How to pick a good monitor for software development | Hacker News Reader

How to pick a good monitor for software development

nickjanetakis.com

109 pointsgmays178 comments

It's strange when monitor costs are being discussed while they are the primary tool for software development. If software developer produces $100k/year value, then it's worth spending several thousands of dollars for every percent of increased effectiveness. This can buy almost any monitor on the market.

I've found the following worth considering:

- It makes sense maximizing usable screen real estate, both in terms of pixels and area. Complex problems involve a lot of information and being able to view everything at the same time makes it easier to understand them. Personally I've found three 4K 32 inch monitors work well.

- OLED allows working comfortably at low lightning conditions.

- Many larger higher-end monitors support picture-by-picture, which allows splitting the monitor into multiple virtual monitors for separate inputs (2x or 4x per monitor). This is useful in case of multiple external test devices which can then be integrated into existing display setup.

> If software developer produces $100k/year value, then it's worth spending several thousands of dollars for every percent of increased effectiveness. This can buy almost any monitor on the market.

This doesn't add up: 1% of $100K = $1000. You would spend _several_ $1000 for every $1000 of produced value per year.

EDIT: Added "per year" at the end, thanks to Arcuru's question.

How often do you buy a new monitor?

Every 3-4 years.

Thank you for noticing this as well! Further, if a software developer produces $100k per year in value, the company is likely underwater. Very few developers cost less than $100,000, especially when taxes, benefits, tooling, etc are all factored in.

I don't understand this consumerist mindset. A monitor is a monitor. Programmers don't need color accuracy so any 4k will suffice. Your thinking just incenivizes "Programming grade" monitors that are just overpriced regular ones. I don't see how you could make a several thousand dollar 4k monitor if you tried.

> Programmers don't need color accuracy so any 4k will suffice.

Surely it depends on what we’re programming? Color accuracy (and inaccuracy for accessibility testing) is important for most anything we produce graphically that’s user-facing.

> A monitor is a monitor.

Color accuracy isn’t the only reason to invest more in display quality. Viewing angle and refresh rate are important factors as well. Their relative importance varies by use case: of course refresh rate being more important for game development; viewing angle and even color accuracy can be important for developer accessibility (example: I have a lot of sensory sensitivities, and color warp/washout at angles is a constant cognitive burden even if I’m not directly looking at it).

> I don't understand this consumerist mindset.

Indiscriminately buying cheap goods tends to also be a consumerist mindset and behavior. It often leads to more frequent purchases and disposal, producing both greater cost and waste. Which isn’t to say all pricing—in technology or otherwise—reflects value or longevity. But blanket rejecting the possibility isn’t helpful in distinguishing that.

> I don't see how you could make a several thousand dollar 4k monitor if you tried.

Even without addressing specialized use cases, it’s easy: low volume + high cost bill of materials. This used to be the case with IPS panels, and continues to be the case with newer/less pervasive panel details (eg OLED or higher pixel density displays). And again, whether those are requisite for a given programmer will depend on their work product and their own individual needs.

- - -

I won’t go so far as to say that everyone should arrive at the same cost/benefit analysis. But I will say that, in terms of tools to do our jobs, displays are very close to directly analogous to mattresses, chairs and shoes: oftentimes, skimping on cost is more costly than spending more upfront.

> is important for most anything we produce graphically that’s user-facing.

I can see the need for cross-domain (e.g. UX or graphics) specialists to have high-accuracy monitors but for most devs I don't it as necessary, as generally speaking you have an IDE with a bunch of code (text) and probably another monitor with your terminals, web browser with documentation, instant messaging app, etc. pretty much all of which is text-based.

>refresh rate... viewing angle and even colour accuracy can be important for developer accessibility

With regards to viewing angle, I have a nice dual-arm monitor mount system that allows it to be easily repositioned (limited 6DOF) as I change sitting posture throughout the day. Maybe something like this would help you?

I will say I usually score badly on colour perception tests (not colourblind, rather the tests where you have to order a number of very similar hues) so I could be missing a whole bunch of subtle colour errors that would irritate regular users :)

> I can see the need for cross-domain (e.g. UX or graphics) specialists to have high-accuracy monitors but for most devs I don't it as necessary, as generally speaking you have an IDE with a bunch of code (text) and probably another monitor with your terminals, web browser with documentation, instant messaging app, etc. pretty much all of which is text-based.

I was speaking specifically to the domains that serve use cases where display quality matters. Quite a lot of us at least overlap with that. Basically all FE web or GUI dev, any end-user image/video processing, pretty much anything that puts graphics on a screen that aren’t UI SDK builtins.

> With regards to viewing angle, I have a nice dual-arm monitor mount system that allows it to be easily repositioned (limited 6DOF) as I change sitting posture throughout the day. Maybe something like this would help you?

I have challenges with hyperfocus which include uncomfortable stillness for prolonged periods of time. I also have a puppy who reacts to very small motion adjustments during work hours in a way which becomes a huge ordeal. This is another reason my Comically Large Display (described in another comment in thread) works well for me. I think adjusting a mounting arm would be counterproductive for me.

> I will say I usually score badly on colour perception tests (not colourblind, rather the tests where you have to order a number of very similar hues) so I could be missing a whole bunch of subtle colour errors that would irritate regular users :)

I don’t do a lot of color accurate work but color/luminance wash is a huge problem for me if I have to deal with it. Like a background task that never stops until my brain is depleted. Having a panel that doesn’t distort that way in my peripheral vision is essential for me to be able to work.

> Quite a lot of us at least overlap with that. Basically all FE web or GUI dev, any end-user image/video processing, pretty much anything that puts graphics on a screen that aren’t UI SDK builtins.

I completely disagree, except for high end picture or video production. I have used way too many websites that clearly only work well on large, nice displays. Most end users of anything will not have the same high quality expensive monitor/computer that's being suggested.

I remember reading some article about someone who used an old i3 processor on a 4:3 laptop screen or something, knowing that if his code is slow for him, it's slow for his users. I think this mindset is genius and should be more common. Take MS Teams for example. It's like their devs have only ever tested on a gigabit link M1 and it's painful for the other 99.9% of people who use it.

So if you want to get a nice setup for yourself, then you should. But you should not do it for your clients, and if you do, you should understand your users will not have machines like yours.

Upthread I also stressed the importance of using lower quality displays to account for that aspect of real world usage. The point of having high quality displays to support users who don’t is to be able to reliably understand what’s being displayed in the first place. If you’re working at low fidelity you can only address the users who have the same system flaws you do.

This comment is the equivalent of the developer having a redundant, 10GbE Ethernet connection, building a mobile app for users who will have spotty 3G.

I don’t see a problem with that? Artificially limiting my access to data doesn’t help me better serve people who have concrete limited access to it. It just limits my access to information and my ability to assess what their limits are. I agree that we should also test and experience the things we build the way our users do. But I don’t agree that we should build things by imposing those experiences on ourselves without exception.

