[HN Gopher] Using an 8K TV as a Monitor
___________________________________________________________________
Using an 8K TV as a Monitor
Author : ingve
Score : 249 points
Date : 2024-10-29 16:27 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (daniel.lawrence.lu)
(TXT) w3m dump (daniel.lawrence.lu)
| Circlecrypto2 wrote:
| I'm sure a few have tried this before, but no one has given me a
| good argument for convincing the partner.
| outsomnia wrote:
| Since a couple of years ago, I spent a year or so like this,
| with the TV resting on the desk directly.
|
| It looked pretty nice, but it had some problems.
|
| - The only actual 8K modes reported on the HDMI were some
| variant of YUV, it means you could not select what your OS
| considered an RGB mode
|
| - Even using it at 4K, with the 55" TV a couple of feet from
| the back of the desk, my eyes could not keep all of it
| perfectly in focus.
|
| - The power consumption was much higher than a typical ~30"
| monitor, and the amount of heat created was also significant.
| This became hard to deal with in summer.
|
| Eventually I gave up on it and returned to a ~30" monitor.
| porphyra wrote:
| FYI nowadays 8K TVs support true RGB 8K 60 Hz over HDMI 2.1
| with no chroma subsampling.
| theredsix wrote:
| You get the partner something shiny too!
| settsu wrote:
| Buy once, cry once.
|
| All else being equal, a TV (i.e., TV-sized) unit generally has
| a broader set of use cases _and_ longer useful lifecycle than a
| computer monitor _for the original purchaser_ +, which could be
| argued makes good economical sense.
|
| + in my experience, computer monitors can have a long useful
| life when factoring in the potentially long tail of
| "donor/hand-me-down" cases...
| thfuran wrote:
| But the other potential uses of a TV assume it's not tossed
| on a desk in my office.
| iamacyborg wrote:
| At least he has proper speakers to go with that ridiculous
| screen!
| qntmfred wrote:
| I use dual 43" 4k TVs as monitors. It's fantastic.
| declan_roberts wrote:
| ...why?
| ziddoap wrote:
| Why not?
| RajT88 wrote:
| My wife asked me how much "huge monitors" cost. I told her 100
| bucks on Craigslist. Indeed, we got her an old dumb 1080p LCD
| and she has been super happy with it. It mostly fills the wall
| of her little cubby hole in our office.
|
| For my money, I have 2x 1080p 24" displays, and a third curved
| 32" 1080p display which is hooked to a KVM so I can game on it.
|
| I like the 3 monitor setup because they are all at angles from
| each other, approximating a huge curved display. Plus, this was
| a cheap setup off woot.com parts.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| 1080p is a tiny monitor in today's standards. It's also very
| similar to the old SXGA resolution that was very common in
| the late 1990s / 2000s.
| bluedino wrote:
| Ahhh....1280x1024 on a 19" LCD in 2001, it felt like a 4K
| monitor does today.
|
| 1600x1200 on a 21" CRT was king. though.
| RajT88 wrote:
| 1080p is good enough for me. I'm not sure buying 3 4k
| monitors is going to improve my life any, what with my
| middle-aged eyes and all.
|
| Also, old stuff lacks shady smart features. Bonus!
| atahanacar wrote:
| I think monitors are like headphones. Unless you actually
| try the "better" ones, you don't have a clue what you're
| missing. I know because I had been saying "Dual 1080p 24"
| is all I will ever need." for a long time until I got a
| 4K 50". Now I can't imagine going back.
| RajT88 wrote:
| I checked with my wife and she is unsympathetic to this
| idea.
| recursive wrote:
| I usually use a pair of Sennheiser HD280s that I've had
| for over a decade. I've used some fancier headphones
| costing more than an order of magnitude more, from brands
| such as ZMF. After experiencing the high-end advantage,
| I'm still perfectly happy with the 280s. There are a few
| things I care about in a monitor, and DPI is nowhere on
| the list. Every monitor commercially available has more
| resolution than I care about. My number one concern is
| consistency across a wide viewing angle. Low latency,
| retina DPI, gamut accuracy, HDR, curved surface? I don't
| care about any of them. I have tried all of them.
| stephenr wrote:
| 1080p at 32"? Dear god man have some self respect. Not
| everything on a screen is meant to look exactly like Tetris
| you know.
| recursive wrote:
| Some people actually don't care. I'm one of them. I express
| my self-respect in ways other than my screen's resolution.
| atahanacar wrote:
| May I ask at what configuration? I'm assuming at least one is
| vertical because I can't think of a way to set 2 43" monitors
| horizontally without breaking my neck.
| codingdave wrote:
| I already use a 4K TV for a monitor. 8K would just push a need
| for a more expensive video card, while decreasing how well people
| can see when I share my screen. Even on a 4K, I need to blow it
| up to ridiculous zoom levels to make a screen-share readable to
| others.
|
| I'm sure not everyone would run into that problem, but it is a
| fairly strong con to be aware of.
| atahanacar wrote:
| If you are on Linux, you can divide the entire screen into
| multiple virtual monitors and share only one of them. This has
| the benefit of giving you "private" monitors what won't be
| shared.
|
| Another option could be to temporarily lower the resolution.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| I run an 8K monitor on a 240$ GPU.
| E39M5S62 wrote:
| The list of issues / caveats seems pretty significant compared to
| "I have a small bezel between my screens".
| lostlogin wrote:
| The issue with the text rendering would frustrate me a lot.
|
| And if the solution is to sit further away, why not just get a
| smaller screen and sit closer?
| makeitdouble wrote:
| There seems to be very few options for HiDPI smaller 8k
| displays. I only know of the DELL Ultrasharp and it costs way
| more than 8K TVs
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| The dell hasn't been updated for dp 2.0.
| porphyra wrote:
| What's wrong with text rendering?
|
| > TVs may have a different subpixel layout than monitors, so
| small text may suffer fringing. As of writing the Samsung VA
| and LG IPS panels such as the QN800A have a conventional RGB
| or BGR subpixel structure. One may also increase the font
| size or use hidpi scaling which will eliminate all pixel-
| level concerns.
| jerf wrote:
| I believe the discussion about text rendering is referring
| only to a line of very cheap TVs that do not in fact have RGB
| pixels. They have half RG and half GB. For "normal" video
| content, this is a surprisingly low quality drop. For high-
| contrast text it's total murder. You can see the stippling
| pattern as clear as day and it can easily render 8-10pt text
| literally illegible.
|
| IT once accidentally bought such a TV and had it in a
| conference room. Took us a while to convince the relevant
| people that, yes, it is _nominally_ working fine, it 's not
| "broken" in the sense that it doesn't turn on or half the
| screen won't light up, but it was intolerable for Zoom screen
| shares.
|
| But you need to be scraping the bottom of the barrel to end
| up with those screens. I doubt you could find something
| labelled a "monitor" that has that, and, well, if you're
| putting a $150 40" TV on to your computer... I mean... what
| did you expect?
|
| (There are also low-end TVs that are still using some crappy
| LCD techs with bad viewing angles that may make them
| difficult to use up close, but I wouldn't call that a _text_
| rendering problem... those issues just wreck everything. I
| once had a laptop that when used on a lap, had zero viewing
| angles; if the vertical middle of the screen was correct, the
| top and bottom was _extremely_ visibly color shifted. Even
| the cheapest store brand TVs don 't seem to be that bad
| anymore, though.)
| jsheard wrote:
| > I believe the discussion about text rendering is
| referring only to a line of very cheap TVs that do not in
| fact have RGB pixels.
|
| It also comes up with _very_ expensive OLED monitors, which
| do usually have true RGB or WRGB pixels, but their
| subpixels are usually not arranged in the standard
| horizontal RGB stripe which breaks most implementations of
| subpixel font rendering. With a sufficiently high pixel
| density it doesn 't matter, but with the ~108ppi of a 27"
| 1440p OLED monitor the text rendering can be quite visibly
| worse than a 27" 1440p LCD.
| AnthonBerg wrote:
| From experience with a 55" 4K OLED as main monitor, I can
| attest that the length if the caveat list is not indicative of
| the total impact of the caveats. It's more an indication of a
| thoughtful and thorough person writing the list.
| chown wrote:
| I am looking for a 55" 4K OLED. Do you have a recommendation?
| And are there any technical caveats with it? (I use a Mac
| primarily). Thank you
| AnthonBerg wrote:
| I went with the LG CX model based on what I read on
| rtings.com
|
| That's a previous-generation model. I think all of the LG
| TVs are good.
|
| There are / were technical caveats. I believe all of them
| are solved by M3 macs that have HDMI 2.1 ports. (M3 or M3
| Pro or something? The ones advertised as 8K capable.) Out
| of the box, those will do 4K 120Hz HDR with variable
| refresh rate and full 444 color. This is what you want.
|
| It is possible to get that going on older machines, except
| for VRR which is more of a nice-to-have anyway.
|
| I have a 2018 Macbook Pro 15". Disclaimer!: My setup was a
| "complexity pet", a tinkering project; There are simpler
| ways to connect a 120Hz 4K HDR HDMI 2.1 display to a non-
| HDMI-2-1 mac. And! My tinkering project wasn't only about
| getting the display working correctly. It was more about
| messing with eGPUs and virtualization and stuff. Definitely
| a long way round.
|
| On my Intel mac, I use an AMD Radeon 6800 XT eGPU with
| Club3D or CableMatters DisplayPort-to-HDMI 2.1 adapters.
| Plus some EDID hacking which is easy to do.
|
| EDID is how the display identifies itself to the OS. The
| EDID payload can be overridden on the OS side. Mostly it's
| about copying the display's EDID and deleting the entry
| that says the display can accept 4:2:0 color. Only then
| does macOS switch to 4:4:4 color. I also created a custom
| "modeline" with tighter timing to get 120Hz going fully.
|
| --Please be assured that this was way more complex than it
| needed to be. It was for fun!
|
| There are much easier ways to do this. Lots of forum posts
| on it. On the MacRumors forums iirc? User _joevt_ is The
| Man.
|
| And even then, what I wrote above is actually easy to do
| once you know it's possible.
|
| Mostly though you really want an M3 Mac that just has HDMI
| 2.1 and is ready to go.
|
| There are/were also OLED gaming monitors available, such as
| from Alienware. Those have DisplayPort inputs and are ready
| to go with almost any older Mac. Might be able to find one
| for a price equivalent to a TV, idk.
| 0points wrote:
| That's simply too big a screen to be sitting right in front of.
|
| I do agree on the basic idea of not running two monitors tho. I
| used to, and I got neck pains eventually.
|
| My current setup is a single 32" curved QHD monitor and I
| wouldn't change it for the world. It's just the right size so you
| can see the whole screen at once, yet large enough to run 3
| browsers side by side.
|
| Also, I want to suggest people to learn about virtual desktops
| rather than wasting money on bizarrely huge screens or multi
| monitor setups.
| leptons wrote:
| 55" is not too big. Maybe it's too big _for you_ , but I've
| been using three 32" 4k screens in portrait for many years,
| combined they are essentially about the size of a 55" screen. I
| love it and anything less kind of sucks. No, virtual desktops
| are no substitute for having more screen size. I use virtual
| desktops on my massive screen(s) and I love that too.
