Ask HN: Dual monitors, or single 4k?
82 comments
I think multiple monitors is still better than one no matter the resolution, I personally run 3 monitors, and when working I have the one on the right always on email/chat, the one on the left switching between terminals and firefox, and the one in the middle on emacs or intellij depending on language.
With i3 I have keyboard shortcuts to move the focus to any monitor and/or to change workspace in any of them and/or to move windows between them, this seems more usable than a single monitor no matter what the resolution of it is.
If money was no object I think the best setup would be a 40" 4k in the middle, a 27" 1440p portrait on one side, and a 27" 1440p landscape on the other side, but I would rather have 3x27" than 1x40" any day of the week (and the 27" to be 1440p not to have to deal with scaling)
With i3 I have keyboard shortcuts to move the focus to any monitor and/or to change workspace in any of them and/or to move windows between them, this seems more usable than a single monitor no matter what the resolution of it is.
If money was no object I think the best setup would be a 40" 4k in the middle, a 27" 1440p portrait on one side, and a 27" 1440p landscape on the other side, but I would rather have 3x27" than 1x40" any day of the week (and the 27" to be 1440p not to have to deal with scaling)
With a good tiling window manager (not osx or windows) you can do that kind of spatial separation of concerns on a big 4k, (curved if you aren't doing any kind of graphics work).
Unclear from your description as to whether you would think it sufficient, but Divvy (http://mizage.com/divvy/) does a good job of spatial window management on macOS.
I have a 4k 40" curved Samsung HDTV as my monitor, the UN40JU6700.
In terms of dimensions, it is physically less wide than the 2 24" 1080p monitors I had before while having 4 times the resolution. It's also a similar width and horizontal resolution to the 34" ultrawides that are on the market now but significantly cheaper. The DPI is similar to a 27" 1440p monitor, which might be tiny if you're coming from 29" 1080p.
I highly recommend using this DPI calculator to find a pixel size that's comfortable for you: https://www.sven.de/dpi/
My workflow has definitely improved. I normally work with 2 terminals side by side, but now I have 3 terminals or 2 terminals and a browser window. There's no bezel in the middle to ruin that center terminal.
I keep my main applications along the bottom 1300 pixels or so with email/music/monitoring along the top.
Virtual machines and laptop connections are significantly less finicky because there is only one large display to configure.
The only negative to this setup is that the Samsung is definitely a television. I need to turn it manually on whenever I wake my computer and DPMS sleep doesn't take effect immediately.
On the other hand, I got rid of my speakers and now use HDMI audio instead.
Finally, if you're getting an HDTV, make sure your computer is compatible with HDMI 2 and the television supports 4:4:4 color. You want 4k@60Hz via HDMI 2 and 4:4:4 ensures your text isn't blurry.
RTINGS is invaluable for finding a TV with the right color input and latencies: http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-usage/pc-monitor/best
In terms of dimensions, it is physically less wide than the 2 24" 1080p monitors I had before while having 4 times the resolution. It's also a similar width and horizontal resolution to the 34" ultrawides that are on the market now but significantly cheaper. The DPI is similar to a 27" 1440p monitor, which might be tiny if you're coming from 29" 1080p.
I highly recommend using this DPI calculator to find a pixel size that's comfortable for you: https://www.sven.de/dpi/
My workflow has definitely improved. I normally work with 2 terminals side by side, but now I have 3 terminals or 2 terminals and a browser window. There's no bezel in the middle to ruin that center terminal.
I keep my main applications along the bottom 1300 pixels or so with email/music/monitoring along the top.
Virtual machines and laptop connections are significantly less finicky because there is only one large display to configure.
The only negative to this setup is that the Samsung is definitely a television. I need to turn it manually on whenever I wake my computer and DPMS sleep doesn't take effect immediately.
On the other hand, I got rid of my speakers and now use HDMI audio instead.
Finally, if you're getting an HDTV, make sure your computer is compatible with HDMI 2 and the television supports 4:4:4 color. You want 4k@60Hz via HDMI 2 and 4:4:4 ensures your text isn't blurry.
RTINGS is invaluable for finding a TV with the right color input and latencies: http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-usage/pc-monitor/best
This is the same setup I have and couldn't be happier. Less expensive and with a Samsung panel the quality isn't lacking.
What kind of input lag do you get with that setup?
It's something like 20ms after a firmware update last year.
You need a GTX1080 to render games at 60fps and even then it's a struggle for more modern ones.
You need a GTX1080 to render games at 60fps and even then it's a struggle for more modern ones.
For me, dual monitors are a must. Just my preference. I cannot work with a single monitor no matter what the resolution is.
One advantage of dual monitors is that if you ever have to do screen sharing, you can quickly hide anything on the other monitor that you don't want your clients to see while still being able to refer to it. Same goes if you are recording your screen/screecasting.
One advantage of dual monitors is that if you ever have to do screen sharing, you can quickly hide anything on the other monitor that you don't want your clients to see while still being able to refer to it. Same goes if you are recording your screen/screecasting.
A few data points from a text/code/web based user..
