Ideal monitor rotation for programmers (2021)
sprocketfox.io
sprocketfox.io
These weren't ultra-widescreen displays; they were relatively standard aspect-ratio displays, rotated at an angle.
Googling, I see that this is the replacement monitor:
https://www.aydindisplays.com/2k-x-2k-air-traffic-control-di...
the field-replaceable backlight seems to be a big selling point too.
0: https://440148.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/440148/A...
I'm still very interested to see this novel application.
It may be a regional thing, or a small clique. Or it may be best for some software that is long gone.
IIRC it was a large Wacom or similar display.
Me, I want to maximize what is "ahead", not off to the sides where I'm not driving.
That’s assuming the sun is out or a compass is available
I guess the apps could be tweaked to do both; show cardinal direction, but put "here" near the edge of the screen that maximizes the distance forward. I suspect it's not because "here" is always on the same spot on your screen the way it is, which is a UX consideration as well.
If you have it going 3600rpm for 60hz uh… θ axis refresh rate (?), you have a pretty tough monitor. Now I’m wondering if you could mount it to 2 really fast linear actuators perpendicularly attached each other. One connected to the desk vertically, and the other fixed to it, with its business end mounted to the monitor.
Now (considering the monitor doesn’t explode from the inertia) you could tile an area larger than the monitor itself. Could even adjust on the fly, so you can drag a window off the screen and it just starts vibrating more and more violently.
Combination of vibrations and actuators fighting the gyroscopic effect of the off-axis spinning monitor would risk the whole thing violently ripping itself off the desk.
Would certainly be exciting!
For a rotating persistence-of-vision display you need to redraw everything as soon as it's physical position has shifted a "pixel". i.e. non-stop, regardless of whether the content has changed or not.
Do they bother? Throwing a dozen windows together is really easy.
> For a rotating persistence-of-vision display you need to redraw everything as soon as it's physical position has shifted
You do have to redraw. Which means you have a non-moving buffer that covers the entire display area, and you have to render it to the screen every frame.
That's one big quad. A scaled up SNES could do that with mode 7. It's utterly trivial.
Sure - it's not a matter of bothering to do an optimization, but rather just the way things work.
Any applications running will only redraw on event driven basis when something happens to change the way it wants to appear (user input, timer, etc).
The window manager will only recomposite/redraw on event driven basis when something happens to it (windows moved/resized/etc).
Sure the GPU can handle it, although redrawing a 4K pixel display at 60Hz is still no joke. Even if you do something as simple as playing a video full screen on a large monitor you'll see GPU temp increase.
The only ultrawide that makes any sense is the 5k x 2k resolution one. These have more pixels than a single 4K. But they are expensive.
Even then, a 16:9 5K monitor has more pixels.
I personally use 3 x 27 inch 4K - which is cheaper than a single 5k Ultra-wide and gives you a TON more pixels.
I have another monitor next to it, which I sometimes use for to put documentation on, a hot reloading web app I'm working on, maybe a video I'm watching while doing some work, or a video conference while I'm screen sharing. But turning my head to the secondary monitor is too much of a burden to really use it a lot. 80% of the time the second monitor is just empty.
I have the triple-27" monitors @4k setup described elsewhere..
Left-side monitor is Slack and Discord, and sometimes a File explorer or other misc apps that usually live minimized (Spotify, etc)
Center monitor is my IDE and terminal, or whatever "main" app I'm working in at the moment (sometimes Lightroom etc)
Right-side monitor is work browser (we use GSuite so lots of various tabs in GDrive, Calendar, Gmail, Docs etc)
You can certainly do this all on one screen, but I like to be able to glance at those things while still having my main screen laid out for ongoing work.
I also use multiple desktops so I have one for work and one for personal, and I can swipe all 3 monitors over to a different workspace with one key command, which makes macro context switching easier.