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| The 3 32" screens are probably angled around you and the
| total aspect ratio is extreme widescreen (side to side
| panning, not vertical neck up down panning). The 3 screens
| are likely much much better ergonomically.
| cerved wrote:
| 55" was fine but I'm happy I downsized to 48"
| diggan wrote:
| > Also, I want to suggest people to learn about virtual
| desktops rather than wasting money on bizarrely huge screens or
| multi monitor setups.
|
| If I want to have multiple things open and be able to glance at
| them at once, how would virtual desktops help with that?
| bluGill wrote:
| If you have it setup right you can flip to the other desktop
| quick, see what you want and flip fast. I haven't seen a good
| virtual desktop implementation since around 1998 though, and
| have given up.
| porphyra wrote:
| > Also, I want to suggest people to learn about virtual
| desktops rather than wasting money on bizarrely huge screens or
| multi monitor setups.
|
| This sounds a little condescending especially when the author
| is clearly a technically savvy user who uses a tiling window
| manager.
| egypturnash wrote:
| That's a hell of a desk. And counter to the argument that "you
| could just have the one huge screen for entertainment AND work"
| because this is not a desk you can easily clear out from in front
| of the sofa when you stop working.
|
| This is making me want to get some blackout curtains for my
| living room so I can go back to occasionally working with my
| laptop hooked to the projector, though. It's about the same
| resolution as my laptop but it's really nice to be focusing on
| something across the room for a change.
| atahanacar wrote:
| I use a 50" 4K TV as my monitor. It's mounted on a long TV
| mount that can bend at 3 points, one near the wall, one near
| the TV and one in the middle. Gives me great freedom. One
| warning to people who want to do the same: make sure your mount
| has a way to rotate (around the screen's surface normal) the TV
| as the weight of it will make it sag.
| Helithumper wrote:
| Reminds me of Michael Stapelberg's 8k Monitor Setup:
|
| https://michael.stapelberg.ch/posts/2017-12-11-dell-up3218k
|
| https://michael.stapelberg.ch/posts/2020-05-23-desk-setup
| PaulRobinson wrote:
| I upgraded recently, by buying a friends old Samsung Odyssey G9
| 49" curved monitor off him (he was emigrating). Before that I had
| 2 x 27" monitors, a setup I had used for ~10 years.
|
| I honestly think the curve is essential when dealing with such a
| wide display. The alternative would be - as article states - to
| set it back a little and have a deeper desk so you can actually
| see the edge of the screen properly. I don't see the point in
| having a large screen with high pixel density if the edges are
| not actually easily visible to me without moving my head or body
| laterally.
|
| The lack of bezels is great though - I'd definitely agree on that
| front, having 3 web browsers or editors open side by side suits
| me really well.
| colechristensen wrote:
| 32" Odyssey G7 is the pick for me, I wouldn't mind an upgrade
| to the 4k version, but the 1440p version is more than good
| enough.
|
| I also don't see the point in having a screen so big I have to
| move my head, or contrarily a screen so big that I have to push
| it back so the pixel density matters much less.
| AnthonBerg wrote:
| It's different from person to person!, whether the curve is
| good or not.
|
| I have a ruler flat 55" OLED TV as main monitor. It's perfect
| for me. I'm like... 1-1.5 meters from it where I'm closest to
| it, haha. The edges are further away. It's fine! - imo / ime.
|
| (The need for the curve is also subtly different depending on
| how the panel was made. I tried a flat 43" IPS 4K monitor,
| expecting IPS to be good. And it wasn't very good. The IPS
| features in that panel were large enough to affect viewing
| angle.)
| jsheard wrote:
| > It's different from person to person!, whether the curve is
| good or not.
|
| The amount of curve also varies a lot between models so
| there's some nuance even within that. The curve might be as
| strong as 800R or as weak as 2300R depending on the monitor,
| where the number corresponds to the radius of the circle the
| panel follows in millimeters.
| spondylosaurus wrote:
| As weird as the aspect ratio can be on a curved ultrawide, I
| think it's also more natural and ergonomic to keep your
| head/eyes at a constant height and just move them side to side.
| With a monitor that has a lot of verticality you're gonna have
| to tilt your neck back more.
| jamalaramala wrote:
| Why are these monitors sold as "gaming" monitors?
| wcoenen wrote:
| Low response time (i.e. time it takes for a pixel to change
| color) to reduce ghosting, and a high refresh rate up to 240
| Hz.
|
| These monitors are expensive and do not have very high
| resolution. If you're not a hardcore fast reflex gamer, and
| you spend a lot of time looking at text, then IMO it's better
| to buy a higher resolution monitor for less money.
| jsheard wrote:
| 4K gaming monitors do provide a reasonable middle-ground
| between "extremely fast but only 100-110ppi" and "extremely
| high res but only 60hz" now though. You can get 163ppi at
| 144hz without breaking the bank, which isn't quite retina
| by Apples definition, but it's good enough for me
| considering the benefit of high refresh rate.
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| These days you can buy 4K/240Hz displays that have a
| 1080p/480Hz mode.
|
| Even 240Hz is usually enough for really good players. 480Hz
| is just for the 0.01% who can take advantage of it.
|
| https://www.amazon.com/ASUS-Swift-Gaming-Monitor-
| PG32UCDP/dp...
|
| https://www.amazon.com/LG-32GS95UE-Ultragear-DisplayHDR-
| Dis...
|
| https://www.amazon.com/LG-32GS95UV-Ultragear-DisplayHDR-
| Dis...
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Predator-Monitor-FreeSync-
| Premium-100...
| jsheard wrote:
| Note that these are all 32" panels so the PPI is on the
| lower side of 4K monitors.
|
| If you want pixel density first and speed second then you
| should go for a 27" 4K instead.
| outworlder wrote:
| > 480Hz is just for the 0.01% who can take advantage of
| it.
|
| I'm skeptical that any human can take advantage of that.
| Even 240Hz is stretching it.
| diggan wrote:
| I'm guessing because it allows you to set the Field-of-Vision
| to be pretty wide?
|
| I mostly play simulation games, particularly flying, and
| having a wider FoV makes things easier, until you're ready to
| go to the top step of using VR instead so you also get depth
| perception and essentially 360 FoV since you can rotate your
| head.
| thfuran wrote:
| A curved, very wide fov screws up the camera projection for
| most games though.
| saltcured wrote:
| I wonder what the math would look like to properly render
| 3D scenes onto a curved display. Could it be accelerated
| as well as the regular matrix operations used for
| perspective projection onto planar screens?
|
| During the pandemic I did try out my 4K TV as a game
| monitor. I had a combination of furniture so that I could
| sit rather close with my eyes approximately half way up
| the screen, with a keyboard and mouse in a reasonable
| position. Then, using an older FPS game I got it to where
| my laptop GPU could hit good frame rates and I adjusted
| the game's viewing angle to match how the screen fit my
| field of view.
|
| It was deeply immersive in spite of me being so close I
| could "see the pixels". The only time I've felt more
| immersive was demoing Quake in a 3 wall + floor CAVE at a
| national lab decades ago.
| outworlder wrote:
| > I wonder what the math would look like to properly
| render 3D scenes onto a curved display. Could it be
| accelerated as well as the regular matrix operations used
| for perspective projection onto planar screens?
|
| The math is pretty simple to account for a curved
| viewport, even though I don't think any apps actually
| care about that. Most displays aren't curved enough to
| make it a meaningful difference.
|
| We don't have fixed function pipelines anymore either so
| that could definitely be handled by hardware.
| giobox wrote:
| This used to be much more true, but almost all PC games
| support 21:9 now and 32:9 support pretty common too.
| "most games" screwed up is an exaggeration IMO. Even on
| games that don't officially scale, on PC they almost
| always have customizable FoV that gets the perspective
| correct again. Many modern games are even smart enough to
| rearrange the UI so that the critical info (health bars,
| ammo counts etc) is in the center of the display and not
| attached to the edges.
|
| PC games have kinda been forced to support ultrawides
| whether they like it or not - the 21:9 class especially
| has exploded in popularity for gaming PCs.
|
| I've gamed in 32:9 for years now - I wouldn't go back.
| The curve is not exaggerated enough to be a meaningful
| projection issue on most curved displays and games.
| kennethrc wrote:
| I have the 57" version, 7680x2160. It's ... indispensable ...
| all my Konsoles, app windows, etc. all on one screen with no
| overlaps.
|
| Got it on a Samsung sale for ~$1500 IIRC, one of the best
| upgrades I'd ever done.
| unglaublich wrote:
| I dislike TVs for their high input lag; bad image uniformity;
| unwanted post-processing and a high energy use (hot rooms).
| porphyra wrote:
| Modern TVs have decent input lag around 10 ms which is on par
| with professional monitors, but of course it will still be
| worse than gaming monitors. Lots of people game on their TVs.
| And most TVs have settings that disable postprocessing.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| > Having seven evenly-spaced columns would be impossible on a
| dual 4K display setup due to bezels in the middle.
|
| I know I'm getting into old man yells at cloud territory here,
| but nobody needs this. Code on a 1024x600 netbook display, it
| will build character.
| anthk wrote:
| Either SICP or PAIP, but these with cwm, uxterm and an editor
| it's mind-changing.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| Like Joey Hess: https://usesthis.com/interviews/joey.hess/
| NoGravitas wrote:
| I actually kind of agree with this. For me, the more pixels the
| better (I'm sensitive to fuzzy text, and subpixel rendering
| makes it worse), but I'd really prefer just one monitor, not
| too big. 15-19" is fine, especially if it's 4:3. 1600x1200 on a
| 17" monitor would be really nice.