- The most productive I've been has been using 3 monitors, 1 for messaging/research, middle screen for working, and right screen for testing/launching, etc.
Consider if you have an eyeglass prescription the amount of strain you may experience with any monitor size, pixel size, etc. The higher the prescription, astigmatism, etc, the more factors you may have to consider.
- Currently use 27" Asus at 1440p for the past few years. It was a big jump at the time but now I'm used to it and want more space. Tilts, pivots, so I got two to put them side by side. Not ideal, or bad either. The issue is the screen area, and how low and high you are able to look comfortably and productively.
- Have a friend who got a Philips 40" 4K and said it was too big in terms of the area you can look at without having to pivot your head a lot. Users with a 40'+ 4K monitor report a border of the screen around the outside that is not actively usable without for work but may be useful for other things like IM, etc.
- Asus has come out with a 31.5" monitor at 1440p that might be interesting to you depending on your needs and eyeglass prescription.
- Currently considering at one 33 to 38" 4K screen.
In some ways the three 19" 4:3 monitors I ran 10 years ago at 1200x1024 remain the perfect balance between size and productivity, although it only.
- The most productive I've been has been using 3 monitors, 1 for messaging/research, middle screen for working, and right screen for testing/launching, etc.
Consider if you have an eyeglass prescription the amount of strain you may experience with any monitor size, pixel size, etc. The higher the prescription, astigmatism, etc, the more factors you may have to consider.
- Currently use 27" Asus at 1440p for the past few years. It was a big jump at the time but now I'm used to it and want more space. Tilts, pivots, so I got two to put them side by side. Not ideal, or bad either. The issue is the screen area, and how low and high you are able to look comfortably and productively.
- Have a friend who got a Philips 40" 4K and said it was too big in terms of the area you can look at without having to pivot your head a lot. Users with a 40'+ 4K monitor report a border of the screen around the outside that is not actively usable without for work but may be useful for other things like IM, etc.
- Asus has come out with a 31.5" monitor at 1440p that might be interesting to you depending on your needs and eyeglass prescription.
- Currently considering at one 33 to 38" 4K screen.
In some ways the three 19" 4:3 monitors I ran 10 years ago at 1200x1024 remain the perfect balance between size and productivity, although it only.
I've used 1 27" 1440p monitor for quite a while. When combined with a laptop display, it gives me plenty of screen real estate. I typically split the 1440p display into 4 tiles (1280x720) using SizeUp.
Recently, I've been using a 27" 4K display at work. I mostly just run it in HiDPI 1440p (or one or two notches higher than 1440p). It looks prettier, but is functionally equivalent to a 27" 1440p.
I've found that displays larger than 30" require me to turn my head, which is non-optimal. Ultrawide monitors are especially bad (tried a 34" curved Samsung for a little while). Ditto for multiple 27" monitors.
Recently, I've been using a 27" 4K display at work. I mostly just run it in HiDPI 1440p (or one or two notches higher than 1440p). It looks prettier, but is functionally equivalent to a 27" 1440p.
I've found that displays larger than 30" require me to turn my head, which is non-optimal. Ultrawide monitors are especially bad (tried a 34" curved Samsung for a little while). Ditto for multiple 27" monitors.
Recently I switched to a single 27" 2560x1440 monitor as well.
Before that, I was using two old matching 20" 4:3 monitors, one in 1600x1200 configuration, and the secondary one in portrait 1200x1600.
Sometimes I miss being able to easily throw something over onto the second monitor, and the total screen real estate is a little less overall, but generally windows-key + arrow snapping gets the job done pretty well when I need to see two things at once.
Talking to some other devs where I work though (many of us work remotely), a lot have two or even three 27" monitors. I hardly even have the desk space for that... unless I stacked them vertically maybe.
Before that, I was using two old matching 20" 4:3 monitors, one in 1600x1200 configuration, and the secondary one in portrait 1200x1600.
Sometimes I miss being able to easily throw something over onto the second monitor, and the total screen real estate is a little less overall, but generally windows-key + arrow snapping gets the job done pretty well when I need to see two things at once.
Talking to some other devs where I work though (many of us work remotely), a lot have two or even three 27" monitors. I hardly even have the desk space for that... unless I stacked them vertically maybe.
> I hardly even have the desk space for that
I'd suggest you buy monitor arms. They really save a lot of space and make your setup way more ergonomic. I use 3 of these:
https://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B00358RIRC
They also have dual-arms.
I'd suggest you buy monitor arms. They really save a lot of space and make your setup way more ergonomic. I use 3 of these:
https://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B00358RIRC
They also have dual-arms.
Yeah, I could make it work somehow if I really want to. Has anyone here tried two monitors vertically like this?
http://i.imgur.com/TY9km4h.jpg
I don't look at a secondary monitor nearly as much as my primary so I feel like it could work, and I like that it's not super wide like dual widescreens, but I also know it could be terrible for your neck.
http://i.imgur.com/TY9km4h.jpg
I don't look at a secondary monitor nearly as much as my primary so I feel like it could work, and I like that it's not super wide like dual widescreens, but I also know it could be terrible for your neck.