By and large, modern mass produced monitors are more than good enough. In fact, the best programmers in history had no problems running big CRTs.

These people don't need any fluff, and don't blame underperformance on lack of technology. People nowadays are so spoiled.

https://www.doomworld.com/lordflathead/id_carmack.jpg

Big CRTs didn’t have nearly the viewing angle problems that TN panels tend to have. And having, and addressing, sensory issues isn’t spoiled. It’s just taking care of oneself.

I agree that just buying the most expensive monitor is waste of resources. On the other hand, I think price shouldn't even come into the picture when deciding on basic things, such as the number of monitors or whether to choose 4K monitor or just FHD.

I guess the most reasonable approach is to select a set of models that pass the requirements and only then think about the price.

Some requirements are really expensive though. If one insists on OLED and wants to fit 3 4K monitors side by side the full setup cost is around $10k.

I recently got a 27" 4k monitor that I use at 2x scaling, and I'm never going back to fewer pixels per inch.

When I now have to look at monitors with a lower PPIU it hurts my eyes. I can see the individual pixels very clearly and letters are blurry. Much less eyestrain on 4k, can recommend!

Funny I have a 27" 4k and it's low resolution compared to for example a basic MacBook Pro laptop screen.

The lack of options for 27 inch 5K monitors is disappointing. There is nothing cheaper than the old Ultrafine 5K.

There used to be more options in that market segment but lack of interest kinda made them extinct.

Gamers and business buyers drive the market. Neither care about pixel density.

Business buyers care about text... which is better with higher pixel density.

Business users care about that.

Having used many monitors in businesses, I can only assume that the buyers do not.

Yes, but the difference doesn't have any real impact on productivity.

What baffles my mind is that retina densities are so much better for CJK languages, and yet, we don't see more retina densities in those markets. They must like the pixel blobs for characters with large number of strokes... /s

Even considering a resolution below 4k on a large monitor is absurd. This invalidated the whole article for me.

For text rendering, 4k doesn't really work for 27" or bigger. It'd work for 24" because you could do true @2x, but there aren't many out there. For 27", besides the UltraFine 5k, I'd prefer just using @1x with 1440p too.

I don't understand you comment. My 4k 27" renders fonts just fine.

Same here - have three 27inch 4k Ultrafine monitors and fonts render just fine (and are generally amazing).

If you go to true 2x scaling, things will be the same size as 1920x1080@1x on a 27". For me, that's HUGE and you don't get enough screen real estate for a 27". If you use 1.5x scaling you will lose sharpness because things won't line up to pixels perfectly.

Ah I see what you mean. I use fractional scaling without an issue.

My eizo 27" 4k likes to tell a different story.

What scaling do you run it in? If you do @2x things are massive for my taste and you don't have enough screen real estate (same space as 1920x1080).

You can configure widget sizes and font sizes independtly.

UI scaling set to have enough space and font size for readability.

Definitely, and it's probably not very noticeable, but there's no escaping the physical problem of not a perfect 1:1 or 2:1 pixel ratio.

Say you have a UI element that's supposed to be 9px wide. If you have perfect 2:1 pixel ratio you can use 18 physical pixels and it's as sharp as the monitor can be. If you're using UI scaling of say 1.5, the monitor needs to use 13.5 physical pixels to render it. Except that's not possible, so it will average together the 13th pixel with the 15th pixel (simplifying). It's basically introducing an extra anti-aliasing pass to your frame. This is is why the Apple/LG 24" is 4k and the 27" is 5k. All that said, I'm sure 4k @ 27" even with 1.5x scaling still looks great and you'd never notice the difference, except if you had the two right next to each other.

Yea it's good enough. I'm using a 27" 4k with my Mac, scaled show the same amount of stuff as a 5k would, so 125% I guess. Sure it probably looks worse than a real 5k monitor if I was to pixel peep, but it's great to me and I don't think 5k is worth the more than 2x asking price.

Scaled resolutions work much better than they used to. For example the iPhone 12 Mini scales at 2.88x by default and I've never heard anyone complain.

However I think it might also depend on the specific panel. I have a Lenovo portable monitor which is 1080p at 14", and running it at anything except 1x looks absolutely awful.

Everyone’s different, I guess. For me, I’m often struck by how lovely things look on my 27” 4K monitor. I have several older 1440 monitors that I no longer use because they look so grainy and unpleasant now.

(Edit: I’m using macOS, might be different for other systems)

Everyone is different! I have a Lenovo 2560x1440 monitor I bought circa 2018 for personal use for around $200 USD that is my daily driver on my home desktop. Around that same period I was using one of the LG 5k monitors at my place of work. The 5k is nicer, of course, and I can fit a lot more into the screen, but for the way I work the cheap 1440 is just fine nowadays. I use a tiling window manager and usually have my screen separated into a 2x2 grid where a program either uses a half or a quadrant of that grid. Even gridded up like that the 1440p is almost always enough space for me (code that violates the character length in vscode is sometimes an annoyance).

A preference for 24” or 27” at 4k is also largely impacted by how far away you position the monitor from your face.

I suppose if you put it quite far away, a 27" 4k @2x scaling would work well. It'd feel like a 24" 1080p monitor with retina sharpness.

For all the folks confused why I'm saying you don't want a 27" 4k monitor for text, it's because the PPI isn't nicely sized for 1x or 2x, which means you have to set it to scaling that rounds and blurs subpixels.

More info: https://www.caseyliss.com/2017/5/17/retina-monitors

By the way, I'm sure most 27" 4k monitors look fantastic and you should enjoy them! Especially if you don't mind or notice the scaling rounding or if you run it @2x and like the 1080p real estate.

> For all the folks confused why I'm saying you don't want a 27" 4k monitor for text, it's because the PPI isn't nicely sized for 1x or 2x, which means you have to set it to scaling that rounds and blurs subpixels.

This appears to be either a misunderstanding or a description of a deficiency in your environment for example Apple devices. For text there are 2 factors that control its size the designated size in points and for apps not sophisticated enough to scale elements appropriately according to DPI a scaling factor.

You appear to be suggesting that if you only had one knob you would be stuck with text that was either too small or too big however one or an application can adjust the size of the text independent of an integer scaling factor to produce a desirable end result. The same thing is true of images which are already trivially displayed at a different absolute sizes like every image on your browser ever.

For example on Linux most apps you are liable to run that aren't simplistic text apps are liable to be either QT or GTK. QT apps intelligently scale, GTK apps rely on a scaling factor one can set for example with an environmental variable. In both cases there is a setting for font size that effects 90% of apps of that stripe the minority having their own configuration.

It is incredibly trivial to have an environment that looks nice at any size.

100% agree. I don't understand how anyone uses lower DPI screens at this point. I got one from work and immediately packed it up and returned it once I founded out it was lower res. A large curved display at 1080p has pixels the size peanuts.

3440 x 1440 works well for me. Planning to stack another.