| lynguist wrote:
| In the mid 90s professional video game programmers used
| typically a 1920x1080 display, just to have a larger code
| canvas and display sharper text.
|
| From the 90s on 1600x1200, 1920x1080, 2048x1536 were
| resolutions one could find on professional displays.
|
| From the 2010s on resolutions increased tremendously and
| 3840x2160 became the norm for consumer and professional
| displays.
|
| When working with code you essentially work with text. You just
| want a big canvas and crisp text, thus high resolution.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| I guess. I think the important thing is getting the program
| in your head, not on the screen. If the code is too
| complicated to hold it all in your mind then more columns of
| crisp text will not save you.
| Zaskoda wrote:
| I'm not a fan. Large ultra-wide curved screens are fantastic.
| With large flat screens that are meant to be viewed across the
| room, you get a distorted image when you sit up close. Your eyes
| have to focus further away as you look at things closer to the
| edge of your screen and the viewing angle for that part of the
| screen is different from the center of the screen. It also
| requires more effort for your eyes to look up and down rather
| than left and right. We're hard wired for that horizontal plane.
| This makes ultrawide screens a really comfortable option.
| leptons wrote:
| I almost bought an 8k 55" screen for use as a monitor, but I
| tested a 55" 4k screen for a week and the flatness is what
| turned me off to it. I've been using three 32" 4k screens in
| portrait, arranged in a "curved" config on my desk (2 monitors
| on each side are mounted at an angle), which I really like. But
| switching to a large single flat screen was not fun.
|
| For me the holy grail of monitors is a 55" 8k _curved_ screen.
| Not "ultrawide", I want the full width and height and I want
| it curved, with full 8k resolution. Maybe someday, but I'm not
| getting my hopes up too high.
| thfuran wrote:
| Spherical or cylindrical?
| hatthew wrote:
| I'm not the guy you asked but I have a similar opinion on
| flat screens. Personally I'd want spherical. ~15" tall and
| ~25" wide is about my limit for flat screens, anything
| beyond that I find that the corners/edges are too
| distant/distorted. My home setup is multiple independent
| 27" screens, which I like. My work setup is a single flat
| ultrawide (34" probably?), and I find myself physically
| leaning my head/body from side to side when I have two
| windows open next to each other. I have eye level a few
| inches from the top of the screen, and the lowest couple
| inches also seem distant/distorted.
| exitb wrote:
| After 15 years of having a desk job I find that I'm more
| sensitive to the position I sit in. My back feels a lot better if
| I have a single, regular sized screen right in front of me,
| instead of having additional screen estate on the sides or below
| (as with a laptop).
|
| At the same time I use virtual desktops that I can switch with
| both keyboard and mouse.
| appleiigs wrote:
| The general advice is to have top of monitor at eye level, but
| it's been wrong advice for me personally. I now put the middle
| of the monitor at eye level. Keeps my head up and posture
| better. Leaning back instead of stooping.
| switch007 wrote:
| Indeed. AIUI your head needs to be back, chin tucked in,
| which means looking down a bit. If you're looking level or up
| you're going to be sticking your head out a bit
| coretx wrote:
| The general advice provided to me, and relayed by me is eyes
| centered @ 2/3th of the screen. The best advice received and
| relayed by me regarding posture might surprise you. If you
| struggle with posture, stop caring about what other people
| might think about your posture. Changing/Tweaking posture all
| the time might look bad, but it also tends to mitigate the
| effects of being frozen in bad posture(!) The health impact
| is too significant to ignore.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Yeah I think the only ergonomic advice I believe anymore is
| that there does not exist a position that is ergonomic to
| sustain for more than a couple hours. Humans are not
| evolved to stay stationary, few mammals are really.
| deergomoo wrote:
| I do this too, though mostly out of necessity. I use a 27"
| screen a couple feet away. To get the top of the monitor
| level with my eyes I'd either have to lower it so the bottom
| of the monitor was almost flush with the desk (which my
| current monitor's stand won't do anyway), or get a taller
| chair/lower my desk, both of which would leave my legs
| rubbing up against the desk underside and my arms at an
| uncomfortable angle for typing.
|
| Either I have an abnormally short torso, or that advice was
| written back when most people were using a 14" display.
| wrs wrote:
| I switched to a VESA arm so I can put the bottom of the
| monitor flush with the desk and leaned back at a bit of an
| angle. It's fantastic.
| guardiangod wrote:
| I used to use dual monitors 50:50 in front of me, but after a
| few years I started getting neck pain.
|
| Now I put a monitor directly in front of me, and a secondary
| monitor on the side. No more neck pain.
| criddell wrote:
| I'm the same. I use a single 27" 4k monitor and use virtual
| desktops. The best upgrade for me though was getting a computer
| prescription for some glasses that I keep on my desk.
|
| Sometimes I think about upgrading to a 5k monitor. The Apple
| Studio Display looks great, but I'm a Windows user and I'm
| guessing a lot of the nice features of that display are Mac-
| only.
|
| There aren't a whole lot of options for 5k monitors. Other than
| Apple I think there's a Dell, but it's too wide. There's a
| Samsung but I've been burned by Samsung too many times. There's
| also an LG 5k monitor but it gets pretty weak reviews.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| I've got the LG 5K and it's been totally dependably kick ass
| for the 4 years (i think) since I got it (from the Apple
| Store). Mostly using it on macOS but have used it with
| Windows and haven't tried with Linux.
| deergomoo wrote:
| > The Apple Studio Display looks great, but I'm a Windows
| user and I'm guessing a lot of the nice features of that
| display are Mac-only
|
| I can possibly be of some help here. I have a Studio Display,
| however my work-provided machine is a Dell laptop and so that
| is what is connected to it most of the time.
|
| Providing your machine can output video via Thunderbolt or
| USB-C, it will work. That is fairly common these days, though
| Windows machines capable of driving a 5120x2880 signal can be
| harder to come across, particularly in the corporate laptop
| world, though I don't know how much of a concern that is to
| you.
|
| My last work machine maxed out at 4K which the Studio Display
| would happily scale up to full screen. I would describe it as
| substantially sharper than e.g. a 2560x1440 display of
| equivalent size, but still noticeably less sharp than the
| full native 5K (obviously). My current machine can do the
| full 5K, but the performance leaves a lot to be desired
| (however the thing is a turd anyway, too much corporate
| security crap bogging it down).
|
| Speakers, camera, and microphone built into the display all
| work totally fine from Windows. What may be a total non-
| starter is that you need a Mac or iPad to change the
| brightness, because there's no physical controls on the
| display itself and Windows doesn't expose a way to control
| it. I am lucky/unlucky in that my home office does not get a
| huge amount of natural light, meaning I've been able to set
| it to a comfortable brightness from my Mac and then just
| leave it.
|
| Overall it's a very nice monitor if you can work around the
| brightness thing. A possibly better contender though is the
| recent-ish 5K variant of the Asus ProArt[0]. I was using the
| 1440p version of the same monitor before I got the Studio
| Display, and I was very happy with it. Good colour
| reproduction, USB-C Power Delivery for one-cable laptop
| docking, and a far more adjustable stand than the SD. Worth a
| look.
|
| [0] https://www.asus.com/displays-
| desktops/monitors/proart/proar...
| kwanbix wrote:
| Same for me. I just tried a curved 27 inches monitor and I hate
| it.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| That's too small for the curvature to provide any benefit.
| layer8 wrote:
| I find curved beneficial even on 24", but I'm also quite
| nearsighted.
| BizarroLand wrote:
| I have dual 27 flat monitors at home and dual 27 curved
| monitors at work and the ones at work are far more
| comfortable to use.
| thefz wrote:
| Same, and wherever I put the second display, it's going to hurt
| my neck after a very whort while.
| vikingerik wrote:
| Same here. I only use and want a single monitor setup. I can
| alt-tab between windows faster and more comfortably than
| turning my head to another screen.
|
| Also a dual/multiple setup bothers me for losing the mouse
| boundaries when it crosses to another screen - I'd rather have
| the mouse bounded on one screen for faster access to menu bars
| at the edges.
| zippergz wrote:
| Agreed. To each their own, but the obsession with the biggest
| and/or most possible screens is something that is very hard for
| me to relate to. As soon as I am regularly craning my neck to
| see all of my screen real estate, it is no longer a positive in
| my life. I'm glad these solutions exist for people who enjoy
| them, but they are definitely not for me.
| jnsaff2 wrote:
| I used a 32" non-curved 4k monitor for a few months once. At some
| point I realized that I was moving my head around a lot as the
| corners were at an awkward place. On 28" I don't have this.
|
| So anything above 30-ish inches I would consider either curved
| (expensive for hidpi resolutions) or two/three 27" screens angled
| a bit.
|
| I can't imagine how bad it would be on a 65" flat screen.
| bradfa wrote:
| 30" flat screen at normal desktop viewing distance seems to be
| my personal limit, too.
| skirmish wrote:
| How close are you to the screen? With my face about 1 foot
| away, I can easily scan all corners on the 32" 4k flat screen
| just by moving my eyes.
| mdrzn wrote:
| "8K TVs tend to start at around $1500 to $2000 for a 65" one.
| This is about the same as getting four 32" 4K monitors."
|
| Getting 3 32" 4k monitors is still better than having a single
| point of failure. But also I'm extremely happy with my single
| Odyssey G9 55".
| imaginarypedro wrote:
| You're so right about the single point of failure.
|
| I bought a 30" monitor back in 2008 when that constituted a
| large monitor. It had a 12 month warranty and died after 13
| months. :-(
|
| I switched to 2 24-inch monitors which cost less, had more
| total pixels, and most importantly I no longer had that single
| point of failure.
| SirMaster wrote:
| How about a projector? There are no 8K projectors
|
| Well that's not technically true...
|
| https://www.jvc.com/usa/pro/projectors/dla-vs8000g/
|
| But obviously not affordable.
| js2 wrote:
| Discontinued:
|
| https://www.projectorcentral.com/JVC-DLA-VS8000G.htm
|
| I'm not sure if they ever shipped it to any retail customers.
| I'm a JVC projector owner so I kinda follow JVC projector news.
