4K is for programmers • Hacker News Board

Re: 4K is for programmers

#21

Post by interpol_p » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 5:02 AM UTC

johndriscoll wrote: post #15

This seems like flaunting your budget more than improving your environment. Maybe I just need to get my eyes checked again, but for some reason my code just doesn't perform any better or write itself any faster with more screen real estate and I'm as productive on my laptop as I am on my big screen. 4K is not for programmers, code is for programmers.

I find I am much more productive at home (1x 30" monitor + laptop display) then I am at work (1x 24" 1080 monitor + laptop display).

The screen size absolutely makes a difference when you are working on a large project with lots of disparate pieces. When you jump between project-wide search, debugging, showing git diffs, and so on.

This is especially true if you do graphics work and code. When you need to move graphics assets around your filesystem and into your IDE it's nice to have the room (i.e., not so many overlapping windows) so you don't spend time digging for assets, resizing assets, running scripts over assets.

I consider myself very productive on just my laptop screen, but sometimes I postpone large architectural changes or heavy instruments based debugging sessions until I get home. There's less back-and-forth and a considerable speedup under certain workloads.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#22

Post by qwerta » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 5:02 AM UTC

pizza wrote: post #14

qwerta wrote: post #9

I had 4k for years (4x 22" displays in pivot mode). It really improves productivity on complex tasks such as debugging. Soon I will upgrade to 3x Dell P2815Q with 6480x3840 resolution.

That's the same number of pixels as 12 1080p monitors. Isn't there some level of diminishing returns after about, say, half that resolution? Just curious.

My current setup is 4x22" at 1050x1620. I originally started with two displays, but kept adding over years. I think each display increases productivity by half of previous (2nd display adds 50%, 3th adds 25% and 4th 12.5%).

My secondary screens are slightly damaged (dead pixels, scratches...) so they cost peanuts. The real limit is electricity bill.

Also with such large setup you need good light balance. I always use inverse color scheme (light on dark background). For example I even filter web page colors.

I am upgrading because my laptop and phone has retina display and I love it. Also LED displays should have lower energy consumption compared to my ancient displays.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#23

Post by Bitwse » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 5:02 AM UTC

Interesting. Seeing as I mainly work with Macbook Pros, I would love to know what macbooks currently support this display. Unfortunately, I don't think my late 2011 macbook would support this else I would buy the monitor in a heartbeat :/

Re: 4K is for programmers

#24

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 5:03 AM UTC

johndriscoll wrote: post #15

This seems like flaunting your budget more than improving your environment. Maybe I just need to get my eyes checked again, but for some reason my code just doesn't perform any better or write itself any faster with more screen real estate and I'm as productive on my laptop as I am on my big screen. 4K is not for programmers, code is for programmers.

[deleted]

Re: 4K is for programmers

#25

Post by qwerta » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 5:05 AM UTC

potatolicious wrote: post #19

pizza wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the same number of pixels as 12 1080p monitors. Isn't there some level of diminishing returns after about, say, half that resolution? Just curious.

In terms of sheer workspace? Probably, but then you can dedicate the excess pixels to increasing pixel density and making things easier to read. After getting used to the high-DPI displays in tablets and phones I have to admit, desktop text rendering has become very notably lacking.

I usually use one window per display. First display is for code navigation, 2nd and 3th for code windows and 4th for documentation and notes.

Also decent window manager with hotkeys and scripting helps (KWin on Linux)

I practically never use alt tab :-)

Re: 4K is for programmers

#26

Post by bhauer » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 5:05 AM UTC

qwerta wrote: post #9

I had 4k for years (4x 22" displays in pivot mode). It really improves productivity on complex tasks such as debugging. Soon I will upgrade to 3x Dell P2815Q with 6480x3840 resolution.

I'd love three of those Dell monitors. But did you happen to see the update to that Forbes article [1] that suggests that the P2815Q will also be limited 30 Hz refresh? I'm enduring 30 Hz now obviously, so I know it can be done, but I'd like to see Dell up the ante a bit and make 60 Hz 4K happen.

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/01/07/dell-w...

Re: 4K is for programmers

#27

Post by XorNot » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 5:06 AM UTC

potatolicious wrote: post #19

pizza wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the same number of pixels as 12 1080p monitors. Isn't there some level of diminishing returns after about, say, half that resolution? Just curious.

In terms of sheer workspace? Probably, but then you can dedicate the excess pixels to increasing pixel density and making things easier to read. After getting used to the high-DPI displays in tablets and phones I have to admit, desktop text rendering has become very notably lacking.

It's not just that - you can read very small text on a high DPI display. I'm consistently amazed that I can basically read HN without zooming on my S4 despite it being tiny compared to my desktop (but the same resolution pixel wise).

That's a big benefit for when you want to keep an eye on some debug output but not work on it directly, or quickly parse big sections of text.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#28

Post by nilkn » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 5:07 AM UTC

johndriscoll wrote: post #15

This seems like flaunting your budget more than improving your environment. Maybe I just need to get my eyes checked again, but for some reason my code just doesn't perform any better or write itself any faster with more screen real estate and I'm as productive on my laptop as I am on my big screen. 4K is not for programmers, code is for programmers.

I use two 27" monitors at work and would definitely feel a productivity hit if I were to go back to smaller or fewer monitors.

I dedicate one entire monitor just to a full-screen terminal with tmux running inside. It's trivial this way for me to edit and view and compare multiple files at once. I typically dedicate half of the second monitor to a browser, for testing, and the other half to administrative applications, like email, Jabber, and IRC.

The result is that the cost of context-switching is drastically reduced. I'm able to maintain focus for much longer stretches of time because I don't really have to ever completely switch contexts.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#29

Post by Fomite » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 5:08 AM UTC

What about couch potato programmers? That strikes me as a pretty sizable market segment.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#30

Post by XorNot » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 5:08 AM UTC

"Seiki is missing a golden opportunity to dominate the desktop display market by removing the television tuner, speakers, and remote, and then reallocating that budget to a 60Hz or better input (HDMI 2 and/or DisplayPort), a matte screen surface, and instant-on DPMI support, all the while retaining the market-wrecking price."

And while we're at it, I want a unicorn as well! Seriously, speakers, a remote and a TV tuner are like, $5 in parts max whereas everything he just listed involves upgrading silicon fabrication processes and designing new ASICs.