My only complaint is one of the thunderbolt displays is getting flaky. It likes to briefly turn itself off and on again, and unfortunately Apple's braindead software flashes all three monitors on and off when this happens. I've tried replacing the display's power supply, main board, and thunderbolt cable with no luck. Other than that, the setup has been rock solid and being surrounded by monitors makes me feel like I'm running The Matrix.
I usually use all the monitors for the task I'm currently working on, and not for different serial tasks. For context switches I use Alt+Tab or sometimes virtual desktops.
When needed I can fullscreen across both.
No borders!
F1 -> Terminals. (Wezterm showing 4 terminals in a 2x2 grid)
F2 -> Code editor or IDE. Sublime Text in my case.
F3 -> Internet Browser. Firefox with Container extension.
F4 -> File Manager or any other misc apps.
F5 -> unused
I'm so used to these keybindings, that when I'm on foreign computers I involuntarily find myself pressing F1 or F3 when I want to enter some command or browse some web page.
Two monitors let me compartmentalize my workflow. Window management is otherwise too messy for my needs with a single display.
I'm intrigued by it, potentially as a replacement for a vertical screen, but I'm unsure if it would work well with my Mac-based work environment.
I get motion sick on anything over 27" so that kind of limits my screen real-estate. I also like to be able to quickly reference material across two apps without having to mess around with window sizing or the like.
It's sort of like having two computers from back in the 90's I guess, which is likely where I picked up the habit.
I still find it difficult to work on a laptop due to the lack of a second display. It's fine, but not quite as mentally satisfying to me.
I would also argue any ops-oriented position where you need to have a lot of graphs and logging displayed at once can benefit from multiple screens - or at least screen real estate. Using multiple monitors for these setups is usually more practical just due to desk layouts.
#1: My main 4k monitor, where I do the bulk of my work. I need the whole screen for this.
#2: My second 4k monitor, which I use for looking through documentation, taking notes, and working with the file system. (I have it split into quarters using PowerToys, but it's still very busy with many overlapping windows that I have to flip between frequently, which is why I wish I had a fourth monitor.)
#3: My old Cintiq, which I use when I need to hand draw something. In the meantime, it is dedicated to monitoring communication with colleagues (it's too low res for much else).
3 screens, all 4K, in | - - arrangement (portrait, landscape, landscape)
Left, vertical screen: terminals, Dash app, and documentation.
Middle, horizontal screen: Emacs showing org-journal+org-roam, VSCode, Firefox.
Right, horizontal screen: Chats and email, devtools from Firefox, separate VSCode workspaces, etc.
Main problem I've ran into was the newer M1-based non-Ultra/Max Macbook Pros don't support more than 2 external displays unless you use DisplayLink which is CPU-based and lags enough to notice. I wasn't able to convince our client to buy a laptop that would support my layout :/
But then I _really_ like a vertical display for coding.
A lot of recent models also support "picture by picture" mode, allowing you to connect two separate inputs to the monitor and avoid doing anything in software.
I then returned it and went for a flat 34" monitor (HP X34), and I'm happy for it.
When I'm not working I sometimes connect the work computer display to a Chromecast or as a 2nd monitor to personal computer.
Work computer is much shittier than personal computer and doesn't support 2 monitors.
I can just connect it directly to my laptop, and it just works. When I had two displays I needed a docking station, and truth is most of those out there suck. Unless you go for the top models, and then you've lost all the money you saved on cheaper monitors. In addition you generally need a thunderbolt compatible dock, and that seems to come with it's own category of issues, assuming your laptop even supports it.
Also found ultrawide easier to configure hotkeys for windows management.
I can have a desktop for coding, a desktop for reference docs and previews, another for working on non-coding tasks, one with general browsing, one for chat/email/calendar, etc.
I've not found a satisfying way (on Mac OS on my Macbook or with various WMs — Sway is my go-to) to quickly replicate this ability to have multiple task oriented sets of windows visible at the same time and make them quickly switchable without multiple physical screens.