I have one like that, and having a MBP retina driving it below it, I can't not notice the pixels on the 4k monitor. I wish we could have more options either 24@4K or 27@5K. Having a retina display next to it makes the differences quite apparent.

I’d second the more 24”@4ks! I’ve had 2x24” 1080ps for years, and I really think they’re the sweet spot for my setup. I think 2x27” will be too large, and the super wide monitors lose too much real estate vs 2x monitors.

I have 2x24" 1920x1200s (16:10) and would love 4ks instead... if they were 24" and 16:10...

I have two 24@4K and it's great. Unfortunately, Dell stopped making this model (P2415Q), in fact the second one I bought used because Dell had no more stock.

Funny, I'm the opposite. I don't think the price increase for 4k is worth the PPI gain. I 'upgraded' to [0] and I would have stuck with 2k but my laptop was 4k (also not worth it IMO) and having a thunderbolt connection in the monitor is quite useful.

[0] https://www.samsung.com/uk/monitors/high-resolution/tu87f-32...

>> 4k monitor that I use at 2x scaling, and I'm never going back to fewer pixels per inch.

Doesn't that scaling make it effectively 1080? I use a 55" curved 4k TV and will never go back. The ability to "spread stuff out on the desktop" is unmatched.

Depends on the scaling. They are probably not talking about pixel scaling, but font and UI scaling, which means things stay just as sharp when scaled up.

I don't think that's possible? Say if you had a perfect 1px wide black line @1x and then you change UI scaling set to 1.5, you now have a 1.5px (physical) wide line. Which means you'll get blurring.

If you are displaying images with one pixel lines, yes. Buy how often do you view an image scaled to exactly one image pixel per screen pixel. And when it comes to UI and font toolkits, they account for variable scaling aren't usually drawing single pixel features. Anyway I haven't noticed any blurring. You'll only really get noticable blurring if you render at say 1x and display at more than 1x because the detail just isn't there.

I think this always applies. For instance the border on this textarea is 1px. There's nothing the OS can do, it's a physical issue. If UI scaling is 1.5, the correct answer for the size of the border is now 1.5 physical pixels. The best you can do is color the first pixel black and the second pixel the average of the first and third pixels. I might be wrong on this but I can't imagine what else it could do (other than mis-sizing the element).

I do agree that it probably looks fine and you wouldn't actually notice, unless you had an @2x monitor right next to it (of which there are sadly very few options)

If I'm not mistaken, you are talking about aliasing, and you are going to see that no matter what. There are always going to be assets made at a certain size and scaled to fit the particular element on the screen regardless of DPI. You'll perhaps see aliasing less with a 1080p screen since older UIs are built with them in mind, but these issues will be there regardless. Web pages will be this way on any monitor since they are always scaled.

No, the point of 4k and scaling is that you still have a very high pixel density, so things look smooth and sharp. I would not think a native resolution using a 4k 27" screen would make much sense, as things would be tiny.

Don’t try 144hz then, because it is as addictive, but no cheap 4k/144hz options exist yet in IPS category (although the situation is much better than say 4-5 years ago).

I've been on the fence about updating to 4K from an Ultrawide but the eye strain is the big reason I want to.

I went from 2 wide screens to a single ultra wide, and I'm never going back. It's like you have two screens (well, more like 1.5), but they are optimally positioned, and there's no bevel in the middle.

It's worth mentioning that I use i3, which helps a lot organising all that screen real state. I can see how obnoxious it could be to use it with other desktop environments.

Bonus: It's awesome for gaming. Most games support it nowadays, and it's very immersive.

Edit: The monitor -> https://www.techadvisor.com/review/aoc-agon-ag352ucg6-369041...

Edit 2: Got it at a Black Friday for £550, which was a pretty good deal. I would probably not buy it at full price.

Which ultrawide and what size?

I'm confused between getting 2 27 inch 4k monitors vs a QHD (low res) 34-38 inch ultrawide.

AOC Agon AG352UCG6, 35", Curved, VA, 1440p, 120Hz

https://www.techadvisor.com/review/aoc-agon-ag352ucg6-369041...

38" 3840x1600 (109ppi) curved ultra-wide here (since five years now). It's an old monitor so by now there are better 38". I love it for software development.

It depends on the game. I much prefer 24" 240Hz+ monitors for competitive reaction-based games. But yes, ultra-wide monitors are incredible for productive tasks.

> ultra-wide monitors are incredible for productive tasks

But they always seem really short? The wider they get the shorter they seem to get. Not sure why that is. Doesn't work for viewing code or text does it?

Just use a large TV - curved.

What do you mean by "short"? Do you mean like, the monitor support structure is short?

You can put ultra-wide monitors on monitor arms; just make sure the monitor arm supports the weight of the device.

When I look on Amazon for ultra-wide, I find monitors that are for example 3840 pixels wide... which is ok... but only 1080 pixels tall?! And the wider they get the fewer rows of pixels they seem to have. My 14-inch mid-range laptop is 1964 pixels tall. My ancient standard-format monitor is 2160 pixels tall. Why are these brand-new, fully mains-powered, desktop monitors so stupidly low on pixel rows? 1080 rows isn't enough for a good amount of code or text at a reasonable resolution.

U4021QW is the only option that is wide and enough tall (and not too tall). I wish I could get 120Hz version of this.

I don't know about the Windows world, but afaik Macs can't drive anything larger than 6k currently, so taking a 5k monitor and adding horizontal pixels to it doesn't work.

LG and Dell make a 34" 5k*2k monitor, but on MacOS you can't drive it at 2x because again that would be more than 6k.

Hopefully in the not so distant future the high PPI ultrawide dream will come true.

I assume they meant the opposite of tall, I.e vertical size. And there I must agree, the ultra wide screens come of as very… wide.

34" and 49" ultrawides are the same height as a 27" 16:9.

38" ultrawides are the same height as a 30" 16:9.

If you want something taller than that, there's also 43" 16:9 monitors, which I guess are basically just TV panels put in a different body / with different firmware.

Agreed, ultrawide monitors really just "heighten the contradictions" of non-tiling window managers, and show how unfit for purpose they are.

Really missing OLED in the post. After getting an OLED tv a few years back I can't imagine myself spending money on anything with less quality. Instant pixel refresh, amazing colors and no blooming and most importantly, a glossy display.

Tried the Odyssey G7 for a while, so blurry with VA and matte panel. Ended up returning it. Temporary solution is my old 2x 1440 IPS 27". They look awful next to my 15 inch 4k laptop but gets the job done for now on the cheap.

Nearly got the C1 48" but it is a bit too big for easy usage. When rumors for the C2 42" started coming I decided to buy it ASAP when it launches this spring.

So annoyed by the monitor market. Phones have awesome screens, TVs have awesome screens, even laptops have awesome screens. Monitors are whatever is the cheapest per unit for large corporations or an ever increasing HZ number for gamers, without even considering pixel transition time or color.... At least there's some blingy LEDs on the back.

Wait, you WANT glossy?

Not sure how seriously to take you after that. I want to get work done, not stare at myself or the stuff behind me.

