Hacker News Reader

Comment by smsm42 | Hacker News Reader

I am surprised how small is a number of people that use vertical (portrait) display setup (I do). I have always found vertical space much more necessary than horizontal space. Most workloads will not fill a wide-screen display, and arranging multiple windows horizontally is usually a pain (the only case where it works well for me is for comparing two code windows or data sets which are organized in lines - comparing horizontally works much better in this way), as is looking at them. Vertical arrangement works much better for me. Downside - most displays are not able to rotate. It's a simple thing to do, probably costs nothing, but finding a rotating model is a pain - most manufacturers won't even tell if it rotates, you have to guess from the look of it. I wish this scenario was better supported...

View on HN

I've been using 2 x 27" 1440x2560 (Dell U2715H) for 2 years now. (Dell monitors are typically a pretty safe purchase in this respect as all the mid range ones seem to come with rotating stand.) I've been very happy with this setup, and I've no intention of changing. It's a good aspect ratio for editing text and viewing PDFs and whatnot, and makes very efficient use of desk space. My 2 portrait monitors are only about 12 cm wider than one landscape one.

I also don't understand why more people don't use it - but perhaps people try it out with a 1080p monitor, find it a bit cramped, and decide against it. (I used 1200x1920 monitors for a while, and the screens always felt a bit too narrow even with that. A lot of programs and sites seem to assume you've got a monitor that's at least 1280 pixels wide, so you end up with extra scroll bars, cramped UI, or stuff that's simply inaccessible.)

Yes, I also found Dell is pretty good in rotating display game (my latest display is Dell). I do encounter some sites which are to wide for 1080, but it's not too often.

How do you deal with the extra vertical effort that your neck needs to do ?

I was thinking about something similar but I am a bit concerned about having to move my head up and down to be able to focus on the entire screen.

I sit about 1m away from the screen, so I don't have to move my neck much anyway.

I do still find the full height a bit much, so I typically have each screen split half and half, or one third and two thirds. Depending on what I'm doing and which program(s) I'm using, this either means two windows, and I use a window layout program to arrange things, or one window split into panels, and I just put the split points where I want them.

(3 x 1/3 is also quite usable - 3 x 1440x850. On some laptops, that's about all you get in total...)

Just as a data point: I tried vertical display but didn't like it because I like to have two panels of code open next to each other on the same monitor a lot of the time.

E.g. if I'm calling a function I love to be able to have its definition up on the same screen at the same time. Also when writing commit messages, love to be able to have the diff up next to the COMMIT_EDITMSG.

Plus, now I think about it, I don't think I very often operate on functions that don't fit vertically on my landscape screen.

I think it depends on the kind of programmer? As a web dev few of my files are more than double my screen height, so it's one keyhit to see the bottom. But, I usually want two or even three things widthwise - perhaps a JavaScript and template file, or css and the output, etc. My horizontal space is more valuable than my vertical.

Usually code works pretty fine for me (though sometimes I've had to fold some side panels). It gets a bit tricky with heavily nested code, because of indents, but this code usually needs refactoring for other reasons too :)

I hear you. In my office people have two 16:10 displays each. Everyone puts them side by side, making a long ribbon. A few people will setup main screen horizontally and second one vertically. Since I've got those with miniscule bezels I've set them up side by side, but vertically, one monitor 90° the other 270°. The result: almost square - 20:16 (2400x1920), in other words 5:4. I can see everything at glance, without awkwardly twisting my head.

Now, if I could only use tileing window manager with this setup...

> Most workloads will not fill a wide-screen display, and arranging multiple windows horizontally is usually a pain

Ultra-wide screens can fix that. And using Windows' auto-arranging two windows side-by-side makes them perfect for the kind of workflows that require switching between 2 windows (web dev).

Be careful with subpixel rendering settings. On a rotated display you have to rotate the subpixel order but for some reason X can't do that (there is just a global one for the whole desktop), so you'd have to manually setup 2 X screens.

2 horizontal, 1 vertical has always been my go to. Works with any arrangement /tasks you're doing. Having a mix of both is a must-have in my opinion, it gives you the widest flexbility of options.

Vertical monitor I usually use for taking nodes, referring to code, or splitting bottom / top. Horizontal monitors are great for watching videos or tutorials, or splitting left/right side.

I usually use 27" IPS monitors that can rotate as well, with VESA mount capability. Dell (U2415H) makes the best ones in my opinion, it's not the cheapest ($300 each), but if you're staring at a monitor all day long it's a cheap investment

I’ve been told my desk setup looks silly, but I use two 34” ultra-wides (LG 34UM95) rotated vertically flanking two 27” Apple Cinema Displays stacked horizontally. It’s absolutely perfect for my coding needs.

I'd love to see that. Care to share a photo?

You've been told right.

Many monitors have mount holes on the back, so you can get a desk attached monitor mount, and then try portrait orientation.

I tried to run with a configuration like this recently, but it didn't work out for me.

>I am surprised how small is a number of people that use vertical (portrait) display setup (I do). I have always found vertical space much more necessary than horizontal space

Try DAW or NLE work...

I do too

so far the best setup that works with me is 3 monitors: 1x landscape (left) and 2x portrait (right)

using something like Spectacle [0] to arrange the windows quickly

VSCode spread on the 2 portraits in a grid (2x2) layout is pretty roomy

I found out that 25" monitors work better than 27" (too high and not wide enough in portrait)

I like the Dell UtlraSharp but YMMV

[0]: https://github.com/eczarny/spectacle

With a wide 23-27" horizontal display, you can have multiple code windows arranged next to each other on the same monitor. Vertical displays let you see more text on one listing of course, but they're not as good for putting two code windows next to each other.

Vertical is very nice for programming. But not great for other things (like putting two windows next to each other). In the past, my favorite setup was two vertical 30" next to each other but you need a fairly large desk for that. These days I just use a 32" in landscape and it's fine.

I still usually write no more than 80 chars a line, so yeah, horizontal space means very little to me too.

I stick to 80-character line limits, too, but I highly value the ability to have two (or more!) source files side-by-side on the same screen. It's like having two vertical monitors, but with just one horizontal one :)

I've been on and off... The biggest issue I have with vertical is the difference in distance from my eyes to the text. Moving my head left/right is more natural than up/down.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com