| The higher end JVC PJs are used by Boeing for flight sims:
|
| https://www.boeing.com/defense/support/training/constant-res...
|
| JVC accommodates that use case with things like extra chassis
| mounting points to allow the projector to be mounted securely
| in a dynamic environment. This looks like it may have been an
| early POC in native 8K for Boeing.
| asadm wrote:
| Is there a plugin for mac to make tiled windowing easier. All the
| current ones are a bit too hacky. I really liked tiling in PopOS.
| thelittleone wrote:
| The linked article suggests yabai.
| jamalaramala wrote:
| Rectangle is pretty good.
| anoncow wrote:
| I think the questions to ask are:
|
| 1. At what size and resolution are flat screen monitors most
| useful?
|
| 2. At what size do curved screens start becoming useful?
|
| 3. What is the upper limit for useful screen sizes?
|
| 4. Is there an upper likit for useful resolutions?
| atahanacar wrote:
| For 1 and 2, I would say it totally boils down to personal
| preference an distance/size ratio. For 3, again, distance to
| the screen matters a lot.
|
| The 4th one I've seen the most heated discussions about. In my
| opinion, highest you can afford (both money-wise and
| computational power-wise) is the most useful resolution. Even
| if you can't distinguish the individual pixels (aka screen door
| effect) aliasing is still an issue.
| vunderba wrote:
| I use dual 27" 144kHz 4K monitors and am mostly pretty happy with
| my setup though I have considered moving to an Ultra Wide curved
| monitor, I'm just not sure if the OCD side of me would be
| bothered by the curvature.
|
| Unless I'm misunderstanding, one of the advantages of using
| physically distinct monitors is that it's easier to send things
| into a full screen mode without affecting the other displays - I
| guess apps that support "borderless windows" are less of an
| issue.
|
| Maybe there's some type of cross platform (Mac, Lennox, Windows)
| virtual display driver software that can allow you to create
| "picture in picture" virtualized monitors though?
| bradfa wrote:
| My Dell monitor has a picture-by-picture mode which works very
| well to simulate 2 distinct displays. Each side uses its own
| video input. Many higher end monitors can do this, unsure how
| many TVs can.
| hinkley wrote:
| I haven't figured out the trick to make OSX use the entire
| screen on PBP mode. I just get two little screens.
| Suppafly wrote:
| >Unless I'm misunderstanding, one of the advantages of using
| physically distinct monitors is that it's easier to send things
| into a full screen mode without affecting the other displays -
| I guess apps that support "borderless windows" are less of an
| issue.
|
| This is one of the reasons I stuck with two monitors instead of
| one long one when I upgraded a while back. I know there are
| workarounds and helper programs you can install and whatnot,
| but I like being able to drag something to the side and full
| screen it without any additional hoops. Plus the long monitor
| crowd tend to have things centered on the screen and then have
| small accessory areas to either side instead of two distinctly
| large screens. Plus resolution wise, unless you're going with a
| really wide monitor, you probably have more overall resolution
| with two screens, especially if price is a factor at all.
| Standalone 27" monitors are basically the standard and are
| priced accordingly.
| appleiigs wrote:
| Does any one else have mouse lag with giant high pixel density
| monitors?
| gwbas1c wrote:
| Check your refresh rate. With my 4k TV, the mouse gets laggy if
| it falls back to 30hz.
|
| I plug my TV directly into my laptop with a USBC -> HDMI cable.
| Docking stations often fall back to lower refresh rates.
| abhinavk wrote:
| It might be your port or cable that doesn't support the
| required bandwidth to drive your hi-dpi display at the selected
| refresh-rate.
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| That's typical of tvs. The signal is delayed by a few seconds
| because for passive entertainment why not. You will likely have
| a mode for your tv that does no post processing and has minimal
| delay Often called pc or gaming mode. Look up "[your tv model]
| gaming mode".
| zavertnik wrote:
| This is something I've wanted to do for a while! I wish Samsung
| still produced their 55" 8K displays-- 8k @ 55" gives you
| effectively the same PPI as a 27" 4K display. Maybe someday.
| jamalaramala wrote:
| The biggest problem I see is ergonomics.
|
| The proper monitor height is when the top third of the screen is
| at or slightly below your eye level when seated or standing
| upright. This positioning helps prevent neck strain and allows
| for a comfortable viewing angle.
|
| The top third of a large TV will be much higher than that, which
| will cause long term discomfort.
|
| That's why large monitors have much wider aspect than TVs.
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| Yep a huge monitor sounds good in theory but you end up with
| neck and eye strain from panning your head constantly unless
| you place it so far away that it's effectively a regular
| monitor at a regular distance.
| k4rli wrote:
| Would recommend a black background Vscode theme for an OLED.
| The black background with red accents looks beautiful, at least
| on my smaller XPS 15 4k OLED. I use Dobri Next Black with some
| customizations but it looks good by default as well.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Nice, I use Hyper Term Theme. I'll have to check out the one
| you mentioned.
| m_ke wrote:
| I've been using 42" 4K TVs as my monitor for like 10 years now. 2
| years ago I upgraded to an OLED LG A1 and it has been amazing.
|
| https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/a1-oled
|
| For anyone using a TV I recommend using
| https://github.com/waydabber/BetterDisplay to properly scale the
| display.
| steelbrain wrote:
| Looks great, thank you for sharing. I've been looking for
| something similar (OLED, for work/gaming) so looked into the
| one you're using.
|
| > Doesn't support variable refresh rates or HDMI 2.1.
|
| Unfortunately that makes it a deal breaker. The search
| continues
| kayg04 wrote:
| The C1/C2/C3/C4 do support HDMI 2.1 and VRR.
| bluedino wrote:
| I have a 43" LG 4K TV as my main screen for the last two years,
| it's great. I'd actually like something just a little bit
| bigger, 50" maybe?
|
| The trick for me was to wall-mount it and get a deep desk. I
| prefer to be at least 36" away from it.
| tetraodonpuffer wrote:
| Have you had issues with image retention? I also like the 43"
| 4K setup for some things, but these days it seems IPS screens
| in that size are not as easy to find, I've always been wary of
| OLED due to burn-in
| dekhn wrote:
| Am I the only person who wants a monitor that's curved in both
| axes (left/right and up/down) so I can surround myself with a
| sphere of monitors, and then pivot on a gimbal?
| xnx wrote:
| Apple Vision Pro would probably accomplish this
| amelius wrote:
| What are its viewing angles?
| dekhn wrote:
| it's around 100 degrees while humans can see more like 180
| degrees (more if you move your eyes; I don't want to move
| my eyes, I want to gimbal my body to focus on a specific
| monitor) although outside the center of your vision, you
| don't have good "resolution". The Vision Pro would be like
| being inside the sphere, but with a big aperture blocking
| all the side monitors
| thelittleone wrote:
| I'd love to do this but always worried (probably incorrectly)
| that the energy output wouldn't feel great and result in faster
| fatigue or require more rest breaks.
| jfb wrote:
| I'd be happy to, but there aren't any 8K TVs at 55" or smaller. I
| want the pixels, but I'm not going to put a 65" TV on my damn
| desk -- I have two 27" 4k now, and it's ... fine, I guess? but I
| want a 42" 8k running at 2x.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| I am excited for 8k monitors in the future, because they give you
| a _lot_ more options for integer scaling than current 4k
| displays.
|
| I know this a nerdish hill to die on, but I hate fractional
| scaling with the blazing fury of a thousand suns. To get a 1440p
| sized UI on a 27" 4k display, you can't just divide by 1.5x the
| OS has to 3x/2 for _every_ frame. OS X does this best as they 've
| had retina displays for a while, but no OS does this well, and it
| leads to all sorts of performance issues especially when dealing
| with view ports. Linux is especially bad.
|
| Having said all that, I absolutely will _not_ be using an 8k tv
| as a display. I 'm currently using a 27" 1440p monitor, and while
| I could probably handle a 32" 8k display that is the absolute max
| size I'd tolerate. You start to get into all sorts of issues with
| viewing distance and angle going larger.
|
| My 27" 1440p is fine for now. I sit far enough away from it that
| I don't really 'see the pixels' unless I go looking for them. It
| was also a crazy good deal as it's a 144hz monitor that also has
| a built in KVM switch that's very useful for WFH.
| zokier wrote:
| That's why we have so-called 5k monitors in 27" size class?
| Being exactly 2x pixel density of conventional 1440p
| layer8 wrote:
| 27" 1440p at 100% is too small for me, so 5K at 200% has the
| same problem. More generally, the available PPIs combined
| with integer scaling only yield relatively few options at a
| given viewing distance. More choice would be nice.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| Yep pretty much, and 6k 32" monitors. Both are fringe
| monitors mainly used by mac people.
| wilsonnb3 wrote:
| I am curious as to what OS's you've tried. Fractional scaling
| is flawless on Windows and KDE6 with wayland in my experience.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| I wouldn't describe any OS as 'flawless', they're all doing
| what I describe under the hood. QT does have better support
| than GTK atm. I've also seen bad behavior on windows, esp
| with older apps. OS X is about the best out there, but even
| it can have issues with applications that have a view port
| (i.e. video editors, etc).
|
| I'd prefer to skip all that so I'm happy staying on 1440p
| until 8k monitors are where 1440p monitors are today with
| regard to price and quality.
| recursive wrote:
| It may well be doing what you described under the hood, but
| I've never seen any evidence of a performance problem as a
| result.
| itomato wrote:
| 10 years ago it was the 30" Seiki 4K TV
|
| https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=seiki+4k
|
| Niche no more.
| xnx wrote:
| Televisions continue to be the best deal going:
| https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/price-changes-consumer-go...
|
| That chart doesn't even fully account for the increased size,
| pixel density, color accuracy, contrast, and refresh rates.
| ballerburg9006 wrote:
| TL;DR: You can't really replace a monitor wall with a single
| screen because it does not curve to create the right viewing
| angle, which makes text seriously unreadable at the edges, which
| forces you to seriously upscale the font size, which steals the
| largest amount of real estate possible. Of all the compromises to
| make, reducing the number of screens is one of the worst ones.