It wouldn't work that way. Bottom monitor needs to be higher for the well being of your neck and then, top monitor would be too high. I can't see this working long term.
Hadn't thought about the head turning thing. Interesting
I've had 40' 4k for about 3 years, it's awesome. I had to mess around with setup because larger screen changed way I worked with stuff. But man, i can see from column A to EP and around 400 pdf pages (really small text).
http://imgur.com/a/kPRzq ^ eventually what i settled on, use 1920 as primary and if working on something would go on bigger.
23 Left Dell (emails, windows I'm not ready to close) 40 seiki ( excel, factset/bloomberg, chrome) 23 center hp (word, typing emails, reports) 23 right hp (xplorer2, network,file related)
http://imgur.com/a/kPRzq ^ eventually what i settled on, use 1920 as primary and if working on something would go on bigger.
23 Left Dell (emails, windows I'm not ready to close) 40 seiki ( excel, factset/bloomberg, chrome) 23 center hp (word, typing emails, reports) 23 right hp (xplorer2, network,file related)
Yup ive had a 39in 4k monitor for 4 yrs and its amazing.
no black bar breaking up visual flow.
no multiple cables going into the comp.
no issues with widescreen or vertical layouts.
no calibration issues between screens.
the only change i'd make is to get a curved 39in 4k monitor.
the only change i'd make is to get a curved 39in 4k monitor.
Do you find you're able to look at, and use the edges of your monitor? If you don't mind sharing the make and model of your current monitor that'd be great, thanks
4k is a mistake for computers. It sounds nice in theory but was implemented wrong by the manufacturers. The typical 28" 4k monitor at native resolution ends up having on-screen elements that are just too small for daily use, and the pixel density isn't high enough to do the scaling tricks like Apple. Scaling on Windows and Linux is, at best, "enough to be annoying". And applying it to a laptop at 2x scaling causes everything to be too small.
I'm still using an Apple 27" Cinema display - it's not 4k but it's great having 2560x1440. I wouldn't mind the PPI being a bit higher, maybe 25" would be the sweet spot for that resolution.
I would not want dual 27" monitors, however - it's just too much sweeping your head back and forth, plus you'd need a lot of desk space. Dual 22" monitors at 1080p feels cramped vertically.
I think my ideal setup would be 3840x1440 on a 32" curved display. Small enough to be manageable on a desk, no scaling to deal with, you don't need crazy graphics hardware to push it...
I'm still using an Apple 27" Cinema display - it's not 4k but it's great having 2560x1440. I wouldn't mind the PPI being a bit higher, maybe 25" would be the sweet spot for that resolution.
I would not want dual 27" monitors, however - it's just too much sweeping your head back and forth, plus you'd need a lot of desk space. Dual 22" monitors at 1080p feels cramped vertically.
I think my ideal setup would be 3840x1440 on a 32" curved display. Small enough to be manageable on a desk, no scaling to deal with, you don't need crazy graphics hardware to push it...
5K gives you the right resolution to scale. The Dell UP2715K [1] is supposed to be good, though expenisve. At 5120ˣ2880, you can run it at 2x, which gives you 2560ˣ1440, same as the 27''.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Dell-210-ADRZ-DELL-UltraSharp-UP2715K...
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Dell-210-ADRZ-DELL-UltraSharp-UP2715K...
I'm using a single 32" 4K monitor and it's perfect. Just the right size. I personally don't like using multiple displays, you want to have one centered which means the other one is too far away. Also, two widescreens is just too wide.
One benefit of having two displays is obviously having two logical displays, which can be useful sometimes. e.g. for fullscreening a video.
One benefit of having two displays is obviously having two logical displays, which can be useful sometimes. e.g. for fullscreening a video.
Also using a single 32" 4k screen and think it's perfect. I had 2 different 4k 40" over the years, seiki (thought I could get over the 30Hz, I couldn't) and a Philips (colors, ghosting, viewing angles were all wrong). I found the ~110DPI nice because it matched my previous setup 21" (rotated, 1080p) and 27" (1440p), but after I used a dell laptop at ~165dpi I considered 4k screens in the low 30" range.
Usual flow is split into 3 sections. website/documentation on the right half, emacs on the left upper, video/chat/email on the left lower.
Usual flow is split into 3 sections. website/documentation on the right half, emacs on the left upper, video/chat/email on the left lower.
I use dual 27" 4K monitors, which I think is the perfect compromise.
Nice! Sounds like all that compromised there, was the wallet. ;)
It's actually not that expensive to get dual 27 @4k vs. a single very large format (32+) 4k if you hunt around for deals.
I bought a two LG 27UD680-P for 350 USD each last month over a single BenQ BL3201PH 32 which was about 800 USD at the time.
I bought a two LG 27UD680-P for 350 USD each last month over a single BenQ BL3201PH 32 which was about 800 USD at the time.
I did the exact same thing. It seems reasonable to spend $700 on the major interface you have with your computer. I also expect these monitors to last about 10 years.
