Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

4K is for programmers

tiamat.tsotech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 342 posts

Re: 4K is for programmers

#81

Post by chx »

oakwhiz wrote: post #42
XorNot wrote: post #30

"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 tune…

I believe IBM produced a high resolution monitor which was a single panel, but acted as if it were 4 smaller displays, complete with 4 separate display input cables. Something similar could technically be done to re-use lower-res, but higher-speed existing display controller parts on 4K panels.

Two special display input cables (DMS-59). IBM T221. I have one. It's... hard. The max I could drive it was on 25Hz -- two 1920x2400@25Hz panes besides each other. Watching a movie on it was a weird experience so I set it aside. If someone has 4 DVI outputs, you could drive it surely at 41Hz which would make a huge difference ( the monitor is up for sale :) ).

Re: 4K is for programmers

#82

Post by r0h1n »

The article lists the "ideal size" for monitors at 50 inches, and the one for TVs at 100+ inches!

While I'm sure it's great to have such massive screen real estate (I wanna get a 4K in 2014 too), I can't but help think this is the programmer equivalent of consumers buying needlessly large TVs.

I work on a 24" desktop monitor and a 14" laptop one. How is 50" the "ideal size"? Even 39"? At what point does the law of diminishing returns kick in? Sure, it's great to gave 7 windows side-by-side, but is it that much of a productivity jump from, say, 4 windows or 5 windows?

Personally and subjectively, I'd draw the line somewhere around the 28-32" screen size.

To sum up, the core argument here seems to be that upgrading to a 39" or 50" monitor is great because (a) it's cheap, and (b) more is always and infinitely better.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#83

Post by chx »

wtallis wrote: post #76
oakwhiz wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe IBM produced a high resolution monitor which was a single panel, but acted as if it were 4 smaller displays, complete with 4 separate display input cables. Something similar could technically be done to re-use lower-res, but higher-speed existing display controller parts on 4K panels.

Some of the 4k displays out there are literally two panels glued together. Fortunately, DisplayPort supports multiple displays per connection, but DP hubs are expensive, presumably even if they're internal to the monitor. I'm not sure that using this feature would work for having two chips drive a single monolithic panel.

I believe the 4K displays are merely presenting themselves as if they were two displays glued together -- do you have a source that says it is actually two glasses??

Re: 4K is for programmers

#84

Post by johndriscoll »

catmanjan wrote: post #20
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.

What sort of programming do you do? Doing web development in VS2010+ feels very cramped on anything less than 2 1080p monitors for me.

"What sort of programming do you do?"

Waddya got?

When I do web dev, I prefer a fullscreen terminal for editing and a virtual desktop with a fullscreen browser for proofing.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#85

Post by hvidgaard »

r0h1n wrote: post #82

The article lists the "ideal size" for monitors at 50 inches, and the one for TVs at 100+ inches! While I'm sure it's great to have such massive screen real estate (I wanna get a 4K in 2014 too), I can't but help think this is the programmer equivalent of consumers buying needlessly large TVs. I work on a 24" desktop monitor and a 14" laptop one. How is 50" the "ideal size"? Even 39"? At what point does the law of di…

I can't argue about a 39" monitor, but having more screen estate boosts productivity for me to the extend that I'm sure that I could use 3 27" over my current 2 24". Avoiding alt+tab means I get my information quicker when I need it from another window, and I get back to the previous context faster. Sometimes I need both but does not have space and is tabbing back and forth.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#86

Post by Moru »

bhauer wrote: post #44
adrianpike wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you mean DPMS, DPMI is a little different[1]. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DPMI I'd need to dig a bit to know for sure, but I'd probably they're using off the shelf parts for HDMI that may or may not support DPMS, and either way it'll probably be some hardware changes. If they've already tooled up, yes, it will take some coin to make the transition.

Oops! You're right, I had that initialism wrong. I've corrected it to DPMS. Also, I will concede that it wouldn't be cheap to add the features I want, but I'd nevertheless pay a small premium to see them happen.

It doesn't only cost money, it will also cost time. In this case the time is the important part, not the extra two dollars you are willing to spend. This could bump up the release date 6 months or more and by then they have lost whatever market there was.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#87

Post by chlostick »

XorNot wrote: post #30

"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 tune…

For some reason, I read your post in Sterling Archer's voice.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#88

Post by r0h1n »

hvidgaard wrote: post #85
r0h1n wrote: post #82

The article lists the "ideal size" for monitors at 50 inches, and the one for TVs at 100+ inches! While I'm sure it's great to have such massive screen real estate (I wanna get a 4K in 2014 too), I can't but help think this is the programmer equivalent of consumers buying needlessly large TVs. I work on a 24" desktop monitor and a 14" laptop one. How is 50" the "ideal size"? Even 39"? At what point does the law of di…

I can't argue about a 39" monitor, but having more screen estate boosts productivity for me to the extend that I'm sure that I could use 3 27" over my current 2 24". Avoiding alt+tab means I get my information quicker when I need it from another window, and I get back to the previous context faster. Sometimes I need both but does not have space and is tabbing back and forth.

Sure, but if one were to plot (a) the number of alt-tabs you do in a day, versus (b) screen size in inches...don't you think at some point the delta benefits would start leveling off?

Re: 4K is for programmers

#89

Post by josephlord »

bhauer wrote: post #35
XorNot wrote: post #30

"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 tune…

I'll take my unicorn in black, too. I'm not a monitor manufacturer, just an opinionated blogger. But are you telling me that a matte surface would cost more to manufacture than a glossy surface? DPMI support costs a lot? Of my wishlist items, DisplayPort seems the toughest to this layperson, but even that doesn't seem unreasonable. In my earlier blog entry about the same monitor, I said I'd also be willing to pay a t…

> ...But are you telling me that a matte surface would cost more to manufacture than a glossy surface?

Ex TV Product Planner here - yes matte costs more than glossy. If nothing else there is the volume but I think the production techniques for glossy are intrinsically cheaper too.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#90

Post by mahranch »

stephen_g wrote: post #40
XorNot wrote: post #30

"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 tune…

The fact that it can only do 30Hz in UHD mode is probably one of the reasons it's so cheap - going to 60 or 120Hz is a two to four-fold increase in processing. It'll happen - it's just a matter of time (less than 18 months if Moore's law is anything to go by)

I'm sure they could do it now, no Moore's law required. The technology and parts are already available.

I think the lack of 60-120Hz has more to do with keeping costs down. Low production costs translate to lower prices for the consumer. By selling these TVs at absolute rock bottom prices, they can sell them by the truck loads and, more importantly, make a name for themselves. These last couple weeks I've seen Seiki's name brought up dozens of times all over the internet whereas a month ago, I don't think I've ever heard their name before.

If this is part of their marketing plan, it's working beautifully.

Post reply on HN