|
| 4k screens are already somewhat questionable for productivity for
| this reason alone. The only serious argument that can be made is
| 1440p vs 1080p (personally I would argue for 1080p, if using
| bitmap fonts and having perfect eyesight). A 4k monitor wall is a
| rather fringe setup, that only works out to an advantage for day
| traders and weird surveillance applications. And it requires that
| you constantly do very energetic body gymnastics to change your
| perspective's location and be able to see all the details. With a
| single 8k screen without upscaling font size (hence preserving
| all technical real-estate), the body gymnastics required would be
| so much worse than a 4k wall, it would be absolutely ridiculous
| and clown-alike and almost impossible to use while typing.
| Otherwise people mainly want big 4k/8k screens for dual use as a
| TV set. But this is just wrong in itself, it creates a paradox
| for no good reason, like using screwdrivers as chisels. Some
| things are not meant to be. The only arrangement where 4k makes
| some sense for common use cases, is maybe above a curved ultra
| widescreen.
| catchmeifyoucan wrote:
| On most monitors I've been using these days, I keep scaling the
| resolution down. I've noticed that the bigger the text, the more
| comfortable my eyes feel. I still prefer a good high-res monitor
| because it scales down with less blur
| deedub wrote:
| This is what I do too, then I can sit even further away. Feels
| good on the ole' eyeballs.
| preisschild wrote:
| I use a single curved 57" 32:9 DUHD monitor (Samsung Odyssey NEO
| G95NC) for work and gaming. Previously I used 3 24" monitors, but
| I like this setup a lot more.
|
| I split it into 3 sections (browser for docs, and rest
| terminal/nvim), but i can easily change this if I want to show
| slack for example. For gaming I go fullscreen (and use overlays
| for stuff like VOIP or browsing) because it is a lot more
| immersive.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Nope.. I want to be able to properly split the screen in
| different inputs because of the lack of proper window / workspace
| management if you're not using separate monitors
| cerved wrote:
| I'd suggest getting a better window manager
| vid wrote:
| I wanted to go down this path some months ago, but couldn't find
| any options on the market. I ended up with a 42" 4k LG C3, but
| it's just "ok" because I can easily see pixels. I wanted to use
| the room as dual use work/watch movies, but without the need to
| watch movies I'd probably go back to a wide screen curved
| display.
| bdcravens wrote:
| > The bezels and gaps in between the monitors introduce
| distractions and one is limited in how one may arrange terminals
| and windows across multiple displays.
|
| To me, the segmentation is a feature. It lets me offload
| information density and focus. For example, I commonly have an
| editor on one screen, a browser on the second, and something like
| a chat app, terminal, etc on the laptop screen.
| Arrath wrote:
| Same, I've never liked spanning a window across multiple
| monitors. The discontinuity of the bezel is a handy mental
| break. Often I'll have email and teams on one screen and my
| main item of work on the central screen.
| dmd wrote:
| Nobody's stopping you from segmenting one big monitor into
| different regions; and you get to choose how big those regions
| are from day to day rather than being forced into it.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| That's too much extra work. With multiple monitors you can
| maximize primary apps while still having manual management of
| smaller supporting apps on another monitor. You also get more
| edges for rapid snap to the sides of a monitor.
| r00fus wrote:
| You're not using the best window managers - most have
| customizable drag points or keybindings to get exactly what
| you want.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| Since you seem to know about the best window managers,
| can you recommend one for MacOS which will let me direct
| focus to whichever window is left/right/down/up of the
| currently selected one? i3/sway does this just fine, but
| my impression is that MacOS's api doesn't allow third
| party developers to pull it off, but I'd love to be wrong
| about that.
| daveungerer wrote:
| Not the person you were asking, but after years of using
| i3, AeroSpace is the only way I can use a Mac
| productively, and does indeed have the feature you're
| describing.
| choochootrain wrote:
| the article mentions
| https://github.com/koekeishiya/yabai, which i have been
| using for a few years to get me to 90% parity with i3.
|
| it has quirks and limitations, some of which can be fixed
| by disabling system integrity protection but it can
| definitely handle window tiling and navigating with
| keybindings when you use the companion daemon
| https://github.com/koekeishiya/skhd
| creakingstairs wrote:
| I use yabai which does what you say and more pretty well.
| It also lets you completely remove spaces transition
| effect but this will require disabling of SIP.
| jrockway wrote:
| Even Windows has this with PowerToys.
|
| I use 3 monitors but would switch to 1 if games respected
| the dimensions and 8k displays could refresh at 360Hz.
| jsheard wrote:
| Although if that big monitor is an OLED, segmenting it into
| halves or quarters is kind of begging to end up with a line
| burned in down or across the middle eventually.
| shric wrote:
| I'm imagining a tiling window manager screensaver that
| slowly resizes and moves your window boundaries throughout
| the day
| John_Cena wrote:
| Samsung solves this in the TV itself. It can be annoying
| when the edges of the screen are ever so slightly off,
| but i'm glad I don't have to worry about it. QCQ90S. I
| wouldn't recommend it since the tv's gui is glacially
| slow, but then again all the ones I tried last year were.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Many OLED monitors and TVs already do this, it's called
| pixel shifting.
| accrual wrote:
| A Panasonic Viera plasma TV I bought around 2012 also had
| this feature.
| kimixa wrote:
| They tend to be relatively poorly handled by the software, at
| least out of the box.
|
| Every modern major OS now has some level of tiling/splitting
| on a monitor's edges baked into their window manager by
| default now. Some can be tweaked to split into smaller
| subgroups, but that often requires less well tested/polished
| options (some apps just ignore the hints), or even third
| party extensions.
| 8338550bff96 wrote:
| I am (*1000*`_')
|
| Continuously micro-manage the layout of individual
| application windows your window manager is a form of
| procrastination.
|
| Back to work!
| qingcharles wrote:
| In theory, that would be the solution. In practice I read
| about all sorts of weird edge cases and bugs when trying to
| do that.
|
| Some discussions over here:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/ultrawidemasterrace/
| ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 wrote:
| Anything fullscreen? How are you segmenting sub displays
| easily in that scenario?
| jamesyun wrote:
| I use a single ultrawide at home and dual-monitors at work.
|
| Initially thought having one monitor experience was more
| seamless, but I do miss implicit window organizational aspect
| that dual monitors provide. And screensharing on the ultra-wide
| is a pain.
| vizzier wrote:
| FancyZones does exist to help with some of this if you're on
| windows:
|
| https://learn.microsoft.com/en-
| us/windows/powertoys/fancyzon...
| dadadad100 wrote:
| My Samsung ultra wide has side by side mode with two input
| cables. Screen sharing (and Windows) thinks it's two monitors
| but I can stretch windows all the way across both if I want
| to since it is an extended set
| r00fus wrote:
| A decent window management tool (e.g. Rectangle.app) should
| resolve most of your window management issues - set up many
| drag points to easily divide windows by half, thirds,
| quarters, sixths, etc.
|
| Most screen share apps should support sharing by window. Also
| best for privacy (so your viewers don't see the side channel
| chat notifications pop up).
|
| Also an ultrawide monitor is preferable for spreadsheet
| warriors.
|
| I will not give up my 49" 21x9 for anything lesser.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| If your ultrawide is anything like mine, it also has a
| setting that lets it register as two separate monitors
| (PIP/PBP mode), which is like having two monitors without the
| bezel, but with the convenience of "there's an edge" in the
| middle of your screen when doing regular desktop work.
|
| Does require two cables of course, but if you're driving an
| ultrawide, you're probably using a graphics card with three
| or four outputs anyway.
| jwells89 wrote:
| Same. This utility is also multiplied by having a separate set
| of virtual desktops on each display, which lets one create sets
| of windows/apps that can be mix-matched between screens,
| reducing the amount of window-shuffling to almost nothing after
| initial setup.
|
| This is only possible under macOS and Linux, unfortunately. On
| Windows virtual desktops are still kind of a weird hack that
| spans one desktop across all monitors.
| ARandumGuy wrote:
| Yeah that issue seems weird to me, because I've never found
| bezels themselves to be that much of a problem. Like sure, less
| bezel is better. But I have some pretty wide gaps in my work
| monitors, and I've never found it to be a problem.
|
| This article, and a lot of "productivity" articles, feel like
| spending a lot of time and effort for marginal-at-best
| improvements. I don't know their specific workflow, but I'm
| pretty sure they could get basically the same amount of
| productivity with a handful of 1080p monitors.
| porphyra wrote:
| The Dell Ultrasharp 43 4K monitor [1] has a mode where it
| pretends to be four monitors, one in each quadrant.
|
| > four unique FHD partitions via Internal Multi-Stream
| Transport (iMST) when connected to a single PC
|
| That's nice for people to organize their windows without
| needing to figure out a tiling window manager. If only it was
| 8K instead of 4K...
|
| [1] https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-
| ultrasharp-43-4k-usb-c-...
| qwertox wrote:
| > You can even use the same TV for 4K 120 Hz gaming or watching
| movies as a bonus!
|
| But you can't use the computer at the same time then. With a 3
| monitor setup I can add an HDMI switch to one of them, and when I
| want to play, then I can switch that monitor to connect to the
| PS. This way I have still 2 monitors to use. Then one can be used
| for TV in the browser and the other one for other stuff.
| lofaszvanitt wrote:
| A sure sign that someone doesn't know what they're doing is if
| they use 3 or more monitors for programming.
|
| And also interested in their neck related issues 10+ years later.
| tetraodonpuffer wrote:
| Huh? One screen for email/slack/.. main screen for the ide,
| other screen for logs etc. a lot less context switch to glance
| left/right than to go to another virtual desktop
| hathawsh wrote:
| I like to think Jeff Atwood has some idea of what he's doing.
|
| https://blog.codinghorror.com/three-monitors-for-every-user/
| lofaszvanitt wrote:
| People and their need for a "leader". No matter the quality.
| We had enough "truth tellers" and "follow me men" kinda
| shills.
|
| Time to realize that not everyone is your friend in the
| internet. They feed you bullshit all the time and laugh how
| gullible people are and question nothing, just follow based
| on perceived merits of an individual.
| bhouston wrote:
| I've had two monitors since the mid-2000s, and only recently
| gave them up for one 48". I haven't had neck problems yet in
| any way.
| Msurrow wrote:
| One screen for IDE (center)
|
| One screen for documentation/browser
|
| One screen for running the application (being developed).
|
| Please, go ahead a explain to me how I don't know what I'm
| doing.