There is a reason. OLED panels are still quite bad for "staying" images (burn-in). And not only that, there has been many other issues, which makes them hard to make outside of standard 55" TV sizes. Not many manufacturing lines for them.

Lenovo Yoga Gen 2 used to have OLED screen, and it was causing huge repairs. On Gen 3 it was removed and they took a long break before introducing it on other products.

Don’t use it as a monitor. It is insanely easy to get a burn in. There are many YT videos where people daily drived OLEDs as monitors and it was pretty much a burn in disaster. Sadly

I have a thinkpad with Oled and external screens with oled too. No burn in so far. If it ever becomes a problem, I will just get new ones. The confort of oled when working at night is worth it.

What kind of screens do you use? Glad that OLED is making progress with the burn in!

https://www.amazon.com/15-6-Portable-Monitor-External-Consol...

Laptop OLED (made by Samsung, I believe) is differ to TV OLED (LG WOLED) . Latter is more vulnerable for burn in.

Check https://www.amazon.com/15-6-Portable-Monitor-External-Consol...

I use 2 of them on a daily basis.

Wow those seem amazing! Like the perfect minimal office on the go??

Indeed. Another model, apparently only available in China, was wifi display (miracast IIRC) so it should be usable in Windows (Win+K) and Android

> After getting an OLED tv a few years back I can't imagine myself spending money on anything with lesser quality.

What about OLED's burn-in problem? Computers usually have a lot of GUI elements in the same place for long period of times.

> and most importantly, a glossy display

Glossy displays can be good for prettier colors but can have glare problems from other light sources. This post is about picking a monitor for software development, why would glossy be better than matte for that use?

I have been using my 2016 55" B6 hooked up to my computer for years now, I write this on that screen. I babied it in the beginning. Nowadays I tend to forget it on. I have a tiny amount of burn in on the white subpixels from the top bar in windows due to previously having the default white layout. Turned on dark mode now to mitigate that. All other colors are fine. Completely invisible in regular usage.

Got scared by that and moved the taskbar to the side, no burn-in at the bottom though. I guess because that was a darker tone. Also used it at maximum OLED light until I noticed the first burn-in, so it's not like I was nice to it even though I babied it regarding static elements.

Sadly I can't find the "total hours on" setting on this one, seems to be removed from the settings.

> Glossy displays can be good for prettier colors but can have glare problems from other light sources. This post is about picking a monitor for software development, why would glossy be better than matte for that use?

Because I want clarity. Why put the perfectly crisp text and other elements through a blur filter??

Glare monitors are superior for clarity, but I prefer non-reflectiveness for reading texts since it's enough clear. Watching movie is a bit different story.

These are now available: https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-27ep950

They are 60hz for $3K though. I was seriously considering trying one, but 120 HZ minimum does a lot for motion clarity. Same issue with the 32" version.

I guess I should also have specified in the "not selling my kidney" range considering that the C1 48" go around $1K.

> When rumors for the C2 42" started coming I decided to ASAP when it launches this spring

If previous LG OLEDs are anything to go by, you’re gonna be disappointed using it as a regular computer monitor (gaming would be great though).

The automatic brightness limiting kicks in hard for regular PC usage.

That would be annoying, my use case is both but many times the hours of work to compared to gaming. I guess that is why my B6 is amazing, not the brightest out there compared to what is available today but no automatic limiting.

I wonder how the crazy gamer ones are going to be, like the ASUS PG42UQ [0]. Also how much a premium above the regular LG one. Also would get annoyed by having that UFO on my desk.

[0]: https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/4/22867178/asus-oled-gaming-...

The ABL isn’t that much of an issue as the WRGB sub pixels that it uses which make text fuzzy.

Also even at 42” the PPI is not good enough for text rendering.

And lastly the biggest issue is actual comfort there is almost no way to balance the right distance and scaling to prevent strain on your neck when working with such large monitors.

It’s nuts to me that Apple never sold the iMac 5K 27” display as a standalone monitor. There was/is the LG UltraFine, but by most accounts it’s rather unreliable and of poor build quality for the price—not to mention it seems to be totally discontinued outside of the US.

It would be the perfect Mac monitor, especially with macOS’ odd scaling method making 4K @ 27” really suboptimal. It would be overpriced I’m sure, but considering it would be less than the price of the iMac that normally contains it, I think it would still have been a popular choice. Unlike the Pro Display XDR which blows right past overpriced and lands squarely into unattainable for the vast majority of people.

I got a 8k 55" tv for just under 1000 usd a while back and can't imagine spending a cent on anything less now. Maybe a 2x2 grid of 27" 4k's but I'd be annoyed by the bevels being right in the middle of my view.

Unfortunately I recently discovered it was a fluke of history, prices have gone up and I can't even seem to find 55" 8k anymore. I really hope someone puts the same panel in a consumer monitor with displayport inputs soon. I'd pay out of my own pocket to have this setup at work.

Interesting, how does it fit on your desk?

it fits fine, it's only about 4ft/120cm wide. I can touch both sides with my hands when sitting normally in front of it. Basically most of my field of view when working is available retina screen space, it's really nice. :)

Now I need a video card to drive it, guessing my laptop won’t cut it.

Since everyone is just using this thread to post their own experiences with the monitors they use, I'm curious a bit further...what is actually on your monitors while developing? (Interested specifically in web dev, since that's what i do).

For me, I am fine with 3 windows at a time, achieved by my laptop display, and my 4k screen split vertically. Code and SO/docs on the big screen, and then the testing browser (ptobably with console open) on the laptop screen. I don't really see any use for another monitor or more screen real estate.

2 32" monitors side by side.

code on left monitor

browser and dev tools (split vertically 50 / 50) on right monitor.

separate chrome tab behind browser + dev tool, with docs, for quick CMD+~

Wow, that seems like a lot of horizontal space to cover looking back and forth. Does your neck get sore at the end of the day?

hm, no... doesn't feel like a lot to me? :shrug:

Similar here. Slightly smaller monitor, but 3 of them. Only two at a time is typically used for development. The third is for me to tile apps like Slack and Spotify.

I've done 2 monitors and 1 monitor + laptop screen, and a single monitor, and I mostly prefer single monitor. Sometimes 1 monitor + laptop is useful for webdev--or if I'm in a particularly chatty Slack (or whatever), but I've found the less I have to swivel my body/neck the better. The most successful 1 monitor + laptop has been is when I can put the laptop beneath the screen. But these days I find I don't want to suffer the laptop keyboard (well, really lack of TrackPoint--I have a ThinkPad USB Keyboard SK8855).

Maybe the only problem I have now is "webcam looks down on you", which I don't like and makes me consider 1 monitor + laptop beneath again. MBP keyboards are better now so... maybe I can suffer the trackpad? Maybe it won't give me RSI?