I totally agree, I was just yanking your chain. :)
I made a similar decision to yours last year and am currently on a 5K 27" + 4K 27" setup myself.
I made a similar decision to yours last year and am currently on a 5K 27" + 4K 27" setup myself.
I have two setups: one large single monitor, and one dual setup.
I had always thought that the multi setup was better, but have found over the years that it's only better at certain things (for me). I've found the single monitor setup better for tasks that need focus. Full screen apps (or nicely tiled sets of apps) for single task work well on one larger monitor. This fits writing, initial coding of modules, visual design, and reading dense material.
The multi monitor setup is great for tasks that require many views, especially collaboration, research, and projects with many reference materials.
I would love a desk that let me switch between the two, or windowing software that made it trivial to get to a focus mode that disabled the extra monitors when I needed extra attention. Those times where focus is important, I find the extra monitors, light, and visual noise distracting more than seems logical.
I had always thought that the multi setup was better, but have found over the years that it's only better at certain things (for me). I've found the single monitor setup better for tasks that need focus. Full screen apps (or nicely tiled sets of apps) for single task work well on one larger monitor. This fits writing, initial coding of modules, visual design, and reading dense material.
The multi monitor setup is great for tasks that require many views, especially collaboration, research, and projects with many reference materials.
I would love a desk that let me switch between the two, or windowing software that made it trivial to get to a focus mode that disabled the extra monitors when I needed extra attention. Those times where focus is important, I find the extra monitors, light, and visual noise distracting more than seems logical.
4k is awesome! But for higher picture quality, not for more screen estate. I find high DPI screens with activated scaling a lot less stressful to read on because of the smoother fonts.
4k on a > 32" screen won't have that advantage, DPI would be more or less like smaller screens but with a lot more screen estate. I personally wouldn't prefer that, as I already have found 30" screens slightly too big to work on - in the end I always looked only at small portions of the screen with my head turned in an akward way. 27" 4k works great for me. 2x 24" 4k might also be a great setup for some people. I personally prefer a single monitor for most tasks, because with 2 monitors at least one will always be badly aligned with the seating position.
4k on a > 32" screen won't have that advantage, DPI would be more or less like smaller screens but with a lot more screen estate. I personally wouldn't prefer that, as I already have found 30" screens slightly too big to work on - in the end I always looked only at small portions of the screen with my head turned in an akward way. 27" 4k works great for me. 2x 24" 4k might also be a great setup for some people. I personally prefer a single monitor for most tasks, because with 2 monitors at least one will always be badly aligned with the seating position.
I'm running a curved 48" 4k TV and absolutely love it. I have enough room to fit all of my windows, and the text isn't microscopic.
If you get a TV make sure it will do 4:4:4 chroma and 60hz over its interface (HDMI 2.0). You'll probably also need a DP to HDMI 2.0 dongle as well.
If you get a TV make sure it will do 4:4:4 chroma and 60hz over its interface (HDMI 2.0). You'll probably also need a DP to HDMI 2.0 dongle as well.
Two people have mentioned this now, great point. Something I hadn't even considered
For me my 34" curved display (3440 x 1440) works perfectly fine. Switched from one 29" (horizontal) and a second 24" (vertical) display.
My main display is the same resolution. I absolutely love it, and rarely feel like I'm wanting for space.
I have a 4k monitor, and it's really not much different than a 1440p monitor in terms of real estate because of the UI scaling...so I ended up getting a second 1440p monitor which I use in portrait mode. Portrait mode really is pretty amazing for reading code.
Have you tried an ultrawide? I have this one [1] at work, and it's a lot like having two monitors.
(It's wasted on me, though. I like looking straight ahead, so I keep everything visually centered, and I find that putting stuff in the margins is just distracting clutter. I've never understood the appeal of tiling window managers or of filling a screen with lots of noisy background activity. It's nice if you need to display something super wide, however, like a diff or some complex log output.)
[1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00PXYRMPE
(It's wasted on me, though. I like looking straight ahead, so I keep everything visually centered, and I find that putting stuff in the margins is just distracting clutter. I've never understood the appeal of tiling window managers or of filling a screen with lots of noisy background activity. It's nice if you need to display something super wide, however, like a diff or some complex log output.)
[1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00PXYRMPE
How do you like it? Also, any chance you do any photo editing on it?
On Thursday I almost bought a Dell U3417W[0] but I chickened at the last minute because I haven't been able to find much information on curved monitors and photo editing. Some people claim it's an issue, others claim that it's a fine and that it doesn't skew images.
The other one that I was looking at was the LG-34UC98-W (because Thunderbolt 2.0) but I read several reviews mentioning severe ghosting issues.
[0]: https://www.amazon.com/Dell-FR3PK-34-Inch-Led-Lit-Monitor/dp...
[1]: https://www.amazon.com/LG-34UC98-W-34-Inch-UltraWide-Thunder...
On Thursday I almost bought a Dell U3417W[0] but I chickened at the last minute because I haven't been able to find much information on curved monitors and photo editing. Some people claim it's an issue, others claim that it's a fine and that it doesn't skew images.