| mromanuk wrote:
| I normally work with a 40", I'm using a a hammerspoon to
| divide the screen, but normally I end using one main window,
| with some smaller window at the side and cmd-tabbing between
| info. How do you manage the distraction of so many
| information at the same time? Do you switch between apps? use
| the mouse? don't you loose track of where the focused window
| is?
| lofaszvanitt wrote:
| There are always good exceptions. But it's a rare sight.
| recursive wrote:
| A sure sign that someone doesn't know what they're doing is if
| they can judge someone's competence by how many monitors they
| use for programming.
| nickreese wrote:
| I just bought the EU version of this in 55inch and candidly wish
| I got the 65. The 55 I have to run it scaled and my mac crashes
| daily to it.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| The checkerboard pattern is from not using VRR. You need to
| enable game mode and select VRR as the refresh rate in the OS
| settings.
| jrflowers wrote:
| I love this blog post.
|
| "It can display seven equally spaced vertical columns of text
| (critical importance), has driver issues (minimal importance),
| wake issues (who cares), it costs as much as four smaller
| monitors (this is good), I need a huge desk (hell yeah), there
| are multiple image quality issues (well it's not like I have to
| look at it all day)..."
|
| It is like "I spent fifteen hundred dollars on a multitude of
| hassles due to purchasing the wrong type of display, but due to
| the lack of bezel this is a prime efficiency move "
| dingnuts wrote:
| yeah but I kind of get it..
| jrflowers wrote:
| Absolutely. I remember watching Swordfish and wanting
| Stanley's setup
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Once you no longer see pixels you'll never want to go back.
| stephenr wrote:
| I think you'd have to sit further back than is otherwise
| natural (and then have the issue of legibility/lost
| workspace) to achieve "can't see the pixels" on this.
|
| Sure it's 8K but it's 65", it's only got a PPI of 135. For
| comparison Apple (computer) displays and a handful of third
| parties that target Mac use are generally 200-220 PPI. That
| is can't see the pixels density, even if you smash your face
| against it.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| I have a 55" 8K and I can't see the pixels while sitting
| 2ft away. Everything is crisp and I have a huge workspace.
| For mac I use 4k native so 2x integer scaling.
| Toutouxc wrote:
| I went back from using different displays in HiDPI to using a
| single 43" 4K screen set to 100 % scaling. Screen estate
| trumps invisible pixels [for me, at the moment].
| bluGill wrote:
| I'd give a lot to go back to my 20 year old eyes that could
| see pixels without special glasses. Sure I can't see pixels
| (well maybe I still could on an janky third party CGA monitor
| from 1983), but it isn't worth it. (I'd say save your
| eyesight, but realistically I'm not aware of anything you can
| do to keep it past about 45)
| recursive wrote:
| I've used both. I quite honestly don't care. I've heard many
| people that share your sentiment. But some of us just don't.
| Visible pixels are totally fine for me.
| porphyra wrote:
| > Multiple image quality issues
|
| Only the first one (dirty screen) is a real issue, but it is
| subtle and irrelevant to programming; the second one
| (checkerboard), as the post explains, is solved by toggling an
| option in settings.
|
| > Driver issues
|
| The post explains that it works perfectly with current NVidia
| drivers on Linux, and on Windows both AMD and NVidia on Windows
| have had driver support for HDMI 2.1 for years.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I didn't see any mention of how many times he has to pick up
| his mouse when it gets to the edge of the pad to get the mouse
| from one edge of the screen to the other.
| bravoetch wrote:
| With all that text, I'm hoping their religion is keyboard
| shortcuts.
| shric wrote:
| i3/sway was recommended in the post, so yes.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Maybe they use a marble mouse or something like that.
| dllu wrote:
| Author here: I use a Logitech G Pro X Superlight but also I
| use the i3 window manager and rely on keyboard shortcuts for
| a lot of the navigation. I have the mouse sensitivity set so
| that the cursor can traverse the width of the screen when
| moving the mouse about 13 cm, without any acceleration. This
| is still precise enough that I can move the mouse pixel by
| pixel if needed.
| LargoLasskhyfv wrote:
| Who needs a pad? And who needs the mouse to move more than 2
| to 3 cm max, with dynamic acceleration? I'm just doin' 0.5cm
| twitches most of the times.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| That's easily solved with mouse sensitivity settings, it
| doesn't matter the size of the screen if you set it properly.
| chankstein38 wrote:
| I chuckled at "The 8K display is only $1500 at BestBuy!" the
| "only" lol I spent $400 on my projector that I use for my main
| screen and it works great. But when I did that I had previously
| only bought $200 projectors. So even that was not an "only" for
| me.
| dakiol wrote:
| May I ask what projector? I'm thinking about getting one as
| well
| guerrilla wrote:
| Is it a dumb projector?
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Reality warps when you and everyone you know pulls $200k+
| annually.
| dllu wrote:
| I actually spent $3500 on mine haha, back in 2021. Early
| adopter tax...
| outworlder wrote:
| The example he's chosen is of a ridiculously sized TV. 65" is
| living room TV size.
|
| There are smaller, OLED displays that would be more
| suitable(while still rather big). Many are 'just' 4k, but the
| smaller sizes should give one a decent pixel size.
| bhouston wrote:
| I use a 48" OLED with my MacBook Air M3 and for me that is a near
| ultimate web development experience both on desktop and when
| travelling:
|
| https://bsky.app/profile/benhouston3d.bsky.social/post/3l7li...
|
| I mentioned this here on Hacker News just yesterday, but most
| respondents were appalled that it was only a 4K monitor:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41988340
| cerved wrote:
| Same. I used to have a 56" OLED but it was a tad large. 48 is
| perfect. The hardest part was buying a good desk mount.
|
| It doesn't work great with an all white screen but I use dark
| mode for most things
| porphyra wrote:
| You might have posted a wrong link for the second link, which
| is the same as this HN post.
| bhouston wrote:
| Thx. Fixed it!
| wilsonnb3 wrote:
| 48 inches at 4K is such a low pixel density, are you not
| bothered by how bad text looks compared to high DPI screens?
| prmoustache wrote:
| I didn't even knew 8K TV and monitors existed.
|
| I am still on dual fullhd display and was considering a single 4K
| or 5K display vetween 27 and 32".
| thefz wrote:
| > 8K TVs may be driven at 8K 60 Hz with no chroma subsampling by
| using HDMI 2.1, which is available on all current (Nvidia RTX
| 4000 series and AMD 7000 series) and previous gen (Nvidia RTX
| 3000 series, AMD 6000 series) graphics cards. Older computers
| with GPUs outputting DisplayPort 1.4 may use adapters such as the
| Club3D one to achieve 8K 60 Hz.
|
| Isn't "plain" DP 1.4 confined to HBR3 - thus its maximum refresh
| rate is 8K-30Hz?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#Resolution_and_ref...
| vbernat wrote:
| He mentions this adapter: https://www.amazon.fr/Club3D-CAC-1087
| -DisplayPort-4K120Hz-8K.... With DSC 1.2, you should get 8K at
| 60Hz.
| RecycledEle wrote:
| I am using a pair of 43", 4k TVs. The 2x43" configuration has
| been my working setup for about a decade. I love it.
|
| Anything bigger than 43" diagonal causes neck pain because it is
| too tall.
|
| I understand three 32" TVs also work.
| mciancia wrote:
| Seems pretty wide. no problem there?
| okasaki wrote:
| I use a 4k TV. I've wanted upgrade to 8k for a while, but
| according to this post AMD on Linux can't do 8k so I guess I'm
| sticking with my current setup.
|
| My 780M already struggles running GNOME at 4k, so maybe that's
| for the best.
| physhster wrote:
| Ultrawide 5K2K is a great sweet spot, at least for what I do,
| which includes a bit of everything. I never liked dual monitors
| with a split in the middle. Ultrawides solve that.
| bsimpson wrote:
| According to https://tools.rodrigopolo.com/display_calc/, a 65"
| 8K like the one in the article is retina at a 26" viewing
| distance (136 PPI). For reference, a 27" 4K screen has 163 PPI,
| and is retina at 21" by the same math. A 27" 5K (like the Apple
| Studio Display) has 218 PPI and is retina at 16".
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| The DPI of this screen is too low for all the drawbacks. Would
| rather have crisper text (150+ DPI, 200 preferable) and/or be
| able to carry it myself. Needs to be about 42" for that.
| linsomniac wrote:
| Beware of backlight offsets. TV panels can have smaller
| backlights, because they're meant to be viewed from further away,
| and my LG 46 monitor didn't have backlight behind the lower 2-3
| rows of pixels and a couple pixels on the left and right, when
| viewed at my desk. This may not impact some people, but I often
| go full screen text and missing some of the left and bottom
| pixels was annoying. I ended up able to configure i3-gaps so that
| it never displayed anything in those areas, solving the problem.
| It worked great as a huge monitor otherwise.
| valval wrote:
| I went through a phase of wanting the most possible screen estate
| to do sick multi tasking gimmicks like having chats,
| documentation, code editor, and prototype open at once. It was
| glorious, a 5k2k ultrawide monitor filled to the brim with a
| mishmash of sometimes related, sometimes unrelated windows.
|
| Then it hit me that I can only focus on one thing at a time since
| I'm a human being, and having multiple attention grabbing things
| in front of me is never good. I now run a single Studio Display
| and have a code editor in full screen, switching to other content
| through virtual desktops. I'm WAY more productive this way.
|
| Now I might just have a short attention span and that's that, but
| using a TV as a monitor sounds like hell to me now.
| aftbit wrote:
| I sorta tried this, using a single one of those large 4k curved
| monitors at my desk in San Francisco before the pandemic. It was
| alright, but I always liked having two 2k monitors more. At this
| point, as an Awesome WM user (there are dozens of us!), I really
| depend on having two different monitors so I can have two
| different sets of tiling window tags.
| gosub100 wrote:
| I'm embarking on a similar geek journey. Just today I bought a
| used radiology PACS display (barco mdcc-6430) just to see if
| there is anything novel or cool about the picture or any clinical
| features. I'm not expecting much but stuff like this is how you
| find out.
|
| This display is color, however I have considered getting a
| grayscale only rads display for "ADHD purposes" i.e. the same
| reason people are interested in e-ink displays (well, one
| reason).
|
| It will probably be a huge waste of time and money but I'm just a
| masochist for tech pain I guess...
| aftbit wrote:
| >The AMD on Linux fiasco is because the HDMI Forum has prohibited
| AMD from implementing HDMI 2.1 in their open source Linux
| drivers.
|
| I wonder why this didn't stop nvidia.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/linux_gaming/comments/uoxtsx/the_nv...