My comment was that, for this reason, 2 or 3 smaller (ish- ~27") 16:9 4k screens [1] (previously, 4–6 even smaller 4:3 screens) works much better for me because I can switch the spaces on my Macbook and i3/Sway virtual desktops on my Linux machine individually for each screen.
If we're talking about having a smaller number of giant screens it would need to be able to be partitioned into logical "zones" for virtual desktops to enable this way of managing sets of windows together, and I've not found anything that really does this, let alone does it well (though honorable mention to HerbstluftWM [2] which I think, with patience, could probably do something pretty close).
[1] preferably 16:10 but that seems to have died out as an aspect ratio :(
I hate using the mouse to manage windows, and having one huge ultrawide just feels like a nightmare to manage -- I'd need some way to split it logically into 2 or 3 virtual monitors.
The ability to mix and match these between monitors is seriously powerful and basically eliminates window micromanagement and seriously curbs alt/cmd-tabbing. Everything stays put as switching desktops becomes the primary form of navigation.
I use sway on my laptop only, but Gnome 45 and macOS is easier for me, for now. When it comes to multiple displays. The best feature of sway for me is the ability to assign apps to their workspaces, and also assign hotkeys to these workspaces. So e.g. cmd+alt+e opens Files app (nautilus) and it’s always on its files workspace that I activate with cmd+e. Quite very useful for me. I almost never open windows tiled, very seldom that I have two at one screen.
So with multiple displays, I am quite unsure how to organise that, which logic to apply here. Maybe I alt-tab out of old habit, but it’s so much easier, cognitively speaking, comparing to remembering all the logic for my multiple displays setup.
- Assigns most apps to a specific workspace
- Assigns the standard hotkeys to focus specific workspaces
- Assigns a hotkey for Rofi to filter and focus apps directly
- Assigns hotkeys to move a workspace to the current output/display
- Sets hotkeys to move a workspace 1 output left/right
Now I can quickly bring the most relevant contexts for a task to each display, and can also quickly switch to another context and back as needed.
It's not perfect, but it's pretty good. I'd like some apps to be on multiple workspaces, for example. And I am exploring the idea of a way to search for and bring an app onto the main display as a centered float temporarily then dismiss it back to where it came from with a single key — for example to bring up a Slack channel front and centre, reply to a message, then quickly dismiss it again.
move workspace to output right
Ain't that the truth.
The "top of the line" CalDigit docks are incredibly expensive and buggy.
...and they're on their 3rd or 4th iteration.
Plus not much competition, so not much choice either.
If I could go back, I would have also gotten a single ultrawide monitor.
Plus Macbook Pros multiple monitor support sucks relative to windows AFAIK.
This is easily fixed by plugging my laptop into a separate USB C power supply.
However, Macs have spotty support for this. I believe it works on the newest Mac books, but not older generations, and not the Mac mini?
27” 5k (5120 x 2880) -> 218 PPI
32” 4k (3840 x 2160) -> 137.68 PPI
34” 5k (5120 x 2160) -> 163.44 PPI
39,7 5K (5120 x 2160) -> 139.97 PPI
Apple Pro Display XDR 32" 6k (6016 x 3384) -> 218 PPI
PPIs will display sharper pictures, provided that they have enough quality.
However, then you run into the need to do display scaling for UI elements for everything else. Windows mostly works in that regard and when it does not it is often the program in use that is not quite up to snuff.
After a lot of research, it seems to me the best approach is trying to get the resolution you want at a physical size that doesn't require excessive scaling (like 300%) as after all, we all want more desktop real estate and scaling reduces the effective resolution for most non-photo/video apps.
I've been looking closely at the Dell Ultrasharp 32" 6K monitor. The dpi is a little high at 223 but it will fit about 75% of an uncropped photo. I'd likely also get one of the LG dual UPs as well.