The other one that I was looking at was the LG-34UC98-W (because Thunderbolt 2.0) but I read several reviews mentioning severe ghosting issues.
[0]: https://www.amazon.com/Dell-FR3PK-34-Inch-Led-Lit-Monitor/dp...
[1]: https://www.amazon.com/LG-34UC98-W-34-Inch-UltraWide-Thunder...
It's a good monitor, although it's not as bright as the Apple Cinema Display (which I have at home). I occasionally find myself wanting to increase the brightness when the room itself is bright.
I don't do photo editing on it, and I doubt that the curvature (which is very slight and almost unnoticeeable) is a problem; but I imagine the lack of brightness might be.
The width provides almost no utility for development (for me); I keep windows centered and only very rarely do I put stuff in the periphery. In apps like Photoshop, Illustrator and Lightroom do I find that there's a large benefit. With Chrome it's also wide enough that you can keep the browser side by side with the dev tools, which is nice.
I'd much rather have a "Retina Display" monitor. The Dell 5K looks great.
I don't do photo editing on it, and I doubt that the curvature (which is very slight and almost unnoticeeable) is a problem; but I imagine the lack of brightness might be.
The width provides almost no utility for development (for me); I keep windows centered and only very rarely do I put stuff in the periphery. In apps like Photoshop, Illustrator and Lightroom do I find that there's a large benefit. With Chrome it's also wide enough that you can keep the browser side by side with the dev tools, which is nice.
I'd much rather have a "Retina Display" monitor. The Dell 5K looks great.
Nah, I don't want to have to turn my head that much
Why are you considering dual monitors, then? The ultrawides are not as wide as two monitors.
hmmm... fair point
To give you an idea of the difference, two 27" Dell U2715Hs[0] would take up 48.24 inches if placed side by side, while a single 34" Dell U3417W[1] would only take up 34.03 inches.
[0]: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00P0EQD1Q
[1]: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01IOO4TIM
[0]: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00P0EQD1Q
[1]: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01IOO4TIM
Single monitor with as few windows open simultaneously as possible. Where some seem to find value in having multiple things visible at once, I find value in having those things hidden.
Programming with or without WYSIWIG?
Before you shell out more money, are you sure the problem cannot be solved by better keybinds and/or a better UI?
A TV has lower refresh rate and higher ms thereby increasing input lag. This is especially annoying during gaming.
I use a 15,4" MBP with 2880 x 1800 resolution. Without the keybinds I use it'd be a hell though.
On work we use 3x 27" monitors. But I could easily work with two (due to WYSIWYG) or one (if no WYSIWYG).
Before you shell out more money, are you sure the problem cannot be solved by better keybinds and/or a better UI?
A TV has lower refresh rate and higher ms thereby increasing input lag. This is especially annoying during gaming.
I use a 15,4" MBP with 2880 x 1800 resolution. Without the keybinds I use it'd be a hell though.
On work we use 3x 27" monitors. But I could easily work with two (due to WYSIWYG) or one (if no WYSIWYG).
I don't know if we think WYSIWYG is the same thing or not, but if working on presentation I'll have source, browser and maybe a terminal, and maybe dev console open. That's 4 windows. I don't use a WYSIWYG editor though.
Not interested in gaming, I used to be but now I have no time for it.
Not interested in gaming, I used to be but now I have no time for it.
I use Linux and a window manager with 10 virtual desktops/workspaces, keyboard shortcuts let me instantly jump to or scroll through them.
That said, I've never understood the need for multiple physical monitors. Maybe someone can explain a few advantages of using more than 1 monitor vs a single with multiple workspaces?
That said, I've never understood the need for multiple physical monitors. Maybe someone can explain a few advantages of using more than 1 monitor vs a single with multiple workspaces?
I can have a big IDE open will simultaneously having a terminal and web browser open to a website that helps with what I'm working on in the IDE. Can't really do that with one monitor, even with one desktop. It's worth it, absolutely, for me. Whatever works for you though.
I'm using a Philips BDM4065UC at home. It's just under 40", 4K at 60hz. This gives you the same pixel density as a "normal" 27" monitor, but with far more space. I prefer it over smaller dual monitors, and feel no need for more screen space.
And yes, this is an actual monitor, not a TV.
And yes, this is an actual monitor, not a TV.
27" 5k is the way to go
Agreed 100%. Just got a new Mac setup (MBP w/ Touchbar and 27" LG Ultrafine 5k). Single cable that carries video, power, data is epic.
You can scale the UI, but the monitor just so pleasant at 1/4 effective res. Embrace cmd + tab. And tmux.
You can scale the UI, but the monitor just so pleasant at 1/4 effective res. Embrace cmd + tab. And tmux.
Would you prefer using two of those 5k monitors? I'm curious. I bought two nice LG 4k monitors for less than the price of one of those 5k monitors, and I'm pretty happy with my workflow now. Admittedly, it's a two-cable situation.
I've got one of the LG 5K monitors being delivered tomorrow and I'm worried I'll end up wanting a second one... guess we'll find out soon.