I have a three 27" monitor setup with iMac. I tend to dedicate one display to communication and entertainment apps--Outlook, Slack/Mattermost, Spotify; I'll have my IDE in my center display, and on the third display I'll have terminals, utility editor windows, or browser windows--depending on what I'm working on, e.g. when writing front-end Javascript, I have my browser and developer tools open, and maybe a window open to MDN's docs.

I have one 4k monitor no scaling,so plenty of space one one screen. The main thing I use the width for is the browser dev tools: I can have the site fully open and network requests and responses. Also, even horizontally there's plenty of height to see lots of code. But I really don't want to have to many things on the screen at the same time. Except when doing things like copying from one window to another.

I'd like to hear from people who develop with a 49 inch monitor. Especially the really curvy one.

I had a 34 inch ultrawide for a while, but eventually got tired of the low resolution. Switched to a 32 inch 4K and I'm pretty happy with it. But it's a bit slow starting up, the refresh rate maxes out at 60Hz, and sometimes I find myself wishing for more space. Partially because I'm getting old and my eyes thank me for scaling up the size of fonts and such, which cuts down on the effective area of the screen.

I've been toying with the idea of getting the Samsung CRG9, but I've no idea if it would be a good choice for primarily software development. A big upside is that it's a single monitor, which will make my M1 MBP happy.

I have the odyssey version of this. Excellent for frontend work, where ill have some 3 or 4 windows up at the same time.

I use the CRG9. Combine it with the ms powertoys and you’ll be a happy camper. I divide mine in 3 where i have vscode in the middle and 1 column left and right.

I do reccomend getting the one with the 5120x1440 resolution. I still have the old 3840x1080 one and I miss having more pixels sometimes.

One downside tha you have to take into account is that you can never share your whole acreen when using teams when the other persons don’t have an ultrawide. It will look super small on their screens.

I develop with that 49" curved Dell. Works really nice when you can fit 7-8 full height terminals side by side in single workspace.

And of course https://twitter.com/varjag/status/1120709771022221314

Got oddessy g9 this Black Friday for ~$900. (https://www.samsung.com/us/computing/monitors/gaming/49--ody...)

Has been smooth sailing with MBP 16” Intel (2019).

Really loving the extra real estate. Can not imagine going back to plain old 22-24” screens.

Edit: Primarily a backend+devops role. so refresh rate or pixels don't really matter. Being able to have multi tabs open on IntelliJ is real win for dev work. (Called split tab in jetbrains world)

I have an odyssey g9 (pretty much the same thing but the "gaming" version so it has a few additional bells and whistles such as 240hz and G-Sync) and I love it.

I'm not sure if this capability would be available on the model you're looking at, but I typically use the Picture-By-Picture mode (with two DisplayPort cables connected from my GPU to the monitor) for work with custom resolution profiles set to enable each side to run at 120hz. I use Windows and don't have a Mac so I'm not sure if you can do that sort of thing. The PBP options for this monitor allow you to choose the split so if you want to go with an ultrawide and leftover portion, you can do that as well. The main reason I go with this setup is it allows me to go "full screen" with each half of the monitor, or if needed share a half screen over clients like Zoom if necessary.

As a productivity machine, the lack of bezel and increase of screen real-estate is fantastic for multitasking, there's enough room to have the documentation off to the side in addition to the code and any messages.

I’ve bought two monitors that I really loved: an Apple Cinema Display 27” for $2000 in 2003, which was a crazy amount of money for a monitor at the time. I used it for 12 years. And an Apple Pro display with all the options for $7k last year, which seemed a little crazy but it’s just unbelievably good, like looking through a window, and I won’t be surprised if I use it for 10 years. If you’ve got the money, a really good monitor is worth a lot.

I would also pay attention to reviews and keep an eye out for problems like DisplayPort deep sleep. I have two monitors, one goes into DP deep sleep with no way to disable and the other doesn't. The monitor that doesn't will always wake first and all windows will end up moved onto that monitor since the DP deep sleep monitor is technically "off" for a few seconds. As you can imagine reorganizing all your windows every time you come out of sleep is a bit of a PITA. Fortunately this is one area where Windows 11 helps as they added some feature to better help laptops reconnect to external displays. It's still a problem on other OSs IME though.

Have you tried Powertoys FancyZones? I'd be curious to hear if it helps to persist window positions or at least reset them quickly if they end up in the wrong place.

No, I hadn't heard of it. Windows 11 also sort of works around it you just have to wait a few seconds for it to rejigger the windows so I no longer need a workaround. I did use it with tiling window manager (stumpWM) on Linux but that just resulted in an even worse problem where I couldn't even use the 2nd monitor after returning from sleep.

I made a post yesterday (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30223880) about my own twm use in Windows 11; I think it could help with the problem you are describing of application window reorganization.

Someone told here earlier it’s now built into w11.

This behavior is the single biggest drawback DisplayPort has over DVI.

Pretty much every high end monitor has that issue. It’s a conflict between idle power savings regulations and the hardware needed for 4K 120hz.

I just disable “turn display off after x minutes” in windows, set a black screensaver, and leave the monitor and PC fully powered 24 hours a day. This does waste power, but unless reasonable sleep modes that only power off the panel become available that’s what you gotta do.

I use display fusions window position profile feature for that, it's bound to a hotkey so I can hit it and all my windows are instantly where I want them.

I can't recommend getting a 40 to 46ish inch 4k TV enough. They're crazy cheap, and are the size and resolution of 4 regular 1080p monitors glued together.

And the real superpower is being able to have a double height display for code, that allows you to view twice as many lines of code at the same time, meanwhile still leaving half of the display for displaying your app/debugger/docs/git diff etc.

And window management is a breeze. Windows allows snapping to a quarter or half of the display by default, Gnome shell can be configured to do the same, and Mac has an app called Magnet that does this.

Hard disagree on the recommendations like about not bothering with 4k.

I got 2x portable 4k oled displays. Great color reproduction, crispy fonts and windows 11 remember where the windows should be.

Battery powered means I can easily travel with one or both and my laptop.

Oled means I can work comfortably at night with a black theme or a white theme + NegativeScreen

Check the InnoCn on amazon: there are others but I can vouch for this one https://www.amazon.com/15-6-Portable-Monitor-External-Consol...

Let me chime in and recommend the Lenovo ThinkVision P32U-10 [0]. Color repro is amazing, brightness is bonkers, it's matte. The only dealbreaker for some is it's 60Hz only. The reviews are pretty good and give a good idea of how it all performs [1] [2] [3]. Plus it's super cheap at Amazon right now; I'm pretty sure mine cost $700-$800 and it's down to $400.

I did have to monkey a little with macOS to get color reproduction correct on a new M1 Max--which I found out isn't uncommon. Also 32" is big--they make a 27" but brightness and color reproduction suffer slightly, and it loses a Thunderbolt port. But that might be an OK tradeoff for you.

[0]: https://smile.amazon.com/Lenovo-ThinkVision-P32u-10-Monitor-...

