Live data from Hacker News

4K is for programmers

tiamat.tsotech.com

101–110 of 342 posts

Re: 4K is for programmers

#101
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.

Daaaanger zooone

Re: 4K is for programmers

#102
post #14
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.

I personally think we ought to reconsider our whole desktop paradigms from scratch. Some of the ideas we're using were designed they way they are primarily because of display size constraints. For example, popup/tree navigation based application menus would probably seem silly when we could just dedicate a fraction of one side of your screen to always show the whole tree.

I don't think we're anywhere close to the limit where something like Eagle Mode won't still benefit by adding more pixels (provided you can also supply the memory and processing capabilities for it to work responsively). The same kind of thing could apply to many tree structures, or graphs of complex relationships - being able to visualize large collections at once without the context-switch of scrolling is useful. Being able to view the whole source code of an application at once would be incredibly useful.

Another example might be reading or writing some research paper. Frequently you end up scrolling back and forth through a paper to cite or connect the bits together, which is pretty cumbersome, particularly when "back" buttons don't always have the expected or desired behavior (e.g, many viewers are missing a "push my current scroll position onto a stack before navigating" feature). Being able to view a whole document at once would ease some of that.

It'd be interesting to see some studies on the difference between the efficiency of using spatial layouts compared with sequential actions. It seems to me that spatial layouts quickly become rote actions that don't require much thought, but having to execute a set of commands is repetitive and error prone. (e.g, how many times have you clicked the wrong application in a task bar accidentally when you have a brain fart?).

It seems the industry is obsessed with heading in the opposite direction. I find mobile platforms a pain to use and I generally avoid them. Things like Gnome Shell's task switcher are also a regression from task bars, as the sequence to switch an application now has extra steps.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#103
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 don't really understand how a TV can be needlessly large. Also, I don't understand why people still buy TVs in 2014. When I replaced my TV about 4-5 years ago, I bought a 500€ beamer and a 100€ retractable canvas. Sure, that beamer only has 1024x768, but today you'll certainly be able to buy something significantly better in a similar price range. With my living room PC connected to the beamer, my "screen" is 1.7 m…

Because contrast and brightness are much higher on televisons.

Also, televisons often offer more features like usb, networking, sound and cec. I'm not entirely sure about most beamers, but I don't believe they offer the same integration with a chromecast or raspbmc that my current 500 euro sharp aquos does.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#104
> Today, you can still buy a 30-inch 2560x1600 display for over $1,000. Or you can get a 39-inch 3840x2160 display for $500. This choice is not even fair.

Yes, you can buy a wonderful, physically adjustable, mountable, color calibrated, blissful contrast, delightful brightness control monitor with a great matte finish like the Dell 3014... or you can buy an absolutely awful 30hz, locked in place, blue tinted, horrible uniformity, terrible brightness, awful contrast, with horrible black levels and really -- just horrific to work on 4K "tv". I speak from first hand experience, it is absolutely one of the worst panels I have ever had the misfortune to stare at vim on.

The colors are so awful that literally, some of my favorite themes (seoul256) where ENTIRELY unusable, just a greymush of nothingness. With bright spots and dark spots to make reading code even harder. So, I tried a black background theme... only to be horrified with the black level.

I agree with the author there is no comparison, obviously almost anything beats the Seiki. Hell, most review sites won't even recommend it as a TV, let alone a monitor.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#105
post #73
post #66

30Hz is a dealbreaker. I will keep my 1920x1200 until I can have a proper 4K display. I really am surprised there are people who can tolerate that refresh rate on a desktop.

"Proper" includes 16:10 or even better (15:10 would be great)

Why would you care about the aspect ratio instead of vertical pixel count? I think wide-screens are okay as long as there is enough vertical space (to read code, articles etc.). The window manager is a software problem and can be fixed For eg, Ubuntu's Unity had some clever solutions to utilize wide-screens efficiently.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#106
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 don't really understand how a TV can be needlessly large. Also, I don't understand why people still buy TVs in 2014. When I replaced my TV about 4-5 years ago, I bought a 500€ beamer and a 100€ retractable canvas. Sure, that beamer only has 1024x768, but today you'll certainly be able to buy something significantly better in a similar price range. With my living room PC connected to the beamer, my "screen" is 1.7 m…

I did the same (but my screen is taller than yours is large :P), but I think there are a few reason why this hasn't seen larger adoption.

People like to have their TV on all day long: with a projector you can't, because it won't be very visible in daylight and it will burn through lamps like it's popcorn.

Second point, modern TVs usually have a tuner in, you plug them in and they work. Also you don't need to adjust the image until it's rectangular.

You don't need to have a line of sight for a TV, chairs and people are not an issue.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#107
post #66

30Hz is a dealbreaker. I will keep my 1920x1200 until I can have a proper 4K display. I really am surprised there are people who can tolerate that refresh rate on a desktop.

Especially if you're using your monitors for gaming and such, in addition to work. I was a bit disappointed at first, having just upgraded to 3x 27" 1920x1080 monitors, thinking I could have had 2x 39" 4Ks for about the same price. But 30Hz would basically eliminate gaming on them, much less Eyefinity/Nvidia Surround. With the 3x 27" set up you can easily move them between rooms when you're not using all three, too.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#108
post #66

30Hz is a dealbreaker. I will keep my 1920x1200 until I can have a proper 4K display. I really am surprised there are people who can tolerate that refresh rate on a desktop.

I poisoned 60Hz accidentally when I bought a 120Hz gaming monitor. Now 60Hz mouse movement feels choppy and horrible.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#109
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…

Jakob Nielsen's research on "ideal size" is 48Kx32K (1200 dpi) @ 1200 fps for perfect image quality.

See http://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-much-bandwidth-is-enough...

His 2012 recommendation was 30" or larger screens for knowledge workers (http://www.nngroup.com/articles/computer-screens-getting-big...).

Re: 4K is for programmers

#110
post #92
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…

Id say in terms of productivity it adds almost nothing because the biggest things holding a programmers productivity back have nothing todo with display size. Better get rid of interruptions, procrastination, bad tools etc. That being said programmer happiness is elemental and a 42inch 4K screen would add to that for me :)

Tabbing between windows can be an distraction. The stack-like function of the tab mechanism does not help it either.
Post reply on HN