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| I've always wondered why everybody would buy "monitors" for
| computer use. Isn't it the same thing as a television screen?
| Back then TVs used to take different inputs but everything is
| digital now.
|
| That checkerboard effect is certainly interesting. Someone
| somewhere is going to be nostalgic about this artifact someday,
| maybe they'll even make a shader to emulate it. I wonder what
| causes it and why it disappears in game mode.
|
| > on Linux it took about two years for 8K 60 Hz support to work,
| spawning a salty thread on GitHub
|
| All I see is paying customers asking for support.
|
| > The AMD on Linux fiasco is because the HDMI Forum has
| prohibited AMD from implementing HDMI 2.1 in their open source
| Linux drivers.
|
| That's weird since nvidia's open source driver has an
| implementation.
| bastard_op wrote:
| I've been using 50" 4K/60 TV's (3x actually) as monitors since
| 2015, and I love them. Prior from about 2007 on I used 6x 24"
| LCD's, and in wanting to upgrade, didn't make sense to bother
| with small LCD's to go vertical with another row for 12x
| displays. I found Samsung curved 4k LCD's at the time for around
| $650 each shipped around black friday, so it was a no-brainer.
| I've never looked back really, or would consider anything smaller
| now.
|
| I am wondering how 8k displays would look replacing my current
| samsung 4k's as these are pre-HDR, but I'll probably use these
| until they start dying with no complaint. Plus no one does curved
| displays now, which I'll miss from my current TV monitors.
| ponty_rick wrote:
| If its not too much of an intrusion, can you share a picture of
| your setup?
| dllu wrote:
| Author here, ask me anything!
|
| Apart from programming, one of the motivations for getting the 8K
| display is to look at lidar point clouds. For example the desktop
| background in my post is a lidar map of Bernal Hill in San
| Francisco, which I've here downsampled to only 13006 x 7991 px
| for your convenience [1].
|
| Admittedly, when I bought it at first, I didn't realize there
| would be so many random issues, as manufacturers all advertised
| their gear as "8K Ready" even in 2021. As I incrementally fixed
| the problems, I decided to document my journey in this blog post.
|
| btw I posted this in the past but it got caught by the spam
| filter and disappeared [2], not sure how to appeal that when it
| happens. Thanks ingve for posting it again!
|
| [1] https://pics.dllu.net/file/dllu-
| lidar/tldr_707_all_c_fine_50... (13006 x 7991 px)
|
| [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41102135
| srid wrote:
| To get retina quality display, you need to match the PPI right?
| For 5K, 27" is the sweet spot. For 8k, what would be the
| optimal size of TV?
| dllu wrote:
| What you really need to match is the angular resolution in
| microradians from your eye. You can make any screen smaller
| by sitting farther back. That said, I do wish my TV was only
| 42". I guess if you really want the ppi to be exactly the
| same as a 27" 5K screen, then 27 * 7680 / 5120 = 40.5".
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| This is exactly the reason I intend to stick with 4k for
| now: I don't want a display that large. I currently have a
| 48" 4k display, and I'd prefer to have a 42" or 36" one.
| (Good choices are hard to find, though, particularly if you
| _actually_ want 4k rather than ultrawide, want OLED, and
| don 't want to just use a TV.)
| lbrito wrote:
| Do you have 20/20 eyesight, and how tall are you?
|
| I use glasses (myopia) and can kind of tolerate the edges of my
| 32" 4k monitor, but I can't fathom craning my neck all the way
| up to the edges of a 55"+ display. Not to mention font sizes.
| dllu wrote:
| I have fairly bad eyesight with both myopia and astigmatism
| (-5 sph, -2 cyl) and I wear glasses. I got glasses with 1.71
| index lenses, which I greatly prefer over the more common
| 1.74 index lenses due to the higher Abbe number, resulting in
| less chromatic aberration.
|
| Anyway, I use browsers at 150% scaling usually, although the
| text is finer on my terminals. I don't use any scaling for UI
| elements and terminals. Using the i3 tiling window manager, I
| put more commonly used terminals on the bottom half of the
| screen since I find that the top half does require more neck
| craning.
|
| I'm 184 cm tall.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| You sit back far enough that the TV encompasses your entire
| field of view, so at that point there is no need to move your
| neck at all, only your eyes.
| qingcharles wrote:
| I had a 55" TV as my main display in 2022. Had it about a
| foot away from my face. It takes a few days, but your brain
| and body get used to the size.
|
| I just bought a 39" ultrawide and for the first few days I
| thought "oh dear, I have to keep turning to see the whole
| thing," but I've not even thought about it for a couple of
| weeks now, so I guess I'm acclimated.
|
| YMMV.
| kanbankaren wrote:
| I have been using a 32" monitor for the last 10 years. I
| have found that I am using mostly the center of the
| monitor. The peripheral edges remain unused.
|
| If I sit far from the monitor, then the FOV could be
| reduced, but then I have to increase the font size
| defeating the very purpose of maximizing screen real
| estate.
| xyztimm wrote:
| This is pretty much what I concluded as well after using
| my 43" 4K LG monitor for about 3 years. Lately I've been
| trying out my wife's 27" Apple Studio Display. It's
| smaller but the PPI is amazing...
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| Isn't it good for a little exercise? Maybe we should have
| 300" monitors so we jog from one edge of the screen to the
| other as we type code :)
| FireBeyond wrote:
| I know your article is on 8K TVs, but it's worth pointing out
| that the Dell UP3218K is a 32" 8K monitor (but is also not
| without its own challenges).
| satvikpendem wrote:
| This is already mentioned in the article:
|
| > _There is also a Dell UP3218K, but it costs the same as an
| 8K TV and is much smaller and has many problems. So I do not
| recommend it unless you really don't have the desk space.
| Sitting further back from a bigger screen provides the same
| field of view as sitting close to a smaller display, and may
| have less eye strain._
| dllu wrote:
| I wish Dell would come out with a refreshed version of the
| UP3218K that's cheaper and fixes its various little
| glitches.
| sneak wrote:
| I have it and love it. The only problems I have with it are
| related to it needing to be power cycled if I haven't used it
| for a couple days.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Nice to see other people doing the same thing I do, albeit with
| a 4k OLED instead. I am waiting for an 8k OLED at an affordable
| price but it seems I will have to continue waiting.
|
| What brand and model of desk do you have? I have a 48" TV but I
| sit rather close so it probably takes up the same field of view
| as your 65".
|
| As to your last paragraph, if you email hn@ycombinator.com and
| explain the situation, they'll sort you out and sometimes put
| you into a second chance pool, as it's called.
| dllu wrote:
| I have the Uplift 4 leg standing desk [1].
|
| I got the black laminate desktop in a custom 75" x 42"
| dimension so the whole thing cost me almost $2000.
|
| [1] https://www.upliftdesk.com/uplift-4-leg-standing-
| desk-v2-v2-...
| cheschire wrote:
| I wish deep desks were more common! Modern ultrawide curved
| monitors sit way too close for comfort for me due to the
| way their legs have to be angled further back for center of
| gravity. custom desks end up being so expensive.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Any good deep desks that you've found so far?
| phonon wrote:
| This is a cheap large desk I like.
|
| https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BXH2MZRM
| satvikpendem wrote:
| How did you get it in a custom dimension? I'm almost
| tempted to just put two of my current desk back to back to
| make it deeper, would probably be much cheaper than 2k, but
| then again, they're not standing desks.
| dllu wrote:
| Oh I just emailed them, and their rep Jeremy Postma is
| very nice and responsive.
|
| If you want a cheaper option you could buy an IKEA Karlby
| Countertop that's 74" x 42" [1] and mount it on the legs
| yourself.
|
| [1] https://www.ikea.com/us/en/p/karlby-countertop-for-
| kitchen-i...
| marai2 wrote:
| What do you use the lidar point clouds for?
| dllu wrote:
| I was previously working at a lidar company and now I am
| working at a robotics company providing calibration and
| localization software to customers using a combination of
| lidars, cameras, and other sensors.
| itronitron wrote:
| I'm curious how much heat this thing puts off, and whether
| there are particular display types that generate more heat than
| others.
| dllu wrote:
| Yeah it does emit a bit of heat. I think around one or two
| hundred watts? I haven't measured it directly. I have a mini
| split air conditioner in my home office.
| seb1204 wrote:
| Makes sense, also See comment about energy consumption of
| 8k TV above.
| williamDafoe wrote:
| You COMPLETELY missed the elephant in the room : 8K TVs have
| really, really massive CPUs that waste a TON of power (150-200w
| for the CPU, 300-400w for the TV, often!) Think 8 cores of the
| fastest arm 64-bit processors available plus extra hardware
| accelerators! They need this extra processing power to handle
| the 8K television load, such as upscaling and color transforms
| - which never happen when you are using them as a monitor!
|
| So, 8K TVs are a big energy-suck! There's a reason why European
| regulations banned 100% of 8K TVs until the manufacturers
| undoubtedly paid for a loophole, and now 8K TVs in Europe are
| shipped in a super-power-saver mode where they consume just
| barely below the maximum standard amount of power (90w) ... but
| nobody leaves them in this mode because they look horrible and
| dim!
|
| If everybody were to upgrade to an 8K TV tomorrow, then I think
| it would throw away all the progress we've made on Global
| Warming for the past 20 years ...