[1]: https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/lenovo-thinkvision-p32u-10

[2]: https://www.techradar.com/reviews/lenovo-thinkvision-p32u-10

[3]: https://www.storagereview.com/review/lenovo-thinkvision-p32u...

I wish that 4:3 monitors would come back, my personal dev setup uses a 23" 16:9 monitor in the middle with one 17" 4:3 on each side for a total of three. Three 16:9 monitors are too wide for me to work comfortably (have to turn both my body and my head) and two 16:9s have the bezel in the middle and require me to have my head skewed constantly when working. I've tried using vertically oriented 16:9 monitors on the side, but I find I need to move my head up and down too much for my tastes.

It's not quite 4:3 but LG has a new 16:18 monitor coming out soon:

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/329996-lg-announces-mo...

The never ending issue with these monitors is that it’s almost always cheaper to just buy the same height and v-res 16:9 monitor and cut borders at the driver level. They try to squeeze every penny out of your non-16:9 demands.

This entire x:y issue takes roots at OSes, which suck so much at window positioning out of box. Much easier and cheaper to use fancyzones or a similar tiling software and just ignore the wasted space, or use it only when needed.

4k, 43" LCD Tv for $300 https://www.amazon.com/TCL-43-inch-Class-Smart-Android/dp/B0...

Once you go 40 inch, you can never go back.

A smart TV ... not on my shift!

I have a TCL TV and I've used it to work from the couch a bit -BUT- I can't recommend it to replace a monitor, because it takes ages to boot up. There's a "fast boot" option in the settings, but it stopped working after the first firmware update, so now the TV takes 2-3 minutes to boot into Android TV every time you turn it on.

All I really want is a 96x2 PPI monitor because I'm mainly on Windows and that's what widgets look their best at. 24", 3840x2560 (for 96 x 2 PPI, 3:2 aspect ratio), 120Hz, 10 bits per color, topping out bandwidth at exactly two lanes of UHBR 20 of DisplayPort 2.0 would be my holy grail.

For me, 4k @ 32" native resolution is perfect (not pixel doubled). I drive two BenQ displays from my MBP and absolutely love the setup! I can't stand 4k or 5k at 27" as it's too small with native, but way too big when doubled.

Does anyone know why manufactures don't make 34,36 inch 4k monitors? There are plenty of 32 inch 4k monitors but next 4k resolution is 42-43 inch. Nothing in-between. The whole segment of 32-40 inch monitor is dominated by ultra wide monitors.

I've wondered the same thing, and assumed it had to do with the GPU you would need to run them. I just looked and there appear to be at least a couple models: https://pcpartpicker.com/products/monitor/#r=512002160

Ultrawide are actually still quite standardized.

The most common size is 34" . They are the same height as a 16:9 27" and the same amount of vertical pixels - one of 1080,1440, 2160. It is derived from the same panel as what goes into a 27", just longer.

The next common size is 38" @ 3840x1600 . I haven't done the math, but these are presumably derived from 16:9 42" 3840x2160 panels, with the bottom 560 pixels cut off.

I'm not aware of any '32" 16:9 but longer' ultrawide yet, but they will likely happen at some point.

I think you are right that there's nothing readily available between 32" and 42", but ultrawide do not contradict that UW panels are a niche product line so they use existing panel PPI arrangements.

120-130 PPI sounds like really awkward zone. Either you have really good eyesight and run it at 1x scale, or deal with scaling issues by running it at 1.25x without actually being as sharp as proper hidpi. In comparison, 31.5" works well with 1.5x, and 43" at 1x.

Heh I am running currently at 32 inch;4k at 1x. I do find it tad small and I was thinking a 36 inch will be almost perfect.

I desperately wish there were commercially available 3:2 desktop displays in the 24-30 inch range. Hell I'd even take a 16:10 2560x1600 but they're simply not available unless you want to set a thirty inch monstrosity on your desk.

Have you seen the Huawei Mateview? It's a 28" 3:2 monitor (3840x2560).

Availability is poor in the US and it isn't being reviewed very well. As I recall it doesn't even let you adjust the color balance.

> my mom thinks that a 25” 1080p monitor is going to let her fit more things on her screen than a 22” 1080p monitor.

She may be right, if she can reduce the scaling factor so that individual items stay readable and take fewer pixels to display.

Exactly, as mentioned up this article if full of errors.

In a co-working space, I am currently running 4x27" Dell screens @ 2560x1440px.

Two stacked landscape + a portrait on each side. I split the screens in logical units with Powertoys FancyZones (I run Windows).

For the very limited space I have there + value for money, I could not be happier.

I prefer multiple monitors over a single large. Screensharing, managing windows just seems so much easier to me.

Pic: https://imgur.com/a/2yJDxod

I tried 27" 1440p external monitor with macOS and fonts were blurry I had to sell it after 3 months. I don't recommend anything lower than 4k on 27".

24" 4K or 27" 5K is ideal, though the latter are still fairly expensive if you buy them outside of getting a retina iMac. Frankly, if you develop on a mac and can choose/buy your own computer, the 27" retina iMac is a pretty sweet deal (though I'm curious how it will be refreshed this year). Dell has a 32" 8K now, but that is sort of too big and could cause neck strain if used for programming.

Have this huge Philips 436M6VBPAB/00 43” monitor. I don’t want to go back to anything smaller. Designing printed circuit board on it is a pleasure. The quality of the picture is not very good, but it does the job. Of course, I need another shelf behind my table to put this monitor far enough from my eyes. For text only tasks I would take a widescreen monitor directly on my table.

On Windows I still prefer to run 100% scaling. Yes, most new software correctly handle hidpi, but you'll encounter issues here and there.

That said, if you run 1080p on 24", and want to upgrade to a larger display, 1440p 32" will give you the same dpi. You can have them side by side and everything will look the same at 100% on both screens.

I'm running a couple of 28" 3:2 ratio displays ( https://consumer.huawei.com/uk/monitors/mateview/ for the exact model). The extra vertical space is great, been wanting desktop displays in this ratio ever since getting a Surface Book and I'm upgrading to a Framework partly down to the 3:2 display there too.

Downside of this particular monitor is the lack of VESA mount, it could be a tad brighter (but is fine for the office), and I'd prefer 120Hz vs 60. I'm really hoping there is more choice in this 3:2 space down the road. Like if Microsoft released that Surface Studio as a monitor..

One thing to watch for is that macOS often uses YPbPr mode (instead of RGB) with non-Apple (or Apple-store LG) displays. I've especially noticed this with Dell's and some others. Using DisplayPort may help, but the `patch-edid.rb` was always my go-to solution.

4K @ 32" is perfection for me, I wouldn't go any larger or smaller with 4K. You get four 1080p screens worth in a single panel, without any virtual scaling going on at all.

I have two identical work setups in different rooms. Different brand monitors, but both mounted to 13" ErgoTron LX (VESA robot arms), bolted to motorized adjustable desks (solid core doors for desk tops, Amazon-style).

My first screen is a Dell U-Series 32" (U3219Q) and it's been fabulous for two years now. Can't recommend it enough.

