201–210 of 341 posts
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…
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. I…
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…
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.
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.
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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would love to see a photo of this setup.
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.
It may be a regional thing, or a small clique. Or it may be best for some software that is long gone.
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.
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.
I use 3x Dell P2715Q in portrait mode, side by side, 1440 × 2560 for an equivalent resolution of 4320 × 2560 (27:16), at a stand up IKEA Jerker desk.
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…
I would love to see a picture of your setup.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Another thing that would be nice if it was easy to make: a button to place the cursor where you’re looking.