The one issue with both monitors, disappointing for the price of the Dell, is they are 8bit+FRC panels. Don't want to find out that I'm one of those who are sensitive to flicker or that the panel does not age well. At least the Dell is a 3yr warranty and the LG can be had in a commercial version that has 3 yr too.
Anything beyond this size may be OK for games, but too much space and too much windows is actually too much of cognitive load.
It is not a surprise that many ppl (not me though) start to prefer full screen terminal rather than dozen windows arranged in some disarray on a large screen.
> Anything beyond this size may be OK for games, but too much space and too much windows is actually too much of cognitive load.
I find the oppposite. The goal is not to be looking at everything all of the time but to make anything I might want, from key chat channels or monitoring dashboards, to my calendar, reference docs, secondary source files, etc. to all be "glanceable" within a given context.
I find a glance, even if it requires a turn of the head, is far preferable and breaks my flow/immersion much less than having to switch windows/desktops in place. It feels much more natural to me to place things like my calendar in a consistent physical place than to have everything intrude on one place, and I find it much easier to build the muscle memory for these glances.
The biggest downside is that travelling, even with a small second monitor, completely breaks the setup.
However, I also find it easier to recall where I was looking by moving my head between static content instead of having it change.
FWIW I use a 32" screen positioned so that I barely need to move my head to see it all, and try to have all things I'm looking at visible at the same time.
I use virtual desktops as more to separate unrelated areas of work (like different projects). It's like having a completely different desk with different books open on it. Having more screen space is just like having a bigger desk. It's like having multiple books open on your desk at once as opposed to picking up one at a time to look at it.
One big monitor would be ideal (it could be split into an odd number of frames, for example), but in practice multiple monitors is a good compromise between flexibility and price.
Probably with a modifier key though so I don't move out of a game just to read a wiki page though.
I always will be. I am about condensing information to just what I need.
The only thing that somehow could do the job would be iMac’s panels but I’m just not interested in an All in one and I already have good enough computers.
There’s also this refurb 21.5″ 4K LG on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/LG-22MD4KA-B-UltraFine-Display-4096x2...
And I’ve no idea about the quality, but the Dragon Touch S1 Pro 4K Portable Monitor is apparently 4K at 15.6″: https://www.dragontouch.com/products/s1-pro-4k-portable-moni...
There's a few 24", Dell has at least a couple.
Stacking window compositors do much better than tiling, it's quite natural to just spread things around, wherever the best place may be.
The 43” is where I actually work. The other two are like static displays, the left one is slack on top and iMessage on bottom. The right one is task list app on top and calendar on bottom.
You get used to it pretty quick. It’s just great for like having a few conversations in progress without being interrupted and so on. They’re right there I’m just not looking at them.
Not sure if it’s decades of driving or something in the brain but having static readout displays like that really doesn’t bother me the way trying to juggle everything on one screen does. Reminds me of how a dashboard full of indicators in a car can be constantly changing without feeling like it’s “interrupting” my ability to look at the road.
32" 4k is nice as well, if you scale down to 2560x1440, or 3008x1692. On 32" 2x scaling (1920x1080 is just too big, and native (3840x2160) is just too small.
But if money is no problem, 3x 24" 4k, 2x 27" 5k, or 1x 32" 6k is really the endgame. That 2x scaling is just soooo crisp. :)
Depending on how close we're talking about, it may not be so great, especially with a non-curved screen, because the actual angle at the edges is possibly not so great anymore. That's the case on my 32" LG, for example (with an IPS panel, FWIW).
Significant difference. 32" 4k is not pleasant to read natively, and bringing it that close that is would be readable means you are putting things out of your focus and you need to start moving your head a lot.
I have a 1440 ultra wide and it's been great, for gaming and dev, 2 windows side by side is basically like having two separate monitors, but with the ability to have like 0.25,0.5,0.25 window layout if I really want.
I do need to upgrade it at some point, I think it's easy to justify the higher price of a high res uw given that it's a replacement for two monitors, not one.
