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

171–180 of 342 posts

Re: 4K is for programmers

#171

Post by thom »

NigelTufnel wrote: post #134
fhd2 wrote: post #130

> At our office, we just equipped all of the programmers' workstations with Seiki 39" 4K televisions as monitors. [...] For the time being, there is no single higher-productivity display for a programmer. Maybe it's just me, but I'm most productive on a 13" laptop. I can change my work place and position as I want, plus only one app fitting on the screen actually helps me focus. Emacs/tmux/IDE users can do most progr…

It's not just you. While reading the article I was thinking "wow, these guys are using 39" monitors, while I'm perfectly happy with a single 17" monitor or a 13" laptop. There must be something wrong with me." Emacs is my screen space saviour. Every file or shell is 3 key presses away, I just don't need extra monitors.

How do you use frames and windows in emacs? Even on a single screen, I've generally got at least a couple of columns up, so I can understand the utility of greater real estate. With multiple monitors, you can open two frames up, use next-multiframe-window and it mostly behaves like a giant emacs across two screens.

That said, I almost exclusively work on a 15" retina MBP and don't find myself annoyed, so I guess you're right. :)

Re: 4K is for programmers

#172

Post by Retric »

hvidgaard wrote: post #143
Retric wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, diminishing returns kick in but monitors are cheap and programmers are expensive. It's the same reason that 16+GB of ram and SSD's are worth it. Not because most people need it but the cost is low enough that the productivity gains need to be minuscule to be worth it. aka Assuming monitors last ~3 years and cost below 2,000$ it takes a tiny difference to be worth it because your not just comparing productivity…

That wasn't the best thought out example. The total yearly cost for a programmer would have to exceed 666.666 $ to justify a 1000 $ purchase, if the improvement is only 0.05%. That said, I agree. The benefit doesn't have to be big to justify it.

Ops. Yea 1/2 not 1/20th of 1%. The .0005 number is correct, but I messed up changing that to a fraction of a %.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#173

Post by sentenza »

josu wrote: post #170
WalterBright wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fan noise for a projector can get fairly annoying.

Although your brain erases the noise after a while, it is indeed pretty annoying.

I mentioned that I used a sound system. That is actually not quite accurate any more, since we had to make some adjustments when my daughter was born.

At the time, we were living with an unfortunate flat layout which placed the bedroom directly next to the living room. So in order to avoid waking up the child, we started using headphones (and have never stopped doing so since).

Since I had checked before buying the beamer that it wasn't too loud, using (good) headphones had the side-effect that beamer noise is now an absolute non-issue for us.

I find it enlightening how all these responses show that my setup really isn't the right thing for everybody. In retrospect, I was also not consciously aware of all the quirks that my wife and I were willing to accept (headphones, cable conduits, TV only in the evening).

Nonetheless, as beamers become brighter and less noisy (LED?), they will probably become attractive to a wider range of people.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#174

Post by knightni »

jheriko wrote: post #154

how is this better than multiple monitors? the support in Windows (and at least Ubuntu Linux) for e.g. maximising a window to fill a single monitor is excellent. The other thing, with any article like this where Windows is not used for testing makes me skeptical. Most programmers do not work in offices developing on Macs or Linux machines by a very large margin. Working on a mac for iOS and OS X development is someth…

An extremely large number of programmers use Mac and Linux machines. Linux on the desktop is sustained to a substantial extent by a programmer audience - and you only have to look at the availability of software for it to see that it's popular among that group.

Personally, when I'm not using a unix-y environment, it's because I've been forced. Using windows as a programmer feels like having one of my hands chopped off.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#175

Post by dieg0 »

I agree, higher resolution displays is a productivity enhancer, but I also believe that saving money by purchasing a television, as a monitor, is not a good idea… taking care of your eyes is worth every extra dollar.

Just recently I went through the same issue, had to buy a new monitor for my work station, finally decided to go with a 2k Apple TB monitor, also considered Samsung alternative, but it doesn't have some of the features Apple added such as automatic brightness control and additional ports.

My decision was based on taking care of my vision, tvs simply aren't built to be viewed from a desktop distance, they are just too bright… they where thought to be used from a distance.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#176

Post by walshemj »

cwoac wrote: post #132
velodrome wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree. Using a single monitor works well if you use an IDE otherwise a multi-monitor setup is better.

Even then, IDE on one monitor; web for reference material on the other.

For a lot of devs having a third monitor for the database IDE is very useful.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#177

Post by leoc »

Gravityloss wrote: post #142
espeed wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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... ).

Only 120 fps actually in the article. He also doesn't talk about the color space, only about the granularity. But anyway, quite nice that there are articles that take a little bit of a human point of view and not just the usual "existing technology, just 20% better is good enough for everyone"

It seems there's already a monitor which offers to upscale your 120Hz signal to 240Hz: http://www.eizo.com/global/products/duravision/fdf2405w/inde... . And the product page suggests that there's already a ready market for it, among viewers of high-res satellite imagery: apparently the blur when scrolling such images on a mere 120Hz (and high-persistence) display is notable enough to be distracting.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#178

Post by kudu »

MetaCosm wrote: post #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, horribl…

Alternatively, you could buy a nice 27" 2560x1440 Qnix QX2710 (http://www.2560x1440monitor.com/index.php?route=product/prod...), which has an excellent Samsung PLS panel and can often be overclocked to 120Hz.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#179

Post by leoc »

MetaCosm wrote: post #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, horribl…

Sad to say, for many programmers and other people who aren't AV types, the step up in resolution—plus the saving of over $500—is likely worth the dodgy colour and brightness. Many won't even really notice the badness. That said, some of the $600-ish mystery-meat 2560×1600 displays apparently have good display quality and so may be a stronger alternative to the Seiki.

Re: 4K is for programmers

#180

Post by broken_symlink »

marcosdumay wrote: post #165
NigelTufnel wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just you. While reading the article I was thinking "wow, these guys are using 39" monitors, while I'm perfectly happy with a single 17" monitor or a 13" laptop. There must be something wrong with me." Emacs is my screen space saviour. Every file or shell is 3 key presses away, I just don't need extra monitors.

Have you tried emacs in portrait mode on a bigger screen?

I've tried it on a 24in monitor running at 1920x1200 in portrait mode. Its great for editing text. I found that a good setup was to split the screen vertically and have 2 windows, one on top of the other. It doesn't really work well when splitting horizontally.
Post reply on HN