you have a non-moving
| buffer that covers the entire display area, and you have to
| render it to the screen every frame.
|
| That's _one_ big quad. A scaled up SNES could do that with
| mode 7. It 's utterly trivial.
| qwerty456127 wrote:
| Whatever a diagonal rotation essentially is the same like using a
| big display of classic aspect ratio with two corners blocked.
| What is the benefit of not having these corners present? Why not
| just buy a 45-inch 4k display, put it right in front of you
| (instead of a TV-like distance) and use it with 100% (or close to
| it, maybe also tweak some fonts) scaling? I actually do it this
| way and I fail to understand how can a wide&low display placed
| diagonally feel better.
| intrasight wrote:
| This hits home as an topic of interest. Last week, I build a new
| workstation. Now I am confronted with the monitor decision.
|
| My current workstation has side by side 24" 1920x1200
|
| Things I'm considering:
|
| Stick with side by side 24" 1920x1200 - Asus PA248QV ~$400 total
|
| Two LG DualUp ~$1000 total
|
| One 5k2k such as Dell U4021QW or LG 40WP95C-W ~$1800 total
|
| One UHD 4K like LG OLED 48GQ90B-B ~$900
|
| While I'm accustomed to the gap between my two monitors, I've
| never much liked it. The Asus gap will be smaller than with my
| current Dell.
|
| But I do like having each computer "full screen". With one big
| monitor I loose the gap but I also end up with computers that
| float in the space of that large monitor. Not sure if that'll bug
| me.
|
| While 1200px height is enough most of the time, I do want more -
| like 50% more would be great.
|
| Much of my work is RDP based. I just Googled to find that the
| maximum vertical resolution is 2048, which is less than the
| DualUp vertical resolution. Is Google correct?
|
| Curious how others resolved these competing visions (pun
| intended).
| tom_ wrote:
| For whatever it's worth, I often use my work PC via the default
| Windows 10 Remote Desktop client on my laptop (old 15" Macbook
| Pro, running Windows via Boot Camp): 1 x 2880x1800 hi-DPI
| display, 2 x normal-DPI 1440x2560 portrait displays. Remote
| Desktop seems to have no problem using every pixel.
|
| A lot of stuff does get confused by the mixed-DPI setup, but
| it's not obviously different from running the same programs
| locally.
| geocrasher wrote:
| In the last year, I've gone from
|
| 1x portrait 24" next to 2x landscape 24"'s on top of each other,
| all 1080p
|
| Then switched to
|
| 1x 35" UWQHD 3440x1440 curved and 1x 24" 1080p monitor
|
| Then was gifted the Mother Of All Monitors.
|
| 43" 3840x2160. The only thing it misses is a slight curve. Still,
| it's _incredible_.
|
| The 43" 4K monitor is essentially an endless combination of
| portrait and landscape monitors. Window size/shape no longer
| matters.
|
| Try it. You'll like it.
| stratigos wrote:
| Is this article satire? Do people actually make naive assumptions
| that line-length limits in code relate to screen sizes?
| jimbobthrowawy wrote:
| Thank goodness. I was wondering how to achieve this when I first
| started messing around with xrandr back in ~2016 and saw that the
| rotation option wasn't limited to the four orthogonal directions,
| but would get a black screen any time I went for something
| unsquare. Didn't know you had to mark out the edges.
|
| Another fun xrandr feature is not needing to have your display
| areas touch at the edges, so you can make your screens space
| accurate and lose your cursor and parts of windows behind bezels.
| You can have them overlap too, so you could have part of your
| screen shown on multiple displays.
|
| I'm glad this functionality wasn't hampered by questions of
| necessity.
| javier_e06 wrote:
| The irony in my case is that I have a 4k 32" where my window apps
| live in the center of the monitor never maximized and the
| stickies go on the 2 black bands on each side.
|
| It makes for a 3D texture monitor with task and reminders that I
| pull off and crush with my hand.
| jvolkman wrote:
| One 43" 4K monitor (or TV) has been my go-to for the last 4
| years. Plenty of screen real estate without the physical
| limitations of dual monitors in different orientations. And at
| 43/42 inches, PPI is just right for me - no scaling necessary.
| FractalHQ wrote:
| Have high res TV makers solved the gnarly input lag problem?
| jvolkman wrote:
| It hasn't been an issue in my experience. rtings.com rates
| input lag on tvs (as well as how well they work as monitors).
|
| Most modern units have game mode and/or PC mode which I
| assume disables some processing to drive down lag. On my LG
| C2 OLED, changing the input type to "PC" results in a visible
| flicker (just one flicker) when the display is shifting into
| some new mode.
| seanp2k2 wrote:
| Really wish we had options for 16:10 and 4:3 monitors in 4k-8k
| resolutions in 2024. Personally, I think the ultimate monitor is
| somewhere around 36" wide with a ~1.6x "golden ratio" (aka 16:10)
| so around 22-24" tall (for reference, a 42" 16:9 TV is about
| 36.6Wx20.6H; 16x10 would be 35.6Wx22.3H; 4:3 would be
| 33.6Wx25.2H). Right now I've got a 55" LG G1 OLED and it's nice
| at 4K120hz, but ideally it'd be 8K120hz and a little smaller in
| width. It seems like it wouldn't be too terribly hard to make
| such a panel using an 8K 55" screen as a starting point, then
| just omit a few inches of width. Ooh, and please make it a 10-bit
| (or 12 but there I'm really dreaming) 4:4:4 120hz native panel.
|
| Upon returning to the office for a few days a couple of months
| back, I noticed that my desk had been moved and I was given a
| standard setup with a 21:9 curved ultra wide 60hz Samsung. I HATE
| it. I have no idea what kind of person thinks these are superior.
| It can't open two A4-size PDFs next to each other, and with macOS
| menu bar and dock (even auto-hide), toolbars in IDEs, terminals,
| and browsers took up far too much of the screen. Add to that the
| tendency of most websites these days to add their own pointless
| toolbars and cookie warnings and subscribe junk and again I just
| don't see who would enjoy this for any type of work or gaming.
| I've tried dual portrait, I've tried quad, I've tried triple-wide
| with 1920x1200 16:10s as my "curved" setup way back in the late
| 2000s, and I still think that one single large high-res high-
| quality FLAT monitor is the way to go, hence my current LG setup.
| Everything else feels like it's missing a piece. Multiple
| monitors just means bezels in your view and even though support
| is tons better now than it was a dozen years ago, toolbars and OS
| trays / docks still need some helper software to work really well
| across multiple monitors, especially where n>2.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-30 23:02 UTC)