It's one of those things that I never knew I couldn't live without, until I had it.
Running my laptop (with a much greater pixel density) is downright painful.
Disclaimer: I'm 61, so all those packed-in pixels are wasted on me.
Are you able to read text at 1:1 native scaling?
I believe once you reach 150% scaling, you end up with the same screen real estate as a 2560x1440 monitor. 200% scaling is the same as 1080p.
If I had a taller, 16:9 version of my 49" 32:9 ultrawide, I think that much screen would swallow me alive.
For gaming it isn't as desirable. HDR also gives the brightness a boost for media so it is plenty fine for that too.
The only thing that I found annoying is lack of inputs. There is 1DP and 1TB, and 2 HDMI (60hz). I wanted at least 2DP and 2TB to be super useful with a dock and a few other inputs.
The size is perfect however.
If LG release an OLED version better brightness, you bet i'll be ordering that too. It has been so ideal, the ROI has been better than any monitor setup i've used.
It's more like having 3 portrait monitors for productivity work. For media editing, splitting the monitor into 2 is like a classic dual monitor setup with enough width for widescreen video.
Then, if you really need it, it works great as a single wide monitor without making the workspace too "letterbox" like other ultrawides.
Honestly, for me, it is the absolute ideal.
I personally like my wide monitor, and I don't even particularly care to go for more pixels when available, ie my preferred resolution is ~1440p. They're nice and cheap, they look good to me, and they're easy to drive for the gpu.
I go more for deep blacks and good colors, pixels just look good until your eyes adjust and then it's all the same.
That being said, it is still my current setup as this wide turn holds me off from looking at the second screen, where slack and other distracting stuff is placed.
Also... could we go further? If we're treating the screen's content as an arbitrary plane, what about tilting the content of screen away from you like SNES Mode 7 or the Star Wars text crawl? Infinite screen height!
Would have been cool to pair up a terminal like this with a BBC micro or other similar vintage computer for code editing, although the terminal would have been more expensive than the computer.
And if someone is wondering, no, rotating 16:9 vertically for more vertical space doesn’t help because it makes it very narrow - for me IMO a square display would be the best. (There are also minor subpixel rendering issues, along with viewing angle issues if using a TN panel but those are still more minor.)
The LG DualUp is an almost-square 16:18 monitor, higher resolution than the Eizo and almost half the price.
I haven't used them in 2 years, but coincidentally, earlier today I thought about setting up a new workstation that will use all three. So this comment is to gauge if there is any interest.
I'm an Air Traffic Controller, and I discovered these monitors because we used them in a simulator. At the time, the screens we used for controlling traffic were 2048x2048 (that our tech-ops said cost 20k), but recently we switched to larger rectangular monitors (also Eizo).
If anyone in [redacted] is interested, email me at [redacted]
I’ve got my eye out the LG one, but unfortunately it’s still a little out of my student budget. I hope to get it soon, fingers crossed!
https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-28mq780-b-dualup-monitor
And Google is showing prices from other retailers as low as $500.
That's irrelevant, though, when monitor size is much larger than our central vision.
What does matter is neck strain. The reality is that you want to keep your head level while moving it right/left. Right/left doesn't have to work against gravity, while up/down does.
This is why wider is better than taller for something monitor-sized.
It's 3840*2560
The only disadvantage though is that putting two windows/panes/buffers of anything side by side would no longer be as convenient?
Do you have a 3:2 screen yourself, which one?
Absolutely agree, and it’s amazing/infuriating when people/companies don’t realise it. My mom’s old Asus could barely fit a few lines of text on its small screen after all its toolbars in chrome. You shouldn’t need to scroll multiple times to read a 3-paragraph email on a display where it fits if it were the only text! (And of course about 60% of the space on the sides was wasted.)
I don’t have a 3:2 display yet, though I do have an old 16:10 21” monitor which is alright. My ipad (10.9”) is okayish as well, but I’m planning to buy a 16” 3:2 portable monitor soon. Do you have an 3:2 screens?
