My two 23" screens area already too big for me. I could cut half off each almost. They're nice IPS panels with minimal glare and really good for your eyes. Putting a cheap 39" TV in front of my nose 8 hours a day sounds ridiculous.
4K is for programmers
131–140 of 342 posts
Re: 4K is for programmers
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tabbing between windows can be an distraction. The stack-like function of the tab mechanism does not help it either.
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.
Re: 4K is for programmers
#13330Hz 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)
Honestly I hate this new trend of making displays wider and wider. I feel like 4:3 or something a little bit wider is great for programming. Right now my two widescreen displays waste space at the edges because it's just too far to look at. Putting some of that vertically would improve the use of screen real estate for work
Re: 4K is for programmers
#134> 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.
Re: 4K is for programmers
#13530Hz 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.
The Seiki supports true 120Hz at 1920x1080.
Re: 4K is for programmers
#136Earlier 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…
A tiling window manager would blow your mind. Anyone whose productivity is improved by using tmux should really try out something like i3 or xmonad or awesomewm. I use i3: http://i3wm.org/ My vim-like config: https://github.com/SirCmpwn/dotfiles/blob/master/i3/config
I use xmonad on 2 screens, it's amazing how much better it feels than without a tiling manager.
Re: 4K is for programmers
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Proper" includes 16:10 or even better (15:10 would be great)
Honestly I hate this new trend of making displays wider and wider. I feel like 4:3 or something a little bit wider is great for programming. Right now my two widescreen displays waste space at the edges because it's just too far to look at. Putting some of that vertically would improve the use of screen real estate for work
4:3 is 16:12. 16:10 is 'a little bit wider' :)
Re: 4K is for programmers
#138The 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.
Yep. At my home office I have 3x Dell U2412Ms (1920x1200 i.e. 16:10) on an Ergotech stand and I'm absolutely loving this physical setup for programming. The side monitors float over my desk (an Ikea Galant, corner version), and having a central monitor with two surrounds is just ideal for me. I much prefer this to a dual screen setup.
I think that ideally the same 24s would deliver a 2560x1600 resolution, however I'm still quite happy with the setup as it is. 3x 27"s might be nice, but I fear it could become too much. Well, at least for my wallet, that is!
An issue with the 4k displays is that if you're going to have 3x of them, you're going to hit GPU walls very, very quickly.
Re: 4K is for programmers
#139The 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... ).
120 fps, not 1200 fps
Re: 4K is for programmers
#140The 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…
The fan noise for a projector can get fairly annoying.