Just wait 12 months. Better 4K options are on the horizon.
4K is for programmers
211–220 of 342 posts
Re: 4K is for programmers
#212The 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…
> At what point does the law of diminishing returns kick in?
Well, diminishing returns have already begun by the time you get to the sunlit uplands of about 1024 × 768 (non-interlaced! in 16-bit colour!). Every further step up feels somewhat incremental in comparison. But are further steps worthwhile? Yes. There's a reason why people use maps and papers printed in 600dpi and above, then spread several of them out at the same time on a big table. Can you display this chart http://xkcd.com/657/large/ so that all of the text is clearly legible, and without having to scroll or zoom? Can you display this chart and two long excerpts from LOTR side-by-side so that all of the text is clearly legible and you can move between all three just by moving your eyes, without scrolling or zooming inside any window or moving, resizing or tabbing between windows? If not, then your monitor isn't as high-detail as it should be and/or doesn't cover as much of your visual field as it should. And that test doesn't come all that close to testing the upper limits of what you can usefully do with progressively-better displays.
Re: 4K is for programmers
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
For me, just turning my attention (and my head) to a second monitor is too much. I greatly prefer multiple workspaces/virtual desktops to multiple screens. I'm fine with completely switching contexts when the cost of context switching is 0.
I guess I can sort of understand this viewpoint, but I barely have to turn my head at all to go from looking at code to the browser. I can move my eyes between code and the browser (for instance) faster than I can switch between virtual desktops.
Re: 4K is for programmers
#214The 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 use 6 19" monitors (using a combination of display port, HDMI, display link adapters). It's a bit of a mess to set up, but I like the actual physical splitting of the monitors (I have the logfile monitor, the google chrome monitor, the firefox monitor, the jira monitor, the editor monitor, etc...). Also, it plays in very well with a tiling window manager where I can just switch windows from one monitor to the next…
Nice, but 6 is a bit much for me given my situation.
On the road with 2 LG 23" monitors (6.5 lbs each) and a Dell M4700 laptop. i3 WM provides the tiling needs. Love the setup, not too much context switching (i.e. changing virtual desktops) and sufficient screen real estate to do my work.
Re: 4K is for programmers
#215> 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…
I had a 3014 at work and I stopped using it because it was terrible with Mac OS X. It had this thing where it would blue tint a box around any sustained motion on the screen, like a video being played. It also came out of the box blue tinted and with the sharpness cranked up. So while the Seido might not be great, the 3014 is no panacea either.
There's some hacking that has to go on at the OS level with OSX to have any monitor > 27 inches. The trouble lies in that the operating system wants to natively believe that you're actually using a TV, not a monitor.
To get it working you need to fool the OS into thinking that it's a monitor again: http://embdev.net/topic/284710#3027030
Re: 4K is for programmers
#216> Several colleagues found the display shockingly bright and were frustrated that the brightness adjustment did not actually reduce the backlight intensity.
In 2007 I had the idea to use my 28" flatscreen TV as a monitor, took me three days before I had terrible eye strain/migraines/light sensitivity.
Re: 4K is for programmers
#217I had to bring my own shitty 19 inch monitor to work just to have two :/
Re: 4K is for programmers
#218> 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…
At work I have dual 30" Dell monitors, which I use with a tiling window manager (I use awesome [1]). To see the far right/left sides I almost have to roll the chair left or right so I tend to keep editor windows and browser windows where I'm actually reading text in my central field of vision, and keep other windows on the outer margins. Also they do consume nearly all my desk space, so sometimes I think a single lar…
Not that I've tried it, but dual 30" seems like it'd be a bit much for me. Or the OP's dream 50". There's only so much you can focus on at a time, and only so far you can turn your head to change focus, though I guess depending on what you do you might want more areas of focus. 3 window columns seems to be where I'm most comfortable, but I've never tried a display bigger than 1x30". I do keep a 'dashboard' on a smaller side monitor that I can turn to look at as necessary though.
Re: 4K is for programmers
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree the colors are a mess..... until you spend an hour or so calibrating. I did over the last two days since I bought one, and it has the same look, color wise, as my rMBP now (I own the 39" Seiki)
I tried calibrated it with both X-Rite and Spyder (both physical calibration devices) -- neither could get it anywhere near "average". It just swings all over the place. Also, calibration can't fix horrible blacks, uneven brightness and the finish. What equipment did you use? Can you post your pre/post scores? I have NEVER met anyone who has been able to actually calibrate it into even "average" ranges. I realize tha…
>I tried calibrated it with both X-Rite and Spyder (both physical calibration devices) -- neither could get it anywhere near "average". It just swings all over the place. Also, calibration can't fix horrible blacks, uneven brightness and the finish.
If you don't mind me asking, which version of Spyder did you try?
Edit/Disclaimer: (I work for the company that produces it)
Re: 4K is for programmers
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
At work I have dual 30" Dell monitors, which I use with a tiling window manager (I use awesome [1]). To see the far right/left sides I almost have to roll the chair left or right so I tend to keep editor windows and browser windows where I'm actually reading text in my central field of vision, and keep other windows on the outer margins. Also they do consume nearly all my desk space, so sometimes I think a single lar…
Not that I've tried it, but dual 30" seems like it'd be a bit much for me. Or the OP's dream 50". There's only so much you can focus on at a time, and only so far you can turn your head to change focus, though I guess depending on what you do you might want more areas of focus. 3 window columns seems to be where I'm most comfortable, but I've never tried a display bigger than 1x30". I do keep a 'dashboard' on a small…
You don't focus on everything at once. Secondary windows can be viewed peripherally -- for instance you can tail a log, and your peripheral vision will notice motion. The other benefit is multiple windows as an alternative to alt-tab. Moving your eyes slightly is a lot easier than pressing alt-tab -- it's can be done without concious thought, so it doesn't interrupt your "zone".