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| How does it compare to working from home as opposed to
| driving to the office?
|
| E.g. let's say I drive 10 miles a day to get to the office vs
| use an 8k TV at home?
|
| If I go out of my way to work from home, would I be ethically
| ok to use 8k monitor?
|
| Back of the napkin it seems like 8k monitor would be 10x
| better than driving to the office?
| maccard wrote:
| I don't think this is an honest question.
|
| There's no "fixed budget" of energy that is ethically ok to
| use. The parents point was that these devices are woefully
| inefficent no matter which way you look at them.
|
| The "best" thing to do would be neither, and is usually to
| just use the device you have - particularly for low power
| electronics as the impact of buying a new one is more than
| the impact of actually running the thing unless you run it
| 24/7/365
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| > There's no "fixed budget" of energy that is ethically
| ok to use.
|
| Not even 0.00001 W? How is it ethical to live in the
| first place in such case?
|
| > The parents point was that these devices are woefully
| inefficent no matter which way you look at them.
|
| It's always a trade off, of productivity, enjoyment vs
| energy efficiency, isn't it? If I find a setup that
| allows me to be more productive and enjoy my work more,
| certainly I would need to balance it with how much
| potential waste there is in terms of efficiency.
|
| > The "best" thing to do would be neither, and is usually
| to just use the device you have
|
| That's quite a generic statement. If my device is a
| budget android phone, do you expect me to keep coding on
| it, not buying better tools?
| seb1204 wrote:
| Great aspect to consider, thanks for raising it.
| dllu wrote:
| Anecdotally my house draws 0.4 kW when idle and 0.6-0.7 kW
| when both my 8K screen and my computer are on. Since my
| computer draws 0.1-0.2 kW, I surmise that the QN800A doesn't
| draw 300-400 W total --- maybe 100-200 W.
|
| I run my screen on a brightness setting of 21 (out of 50)
| which is still quite legible during the day next to a window.
|
| Also, I have solar panels for my house (which is why I'm able
| to see the total power usage of my house).
| kev009 wrote:
| I had the Dell 8k monitor you mentioned, the picture quality
| was great but it died after a few years not long after the
| warranty expired (a gut punch at the purchase price) and they
| said too bad so sad... ok that's fine but I will never buy
| another Dell product again. It was released too early to have
| proper displayport support and I had to use a custom nvidia-
| driver X11 config to make it mostly work as two monitors. And
| there is basically no way to use that kind of DPI without
| scaling.
|
| I replaced it with an LG 43UN700 which is a 43" 4K display that
| I use unscaled and although the LCD panel is vastly inferior I
| love the thing especially at the price point (under $700). I
| hope manufacturers continue to support this niche of large
| singular flat displays because they are fantastic for coding,
| data viewing/visualization and pitch hit at content consumption
| as your article states although this one would be no good for
| gaming. And getting a "monitor" or "professional display"
| firmware load means a lot less problems than a Smart TV load.
| solarkraft wrote:
| My 4K 55" monitor mostly serves me quite well, but I've been a
| bit annoyed by the low pixel density. Wonder if my Macbook can
| drive an 8K one.
| ashepp wrote:
| I love my 65" LG GX OLED as daily driver for work and gaming. See
| https://www.theshepreport.com/p/the-shep-report-holiday-tech... I
| came from an ubutto revolution cockpit setup with 4 monitors, the
| ergonomics were awful.
|
| With the LG I'm about a meter or less away from screen and use
| window management tools to pull focus to the center lower section
| for any focused work. I run Win 11 from an RTX3080 card with a
| 2.1 HDMI cable. 3840x2160 120Hz.
|
| For gaming I just use windowed mode and use the full width of the
| 65" but just the lower half usually for COD or FPS games. I don't
| notice any eye strain or other issues but do run everything I can
| in dark mode including using the browser with the Dark Reader
| extension.
| ashepp wrote:
| Direct Link with photos
| https://www.theshepreport.com/i/139215541/lg-gx-oled-monitor...
| delduca wrote:
| I want a 8K 27". Density is important to me.
| vundercind wrote:
| I want 4k/5k and an 18"-21" diagonal, but all the hi-dpi
| smaller screens go to laptops and tablets, I guess. No monitors
| like that. Hell, under 27" and 4k can be tricky to find these
| days. 24" models exist but are a shrinking category.
|
| I don't want or need my monitor to take up a huge amount of
| space. But I do want high pixel density. Looks like I'm in too
| small a market to serve.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Heh, I do something similar as well, with a 48" LG 4k OLED, which
| seems popular with other users as well. I got this over another
| 4k or 8k TV because 1) OLED simply looks better and 2) 120 hz is
| nice for gaming, but I do want to get the same type of TV but
| with 240 hz instead for some of the higher twitch games.
|
| I use Windows and the PowerToys utility which might arguably be
| the best window manager I've used, even about tiling window
| managers on Linux, simply because I can specify exactly the
| layouts I want for every single virtual desktop and every single
| app.
|
| Overall it works well but for the first little while I did get a
| headache from sitting too close, but it went away soon after.
| aappleby wrote:
| 11 years ago, "4K is for Programmers" -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7035030
| dman wrote:
| Does a 8K 42 inch option exist?
| prettyStandard wrote:
| Just got a 32" 4k. I had a 49" 4k in the past, but it broke. My
| issue with monitors above 49" is it strains the eyes and head
| looking around. I always had to partition the screen or manually
| resize, it got annoying. Gonna try 1 4k for landscape and 1 for
| portrait now.
| sampo wrote:
| "4K is for programmers" from 10 and half years ago:
|
| https://tiamat.tsotech.com/4k-is-for-programmers
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7035030
| WalterBright wrote:
| Back in my daze at Boeing, I had a full size drafting table in
| addition to the usual desk. I've always wanted a display that
| big. In fact, I want my entire desk surface to be such a display!
|
| The 8k monitors are progress!
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| Main use of 8k is really high pixel density.
|
| In a perfect world I'd have smart glasses that would display
| arbitrary resolutions that you could move, minimize and expand at
| will.
| MentallyRetired wrote:
| Recently tried it. Couldn't find one with a high enough PPI for
| my liking.
|
| Ended up with two vertical 4k monitors. Side bonus: I can put my
| web cam dead center in front of me.
| mxfh wrote:
| Pretty wild that the only reasonably sized 8k Monitor is going to
| be 8 years old next spring. Nothing coming close was ever
| released after that.
|
| The Dell UltraSharp UP3218K
|
| That's XBox Scorpio old.
|
| Just hoping for some 32 inch 8k OLEDs driveable @120hz before my
| eyesight detoriates.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Good show.
|
| The one issue that I have with using TVs as "monitors," is that
| they are too damn "smart." They play with the images, and it can
| be a devil to find all the settings, to turn them off. On my
| Samsung, there's a couple of things that I can't turn off.
| TrevorJ wrote:
| Coatings that don't cut down on reflections is the biggest issue
| I've had the various times I have used this route.
| happyraul wrote:
| For me, the best monitors by far for programming are LG's 28in
| DualUp, due to the aspect ratio. I have a pair side by side, and
| it's effectively four 1440p screens in a 2x2 layout, giving lots
| of vertical space without a bezel as well as horizonal on each
| screen.
| Kon5ole wrote:
| I got my 8k 55" tv for under 1000 usd several years ago. Brand
| new, from a brick and mortar electronics store. So it is
| definitely possible to make 8k monitors for less than 1000 usd.
|
| A mere 55" with 8K resolution makes no sense as a TV, but it's
| glorious as a productivity monitor. But instead of becoming
| commonplace as monitors, the panels seem to just be disappearing
| even as TV's. At the moment I can't find anything at any price
| that can replace my current setup.
|
| The market isn't working for monitors. Everything available now
| is either crap, or costs 10x more than it clearly could. Millions
| of people are spending years of their lives in front of bad
| screens because monitor makers don't want to make good ones.
| locusofself wrote:
| I feel like Apple's 30 inch 6k display would be the sweet spot
| for me, but its 60 hz and cost what.. $6,000 ? I just use 27"
| 4k monitors for work. It's fine but I'd definitely like
| something a bit bigger and even crisper. I have to use windows
| for work though.
| MaulingMonkey wrote:
| > TLDR: If your job is to write code all day [...], buy an 8K TV
| instead of a multi-monitor setup.
|
| Counterpoints:
|
| * All my keyboard muscle memory is setup for multi-monitor
| setups. Theoretically fixable with the right tiling window
| manager... which I would presumably have to install, since I do
| too much Windows stuff to go full time Linux. Or perhaps develop.
| Buying more monitors is a better use of my time.
|
| * I curve my monitors inwards, intentionally, for better viewing
| angles. Also lets me hide a tower in one of the corners behind
| the curve on a straighter desk.
|
| * I do too much multi-machine development (e.g. testing
| refactoring of multi-platform abstractions.) HDMI switches are
| super convenient, your TV's picture-in-picture functionality...
| may or may not be. Dual Windows PCs for testing on nVidia and AMD
| simultaniously, or remaining unblocked when busy
| reformatting/reinstalling/compiling/linking/syncing 100GB+ on
| one? Yes please. It's often interactive enough to want to keep
| open, yet passive enough to need something else to do. OS X for
| iOS and Linux for debugging server code? Sure. iOS and Android?
| Well... those have their own monitors. Consoles don't though, and
| I've targeted those too..
|
| For an entertainment setup, I can usually scrape by with 2 or 3
| monitors (1 landscape for fullscreen game, others typically
| portrait for chat/wiki/etc). Right now, I'm on a 75" 4K chonker.
| I have good eyes, but 8K would be a waste of pixels, and I'm
| already close enough that the viewing angles are noticable. Yet,
| I still hauled out a second monitor: an old 2.5K to exile junk I
| want to monitor off the main screen.
|
| For a development setup, I've bought or brought a 4 x 27" 4K
| setup if one isn't provided. A 5th monitor has occasionally been
| useful (1 landscape for console, 4 portrait for console IDE,
| devtools, devtools IDE, and docs/wiki/jira/chat/notes. Replacing
| the 4x portrait with 2x 8K landscape... would probably _work_ ,
| at least, although I'm not convinced it'd feel like much of an
| upgrade, if any.)
| omnibrain wrote:
| At home I use 2 28" 3:2 4k displays and in the office I use the
| same setup and 2 additional 24" WQXGA-Displays and I like the
| ability to spatial arrange windows and corresponding tasks. My
| mind just doesn't work the same with one huge display. I even
| noticed this back in the day when multiple displays meant 2
| 17"-19" 4:3 or 5:4 displays and the first colleagues started to
| use the first 30" displays with 2560x1600.
| Sophistifunk wrote:
| I'm much more interested in going the other direction, in order
| to get a TV without all the crapware.
| mastazi wrote:
| Assuming that those audio speakers are at ear height (I assume
| they are since those IsoAcoustics stands allow tilting but there
| is no tilt in the picture) then IMHO the display is placed too
| high, ideally you want your eyes level just below the upper edge
| of the screen. I think with this type of screen size, it is
| challenging to to that.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-29 23:00 UTC)