My second screen is an Acer 31.5" Nitro XV2 (XV322QK) which can put out 144hz. It runs at 60 Hz with my XPS 15 plugged in via USB-C, but if I hook a PS5 into it can get 120hz.

I've recently switched from using a 15 or 17 inch laptop along with a 27 inch curved screen to a 13 inch laptop with a pair of 28 inch 4k flat screens, and am really liking it. I run Linux, and have various gnome extensions to allow for quick placement - main browser, second browser window for Comms stuff, slack, terminal, ide, etc. Combined with a dual monitor stand allowing me to grab a screen and move it closer for particular tasks, or further away for calls, and USB webcam and microphone for calls so people aren't looking at the side of my head while I'm watching them on a bigger screen, and it's a really productive setup.

I’ve been combining one monitor in portrait mode alongside one monitor in landscape mode for about a year. It’s a great setup for software developers. I often open code and logs on the portrait monitor. Everything else on the one in landscape. With Rectangles.app I can place two separate applications on either monitor with a key combination. I place one window in the vertical top half and one in the vertical bottom half on my portrait monitor, for example. Or one window in the horizontal left half and one in the right half on the landscape monitor. There’s lots of possibilities and great flexibility. I’d recommend it.

There is another good article about monitors and how to configure them https://tonsky.me/blog/monitors/

Just get a Dell P2415Q and thank me later.

My opinion: today dell p2721q is a good choice.

I've got 3 1200p IPS panels on a VESA stand, I think its pretty ideal.

I really do wish 1600p 16:10 panels were more common, as I think its the ideal sweet spot for pixel density and not pissing away compute power.

I’m currently using a 43 inch LG monitor (43UD79). I transitioned to this monitor from a 27” iMac + 27” Apple Thunderbolt Display setup, but was forced to switch to a single external monitor when work bought me a MacBook, and I wanted more real estate than the single external thunderbolt. I think the large 4k is a step down from the two nice 27 inch screens. I’d like to switch to the Apple pro display but haven’t been able to justify the price to myself as of yet.

Does anyone have a non-mac laptop that truly handles 2 monitors? I had an old Dell with both HDMI and Mini-DisplayPort ports, it drove two monitors well. But new laptops only have HDMI and rely on USB or Thunderbolt for additional monitor ports. My second monitor (connected via a USB-C hub with HDMI port) works, but it flickers and is not as bright as the first monitor connected directly to HDMI.

I used to use an HP elitebook. It drove 3 1600x1200 monitors from on display port using daisy chaining. Pretty well built laptop.

The daisy chaining is built into the monitors, correct? If every monitor was set up like this it would be great, but very few are, thus the need for 2 HDMI/DP in the laptop itself.

I use a ThinkPad P14s running Ubuntu, runs two monitors fine: HDMI on one and USB-C to DP cable for the other. Had another ThinkPad previously with same port config also fine.

I have yet to find a better monitor than the Dell U3011, which is essentially the same unit as my previous 3008WFP (which itself there was a 3007wfp before it), which means it's a design that's been available approaching 15 years.

30" 2560x1600; c. 100ppi.

I run the numbers on all the Ultrawide, 4K, whatever hotness and I end up knowing I'll fit less vertical lines on the screen.

> "This will make fonts and porn…I mean professional Photoshop graphics that you design look really sharp."

Author about retina displays.

Make no mistake, good fonts ARE porn.

I've been using a LG 27" 4k60Hz with a MBP for a few years.

Recently got a 32" LG monitor from my employer, and I really tried to make it work, but it was plain impossible. It's too big, and due to scaling (which I don't need with 27"), fonts are very blurry.

I ended up with my 27" again and using the 32" for my bike trainer :)

Picked a ultrawide because some IDEs like XCode need a lot of horizontal real estate.

My LG 34" is a bit limited in vertical size, so would buy a 38" or bigger next time. The 1080p resolution is limited but not a dealbreaker for me since I look at it 70cm away (corrective eye surgery = focus locked to infinity).

A friend has serious eye strain problems and his literally stockpiling old square screens. At the moment only screens, which are okey for him are Eizo IPS S1934 and EV2730Q and some of the old similar ones not produced anymore. Any square screen recommendations?

I upgraded to a 1440p 27" monitor on my work PC and do love it. Kinda tempted to upgrade my personal PC (which has dual 24" 1080p monitors) but honestly have a hard time justifying it when both monitors still work just fine after 7 years of owning them.

Why not do it? I have a gallery of three unused displays. They’re my backup now if anything goes wrong. I recently had to use one of them too, until I could repair my (also old now) 27″ display.

Because I don't have space to store two unused monitors, and it's hard to quantify just how much of a productivity gain it would be when my two 1080p monitors do work fine.

Most discussion of displays that isn’t for a highly specialized audience fails to mention panel types, I’m glad that’s well covered. I was surprised to see PLS even mentioned. I took a chance on a PLS panel years back, and I was definitely satisfied with the panel quality (tl;dr, it’s roughly on par with IPS). The only reason I don’t still use it, is its replacement…

I’m surprised to see I’m not the only one here using a Comically Large Display. I also use a ~43"[1], with an IPS panel running 4k@1x.

TL;DR: I laughed at myself for buying this thing for several months, and now I can’t imagine working without it. If you’re considering a large multi-display setup or an ultrawide to maximize screen real estate, it’s worth also considering a Comically Large 16:9 format. It’s surprisingly economical, even for a decent quality IPS panel.

Bonus: if you’re working remote/limited for space like I am, unlike a big multi-display setup, it also makes for a pretty great TV. And it’s only/fully as “smart” as whatever device you attach to it.

1: https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-43un700-b-4k-uhd-led-monit...

I love your terminology of Comically Large Display and shall use it always. I keep threatening to drag our 55" Sony main TV into my office for work from home usage. I actually tried using it as a display for my Raspberry Pi once, it was fantastic. Though I hate to think of the computing power differential between the two devices.

The 43" LG monitor you mention is really tempting, especially considering pricing on the 32" 4K IPS monitors I was just looking at. Do you have any advice/caveats for prospective buyers?

My advice/caveat is: it’s effectively the same as a massive multi-display setup, and has most of the same challenges. The display I chose is about the same pixel density as a 27” 1440p, which works great at the same arm’s reach, but it means you have a much larger area of focus. That’s ergonomically awful if you’re craning your neck.

For me, this display was only half useable when I first got it, because it was elevated like my 27”. Once I set it lower on my desk, I felt a lot more comfortable using more vertical space. Even still, I ignore about 1/4 of the horizontal space because it would require too much neck rotation to use comfortably. Of course YMMV!

Has anyone gone from a 27" 4k or 5k to a 1440p ultrawide? If so, how did you like it? I've been thinking about switching, but I don't know if having to run MacOS at 1x instead of 2x might be a significant downside.

I'm currently using 3:2 displays by Huawei, they are named Huawei Mateview and feature a 4K panel from the Surface Studio.