I prefer a single monitor. Maybe that's a result of my mild ADD
Just a different perspective - Depends on what you do. Personally I use a browser and some xterms -- that's it for the most part.
I have a 27" 1920x1080 at home and it's terrible. I usually use less than 60% of the available screen estate for displaying things. It's much too large (have to move my head from left to right inconveniently because my window manager places windows across the whole screen) and too much light is hitting my eyes from the unused areas.
At work I have a single 19" 5:4 1280x1024 LCD screen with ok colors / good contrast and I love it - just the right size. I use default keyboard shortcuts for window and workspace switching (it's mostly either browser or two vertically maximized xterms), works perfectly for me.
I have a 27" 1920x1080 at home and it's terrible. I usually use less than 60% of the available screen estate for displaying things. It's much too large (have to move my head from left to right inconveniently because my window manager places windows across the whole screen) and too much light is hitting my eyes from the unused areas.
At work I have a single 19" 5:4 1280x1024 LCD screen with ok colors / good contrast and I love it - just the right size. I use default keyboard shortcuts for window and workspace switching (it's mostly either browser or two vertically maximized xterms), works perfectly for me.
I have a Samsung 32 inch 1440p monitor and a Dell 24 inch 1080p monitor aligned vertically. The Samsung is my main workspace, and I use a tiling WM as well. I use the vertical Dell for email and instant messaging, so they're always visible.
This setup is the most ergonomic I've found yet. I don't have as much "watching tennis" neck that you can get with dual large monitors.
http://a.co/e30DgDl http://a.co/eS1boKR
This setup is the most ergonomic I've found yet. I don't have as much "watching tennis" neck that you can get with dual large monitors.
http://a.co/e30DgDl http://a.co/eS1boKR
I find a 40 inch 4k monitor perfect to code on.
4k@40" offers about the same ppi as a 27" at 1440p if scaling 1:1. So about the ideal text size imo, and obviously plenty of space to spread your code out.
Its also easy to work off completely one side while doing something unrelated in the other - atm I have a twitch stream and a browser on one side and an IDE on the other where I'm casually coding. Splitting the screens like this give you a better aspect ratio to read off than having 2 smaller monitors.
4k@40" offers about the same ppi as a 27" at 1440p if scaling 1:1. So about the ideal text size imo, and obviously plenty of space to spread your code out.
Its also easy to work off completely one side while doing something unrelated in the other - atm I have a twitch stream and a browser on one side and an IDE on the other where I'm casually coding. Splitting the screens like this give you a better aspect ratio to read off than having 2 smaller monitors.
Which model do you use?
my setup: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/559047/doupe.jpg
edit: also note that all the displays are 27", so they naturally fit side-by-side, that seems to be a detail, but it is quite important for seamless mouse movement (aligned virtual desktops). Even if physical pixel densities are not the same, all displays have the same virtual size: see https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/559047/aligned-displays.....
And the keyboard: http://www.daskeyboard.com, also highly recommended for a developer.
middle: 5K, iMac (mid 2015)
left: 4K, 27" Dell P2715Q
right: old Apple Cinema LED Display 27"
mid-bottom-left: iPhone 5s, for testing
mid-bottom-right: iPad Air, for testing, sometimes TweetDeck/HipChat with DuetDisplay
edit: also note that all the displays are 27", so they naturally fit side-by-side, that seems to be a detail, but it is quite important for seamless mouse movement (aligned virtual desktops). Even if physical pixel densities are not the same, all displays have the same virtual size: see https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/559047/aligned-displays.....
And the keyboard: http://www.daskeyboard.com, also highly recommended for a developer.
How would you compare the 5k screen vs the P2715? I have the latter at work and I find the picture quality (color, contrast) great. And dpi is also fairly good. Is the 5k noticably better?
PS: I personally wouldn't like that setup, too much lighting from all sides. But if it works for you it's certainly cool.
PS: I personally wouldn't like that setup, too much lighting from all sides. But if it works for you it's certainly cool.
Any difference is barely noticeable to my eye. Even having them side-by-side with the same default macOS Sierra background does not feel like two different displays. Even if I try hard and focus on specific details the quality, color, contrast look the same to me.
I use two 30" monitors at work and a single 27" iMac (running Linux) at home.
If work is buying then I'd get two monitors. If I'm paying then I'm fine with one, assuming it's 25+ inches and high resolution.
The extra screen space is nice, but not so much to justify the extra cost and the extra desk space. IMO a good window manger can make a single large screen almost as nice as two medium or large screens.
If work is buying then I'd get two monitors. If I'm paying then I'm fine with one, assuming it's 25+ inches and high resolution.
The extra screen space is nice, but not so much to justify the extra cost and the extra desk space. IMO a good window manger can make a single large screen almost as nice as two medium or large screens.
For me it highly depends on the task - but I usually prefer 2 screens, even if the 2nd is smaller (like for example 27" + 12.5" laptop).
