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

Manage Pixels, not Monitors

infovegan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–15 of 15 posts

Re: Manage Pixels, not Monitors

#11

Post by Retric »

Groxx wrote: post #2

Multiple monitors are often significantly cheaper than one large one. You can also aim the two at you more accurately, so you don't have to change what distance you focus at as much. The productivity study was short-term; how about long-term? Certainly having things too wide means you spend more time mousing to those edges, but how about eye strain due to viewing angle? > That optimal number, for the vast majority of…

I just got a 25.5" 1900 x 1200 screen for 280$. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001LYPNFQ/ref=oss_product) So, I don't think there is much money to be saved by getting a screen much smaller than that.

IMO, the real question is using widescreens appropriate for a dual monitor setup. My work setup is two 4:3 aspect ratio monitors which I think works much better than two widescreen monitors because it reduces the time it takes to move the mouse. For text editing I suspect three 4:3 ratio monitors is more useful, despite providing a similar number of pixels as two widescreen monitors, based on how maximizing windows operates and the pain of trying to split a window across two screens.

However, when working with images, having a large unbroken screen is extreamly useful. So a 2560 x 1600+ monitor paired with a lower resolution scratch space seems to work better than two evenly sized monitors.

Re: Manage Pixels, not Monitors

#12

Post by loup-vaillant »

moobot wrote: post #5
loup-vaillant wrote: post #3

The second part (the one about managing pixels) looks like a good case for tiling window managers. It's surprising the author didn't mention them at all.

It sounds as though the author uses OSX. Are there any tiling window managers that aren't limited to Linux/X11?

Xmonad can be used on OSX: http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Xmonad/Using_xmonad_on_Ap...

Re: Manage Pixels, not Monitors

#13

Post by Groxx »

Retric wrote: post #11
Groxx wrote: post #2

Multiple monitors are often significantly cheaper than one large one. You can also aim the two at you more accurately, so you don't have to change what distance you focus at as much. The productivity study was short-term; how about long-term? Certainly having things too wide means you spend more time mousing to those edges, but how about eye strain due to viewing angle? > That optimal number, for the vast majority of…

I just got a 25.5" 1900 x 1200 screen for 280$. ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001LYPNFQ/ref=oss_product ) So, I don't think there is much money to be saved by getting a screen much smaller than that. IMO, the real question is using widescreens appropriate for a dual monitor setup. My work setup is two 4:3 aspect ratio monitors which I think works much better than two widescreen monitors because it reduces the t…

True, though you're a fair distance below their "optimal" of 2500x1400 (by pixel count). About 1.5x. Getting a monitor with that many pixels and larger than 26" will make that price go up further.

I generally prefer 4:3 if I'm going for more than one. Extra width is handy for programming, but that tends to make the screens short, so you can't see as many lines :\

Re: Manage Pixels, not Monitors

#14

Post by Retric »

Groxx wrote: post #13
Retric wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just got a 25.5" 1900 x 1200 screen for 280$. ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001LYPNFQ/ref=oss_product ) So, I don't think there is much money to be saved by getting a screen much smaller than that. IMO, the real question is using widescreens appropriate for a dual monitor setup. My work setup is two 4:3 aspect ratio monitors which I think works much better than two widescreen monitors because it reduces the t…

True, though you're a fair distance below their "optimal" of 2500x1400 (by pixel count). About 1.5x. Getting a monitor with that many pixels and larger than 26" will make that price go up further. I generally prefer 4:3 if I'm going for more than one. Extra width is handy for programming, but that tends to make the screens short, so you can't see as many lines :\

Yep, my comment was cost is really only an issue when looking at 30" screens or really high quality displays. Below that the question is not simply get more pixels but what layout is most effective. One option I have seen many people use is 2 or 3 widescreens tilted on their sides so you can increase the numbers of lines shown without taking buying huge monitors.

However, the best setup I have seen was a widescreen in the middle flanked by two smaller screens on the sides. (1200 X 1600) (2560 x 1600) ( 1200 X 1600) but that’s still pricy and takes up a lot of space.

Re: Manage Pixels, not Monitors

#15

Post by Groxx »

Retric wrote: post #14
Groxx wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, though you're a fair distance below their "optimal" of 2500x1400 (by pixel count). About 1.5x. Getting a monitor with that many pixels and larger than 26" will make that price go up further. I generally prefer 4:3 if I'm going for more than one. Extra width is handy for programming, but that tends to make the screens short, so you can't see as many lines :\

Yep, my comment was cost is really only an issue when looking at 30" screens or really high quality displays. Below that the question is not simply get more pixels but what layout is most effective. One option I have seen many people use is 2 or 3 widescreens tilted on their sides so you can increase the numbers of lines shown without taking buying huge monitors. However, the best setup I have seen was a widescreen i…

I like the sound of that one... would probably be good for gaming too. Nice wide field of view on the main monitor, and other views / meta-info on the sides.

Now I want that, so I can play Descent ][ and see 270 degrees.

Post reply on HN