These are quite amazing to be honest and there's ton of vertical space for both VS Code and Terminals.

I'm stuck between that monitor and 21:9 34" ultrawide. Any opinions?

I have several issues with this analysis.

> Scaling support is spotty at best, and many applications simply do not support it properly.

Although I admit I only use a modicum of applications on windows scaling seems to work great on anything using an even halfway modern toolkit. On Linux it works quite well for example. If you are still running some oddball app from the 90s may I submit that you ought to throw it away rather than buying your hardware based on it unless it is truly essential.

> A 4k monitor technically has 4x the screen real estate of a 1080p monitor. That means if you drew a big ass rectangle and split it into a 2x2 grid, you could fit 1x 1080p monitor in each box of the grid.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Real estate is inches not pixels. More pixels means a clearer, more realistic, and more pleasant to look at work area in the same space not more area which can only be obtained by buying more physical space. There is absolutely no reason anyone ought to use a higher resolution to squint at increasingly smaller text that they can increasingly just make out because of the higher pixel density. Indeed nobody on earth uses monitors that way. At the point of logical absurdity. There was an 8k 20" screen at CES a while back. Imagine flipping it from 1080p resolution to 8k.

Nobody on earth would display a document first in full screen and then at higher resolution in a 5" diagonal. You would view the same document in the same space.

> Then there’s the whole problem of managing windows. Having 1 monstrous monitor is going to make it difficult to manage individual windows. You’re going to be spending a lot of time micro managing floating windows at various sizes.

People add windows based on physical real estate. Inches not pixels. Adding pixels doesn't add any complexity in window management whatsoever.

> If you took a 4k monitor and scaled it up to 200%, you would end up with exactly the same screen space as a 1080p monitor. Things will look quite a bit smoother, sort of like a Retina display, but you’re not really gaining anything.

You are literally gaining it looking smoother. It's the whole thing.

> Physical size doesn’t constitute how much you can fit on a monitor. For example my mom thinks that a 25” 1080p monitor is going to let her fit more things on her screen than a 22” 1080p monitor. Don’t be my mom!

Your mom is correct. Lets say your mom is hip and is running xterms with vim and because she knows what she likes she has an an exact character size in mm. Because physical size is what makes something pleasantly readable which is why your phone with its very high resolution doesn't have incredibly tiny pixels. Your mom can decrease her font size on her 25" monitor and have the exact same resulting physical size as your 22" and display more characters on her screen than yours. This is course at the expense of losing clarity which is why you also want a higher resolution.

> I mentioned earlier that my Chromebook is 1080p at 13.3” and I can comfortably code on it with Sublime Text at a typical laptop viewing distance which is about 12 inches away. Viewing it from 24” is far too much eye strain for me.

> Using this logic, I can deduce that a 27” 4k monitor at 163 PPI would likely strain my eyes a bit because the Chromebook’s PPI is 165 PPI. Yeah sure, I can technically read the text, but it takes way too much effort.

It doesn't take more work for your eyes to process higher resolutions. For one the your eyeballs have better resolution than your screen for another books are generally 300ppi or better. It becomes increasingly straining because the font size that is appropriate for reading up close is increasingly small. You can simulate the same experience by trying to read a book from increasingly far away.

My primary monitor is literally a 27" with 163 DPI with a 1080p screen beside it. It's scaled so that text is the same size on both displays. One isn't harder to read than the other.

"Then there’s the whole problem of managing windows." Ever heard of tiling windows managers?

3 x 4k vertical. One you do that you'll never go back. Like looking into the matrix.

How about IPS vs VA panels for text rendering?

I really like my current setup, a pair of 24" 4K monitors in combination with my ThinkPad P1's 15.6" 4K internal display.

I don't use an external keyboard or mouse; I prefer the ThinkPad's keyboard and TrackPoint, along with its touchpad for two-finger scrolling.

I run the internal at 300% scaling and the externals at 200%.

One external is directly above the ThinkPad in landscape mode with the left edges aligned. The other is in portrait mode to the left, with the bottom of the monitor an inch above the desk to allow cables to run under it.

Because of my age, my eyes have lost most of their ability to focus at different distances. And sometimes I want to use the ThinkPad on its own. So I use a pair of single vision glasses corrected for the distance to the ThinkPad display, about 20". I highly recommend glasses like these. If you wear progressive lenses (as I do when I'm away from the computer), you will always be craning your neck back so you can look through the bottom of your lenses. This is a recipe for neck and eye strain, and only a small part of any monitor will be in focus at one time. The single vision lenses solve all these problems.

The focus distance also determines where the external monitors go: all three monitors have to be at the same distance from my eyes. The landscape monitor sits where I can open the ThinkPad lid in front of it and have very little gap between them. The top of the ThinkPad bezel is just below the bottom of the external monitor's display area (so the bezels overlap). The portrait monitor on the left is also 20" from my eyes.

All three monitors are angled so the center of the monitor is centered for my eyes: the laptop display is at a typical laptop display angle, the landscape monitor above it is more vertical (but not straight up and down), and the portrait monitor is at a more in-between angle.

At my standing desk, the top of the portrait monitor is just about at eye level, and the top of the landscape monitor slightly below.

Typical use is either Slack or documentation pages on the portrait monitor, or any kind of long form reading. The portrait monitor is also great for PDF files; I can view a full page without scrolling.

Most coding work happens on the landscape 24" monitor. And the ThinkPad's internal display is used for whatever else I need.

I run Windows on the ThinkPad in part because of its better support for different scaling on different monitors. At my work we use Ubuntu for development, so my Ubuntu virtual machine runs full screen on the landscape monitor. I use VMware, not VirtualBox, as VMware has much better display response, almost like running native. And I often run a second Windows VM on the ThinkPad display with the McDonald's Point of Sale system. (I work on a drive-thru voice agent and test it against the POS running in the Windows VM.)

One reason to have the portrait monitor on the left instead of the right is that I can simply turn to the left to read it (turning my whole body, not just my neck) while having easy access to the cursor and PgDn/PgUp keys for scrolling. This doesn't work as well if the monitor is on the right.

I've experimented with many monitor configurations and this has worked out by far the best for me. I tried a 32" monitor when I spent a week at a Google office some years ago, and had trouble with it because the difference in distance for my eyes to the center of the screen vs. the edges was too much. 27" monitors wouldn't work for my setup either: the top of the portrait monitor would be too high, and since the monitors are all 20" from my eyes, I just don't need big monitors. And the smaller size keeps the focus distance more consistent. A curved monitor might help with that, but it wouldn't give me the nice PDF and documentation reading that the portrait monitor provides. And most of the big curved monitors I've seen have rather low DPI compared to these 24" 4K displays.

The two external monitors are mounted on AmazonBasics monitor arms. These are actually made by Ergotron and are identical to the ones Ergotron sells under their own name, but the AmazonBasics arms have a matte black finish instead of the silver of the Ergotrons. I like the black finish because it is less obtrusive visually.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com