But I am so used to having my IDE as big as possible (and splitting inside) with a 2nd screen for a browser, or shell)
Only had one monitor at home as well for two weeks and absolutely hated it (having gotten used to 2 screens for the last.. 15? years)
I have 4 monitors: laptop 14" screen plus 3 22" monitors. One of them is mounted vertically: perfect for Slack or longer pieces of code. I love this set up. You can find the monitors for cheap and it's much more flexible than just one TV. Additionally, I can rotate them so each is at a perfect angle for my eyes; can't do that with just one big TV.
I have a question for those that require multiple monitors.
Is your workflow severely impaired when on a laptop alone? I.e. in a coffee shop?
Is your workflow severely impaired when on a laptop alone? I.e. in a coffee shop?
I cannot do any serious coding on a laptop, it's just too small. It's fine if I am traveling and have to debug something but otherwise no way, I've always needed large screens to get things done.
Some of my coworkers code in 80x40 windows and are totally fine with a single 25" 1080p screen, I have no idea how they manage honestly: I've run dual monitors since forever (running two physical video cards, before dualhead was available) and lately I find myself more productive on 3 screens at home rather than 2 at work.
Some of my coworkers code in 80x40 windows and are totally fine with a single 25" 1080p screen, I have no idea how they manage honestly: I've run dual monitors since forever (running two physical video cards, before dualhead was available) and lately I find myself more productive on 3 screens at home rather than 2 at work.
For me it depends on what you're doing. If you are looking at a spec, it's annoying having to alt-tab all the time. Before I had dual monitors, I even resorted to -gasp- printing the spec so I could look at it while coding.
Nope not at all, in some cases I would say it's better. I use multiple monitors but prefer each monitor in full-screen mode. That allows me to use tmux on my main monitor and slack or a browser on another. When I'm writing code on my laptop alone I just have one open at a time, which in some ways is more immersive and allows me to focus on one thing. It's usually at home alone with no other distractions so that is also a factor.
>> Is your workflow severely impaired when on a laptop alone?
I find that with a MacBook Retina I can turn the scaling up and use an effectively higher resolution for a short amount of time to get a little more productivity.
Previously, I had an 11" MacBook Air (1366x768) and was basically unable to accomplish any development with only 768 vertical pixels.
I find that with a MacBook Retina I can turn the scaling up and use an effectively higher resolution for a short amount of time to get a little more productivity.
Previously, I had an 11" MacBook Air (1366x768) and was basically unable to accomplish any development with only 768 vertical pixels.
Not severely but you do feel less effective.
No, I have my preferable setup for all screen sizes. At home, I have 28" 4k, my laptop is 13", and more than once I had to edit some config files or urgently patch something while not having my laptop, with iPhone and Prompt2 SSH client for iOS :)
3x1920:1200 in PLL.
I tried working with a single high res screen and went back, my mental model just fits 3 screens better.
I tried working with a single high res screen and went back, my mental model just fits 3 screens better.
It's too bad 4:3 or other more square ratio monitors aren't as easily available. I think I might be a 3 screen mental model guy as well.
Can still get Dell 2007FPs on eBay; I find a good set-up is 1920x1200 centre with 1600x1200s to both left and right (for linux, all driven by a single nvidia card nowadays).
A single 27" WQHD(1440p) goes a very long way.
I used to be 3 23" monitor person, but once I saw I can have all that context on one monitor without having to swivel my head around constantly I was hooked.
I aim to be like the chicken in that one Mercedes commercial now.
Single monitor with Pytyle (window manager) + Debian Crunchbang/BunsenLabs. This distro uses Openbox by default, but I turn off the window decorations = more usable pixels.
Occasionally use Terminator and Byobu to further subdivide, depending on what I'm doing.
I've got three monitors at work and one 4K TV as a monitor at home. When I switch from the work setup to the home setup, it feels a bit limiting for programming, but it's better for gaming, etc.
At work I have iMac 5k and extra 4k 27" dell monitor. It works great. At home almost same setup, but 1080p 27" dell monitor. Not a huge difference. But two monitors is bare minimum for me.
Hi, monitor nerd here. The two key things I keep an eye on when it comes to monitors, are to get as many full-size (1080p or "1200p") working spaces as possible, and to retain a pixel pitch (will abbreviate "pp", aka dot pitch) within roughly 0,25 to 0,27 mm. That's the pixel "size" at which I find text easy to read and UI elements easy to use, at the viewing distance I personally like to have to my monitor. It means I don't have to rely on/fiddle with the UI scaling in each OS/VM, I get no mid-pixel text AA problems, and I'm only paying for pixels that I can use and see.
As a result of this, I personally wouldn't buy a 4k monitor/TV that is smaller than 43 inches. Which is huge! And awesome, because 4k at a usable pp gets you four full-size working spaces. I can highly recommend a 43-inch monitor with 4k resolution (pp ~ 0,25 mm). It boosts productivity in a great way.
There are a new set of formats called ultra-wide, or UW. The idea is to have two full-size working spaces side-by-side in one monitor (or three narrow ones), which would be a good option too for multitasking without looking at black monitor edges. Starting with 1440p UW, I could recommend this in a 38-inch monitor if you want loads of vertical space, but there are no such products available. As for the next step down (1200p UW), this would be great but there are no products available in this category. Lastly, as for 1080p UW, I would choose two 1920x1200 displays instead to get more vertical working space.
The next step down in monitor size, while retaining my personal favourite pp, would be one of the 1440p monitors at 31,5 or 32 inches (pp ~0,27/ mm). This is a good choice if it's important with loads of vertical space, but I wouldn't expect to be able to put 720 pixels x 2 to good practical use - i.e. this wouldn't give me four usable working spaces. I know however that a lot of people like to use this screen setup with three working spaces (one large, one tall and one wide). However, for many creative tasks, a good amount of vertical space is crucial.
As for multi-monitor solutions, a popular and sensible choice (to me) is X number of 24-inch monitors at 1920x1200 (pp ~0,27 mm). With monitor arms, this can work with anything from one to six monitors (two rows of three) which can be good from a future-proof perspective. Buy one, upgrade with another on your birthday, buy a third on Black Friday, a fourth when you're sad-shopping, a fifth when happy-shopping and the last one while really drunk. Just an example.
I'd like to point out that these are my personal preferences, and roughly estimated. For instance, I could probably go with a 40" 4k monitor if I just sat a little closer. But I've actually tried this and didn't like it. I also want to point out that if you have no problems with the OS UI scaling or if you like the 0,23 mm pp more, then the above advice can be adjusted to a warm recommendation of the 34-inch 1400p UW monitors. They are great for you. But I do recommend getting terminal glasses if you're not scaling text and read on a 0,23 mm pp monitor! Additionally, if you also would like to spend some money on really smooth text, I would recommend 2X products such as 4k on 24-inch monitors as they are... really smooth. Just keep in mind that it will cost you more, require a more powerful computer and limit you in terms of the number of monitors you can setup. Note that 27" and 5k makes no sense to me, I would go with 32 inches for 5k, as it's 2X to ~0,27 mm. But again, if you like the 0,23 mm pp more, then go for it!
As a result of this, I personally wouldn't buy a 4k monitor/TV that is smaller than 43 inches. Which is huge! And awesome, because 4k at a usable pp gets you four full-size working spaces. I can highly recommend a 43-inch monitor with 4k resolution (pp ~ 0,25 mm). It boosts productivity in a great way.
There are a new set of formats called ultra-wide, or UW. The idea is to have two full-size working spaces side-by-side in one monitor (or three narrow ones), which would be a good option too for multitasking without looking at black monitor edges. Starting with 1440p UW, I could recommend this in a 38-inch monitor if you want loads of vertical space, but there are no such products available. As for the next step down (1200p UW), this would be great but there are no products available in this category. Lastly, as for 1080p UW, I would choose two 1920x1200 displays instead to get more vertical working space.
The next step down in monitor size, while retaining my personal favourite pp, would be one of the 1440p monitors at 31,5 or 32 inches (pp ~0,27/ mm). This is a good choice if it's important with loads of vertical space, but I wouldn't expect to be able to put 720 pixels x 2 to good practical use - i.e. this wouldn't give me four usable working spaces. I know however that a lot of people like to use this screen setup with three working spaces (one large, one tall and one wide). However, for many creative tasks, a good amount of vertical space is crucial.
As for multi-monitor solutions, a popular and sensible choice (to me) is X number of 24-inch monitors at 1920x1200 (pp ~0,27 mm). With monitor arms, this can work with anything from one to six monitors (two rows of three) which can be good from a future-proof perspective. Buy one, upgrade with another on your birthday, buy a third on Black Friday, a fourth when you're sad-shopping, a fifth when happy-shopping and the last one while really drunk. Just an example.
I'd like to point out that these are my personal preferences, and roughly estimated. For instance, I could probably go with a 40" 4k monitor if I just sat a little closer. But I've actually tried this and didn't like it. I also want to point out that if you have no problems with the OS UI scaling or if you like the 0,23 mm pp more, then the above advice can be adjusted to a warm recommendation of the 34-inch 1400p UW monitors. They are great for you. But I do recommend getting terminal glasses if you're not scaling text and read on a 0,23 mm pp monitor! Additionally, if you also would like to spend some money on really smooth text, I would recommend 2X products such as 4k on 24-inch monitors as they are... really smooth. Just keep in mind that it will cost you more, require a more powerful computer and limit you in terms of the number of monitors you can setup. Note that 27" and 5k makes no sense to me, I would go with 32 inches for 5k, as it's 2X to ~0,27 mm. But again, if you like the 0,23 mm pp more, then go for it!
I am soon going to upgrade to 3x 24" 4k displays in portrait mode. I used 3x22" 1650x1050 for many years.
I love hiDPI on my mobile devices, and this is a best way for desktop.
I love hiDPI on my mobile devices, and this is a best way for desktop.
Múltiples 8k monitors. And a video card from the future.
I'm a coder by trade and hobby, don't really do any video or graphics stuff (the odd logo in Photoshop)
I'm trying to decide between getting a second 29" monitor, or a higher resolution and probably larger replacement screen. What's your setup? Which do you prefer? Is your average 4k TV good enough to work as a Desktop monitor?