You might want to refresh your memory of HN's guidelines. Link at the bottom.
Likewise, a monitor in portrait usually needs to be at least 1200(w)x1920(h) (ie. a 24" 16:10) to be usable for browsing today's web without getting served up a mobile-specific layout too often. A reasonably-sized 1080p display in portrait can be great for stuff like text editors and terminal windows.
Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29417484
Ideal Monitor Rotation for Programmers - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29417484 - Dec 2021 (419 comments)
I think that for some people people are scared of large monitors in front of them, but once you use one, you realize that using small monitors (e.g. 27 or 32") in single or dual or triple arrangements is just ridiculous complex. One big monitor is way way better.
Large monitors are the future, it is just that people are not yet comfortable buying them for some reason.
Related: what's your window management setup?
My main layout is 3 vertical panels, one with vscode, one with web browser and debugger and the last is utility (another vscode or browser or slack or discord etc.)
+ 4x 24" 1080P without bezels
- 4x 24" 1080P in a fixed grid with no flexibility
Different people have different preferences, and that's ok.
Obviously, my workflow is not for everyone, but I pretty strongly doubt that large monitors are the future for most people and am almost positive that they aren't the future for me.
I'm currently using three 4k 32" screens in portrait, which is equivalent to about a 55" single screen.
I use multiple virtual desktops, for dev I have a terminal on the left and the IDE on the right. This was the best config I could find where I had enough on the screens I didn't need to flip between panes frequently, yet it wasn't overwhelming and lets the actual window view behind the displays through, and I can comfortably focus on key areas and look around with craning my neck too much.
If the displays were backing a wall, I might try an 8k 65" display, but I would mainly use the comfortable part of it, and let the rest be ambient info. That could be magnificent with an OLED display. Though I think it would make sense to be curved and they aren't common anymore. Who knows, maybe a VR headset will be a better choice in a few years.
I've been working a lot on the idea of ambient info. I use KDE's html wallpaper feature to provide a dynamic graph view of my environment.
The displays are connected to a workstation. I use barrier between the systems (except the right hand locked down one).
Like anything else it's a constant work in progress, but I'm fairly happy with it.
Samsung 43" M70A 4K UHD Smart Monitor https://www.samsung.com/us/computing/monitors/smart-monitors...
I recently started using a LG 42" C2. Coming from two 27" monitors at 2560x1440, the 42" 3840x2160 is about the same pixel density and only 12.5% more pixels total
(3840*2160/(2*2560*1440))
Also for those now spare 27" monitors kicking around, I grabbed a vertical monitor mount to stack them (both landscape, stacked vertically) next to the 42". This has proven to be even better and I love having the zones this creates.
For reading static text? Why on earth would you care?
I've done the separate monitors thing, I've done the "portrait monitors for text" thing. Really the best solution is just a big flat plane that subtends ~60 degrees horizontally and just about (9/16)*60 vertically, which is enough to put the top just above eye level and the bottom just above the table. Plenty of space to put your windows where you need 'em without all the fussing about optimizing layout.
And it's dirt cheap.
The smallest that I've seen is 55" and that just too big to be comfortably used as a monitor.
I used that exact same monitor!
I'm hopeful, but I'm a little less sanguine than you.
A big part of the reason why 4k got so popular is because there was so much 4k content available. And because it was easy to see how much better 4k looks than 1080p.
Neither is true of 8k.
It's not too much of a problem on Linux, but on Windows I absolutely needed FancyZones: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/powertoys/fancyzon... (hold SHIFT and drag window to snap, supports custom zones, like vertically splitting a monitor into two etc.)
As for larger resolution monitors, I had one at work and it was nice, but my own GPU would struggle with most fullscreen stuff and games in my free time, so maybe 1080p isn't all that bad (especially when wanting to record something without downsampling or struggling with DPI making things unreadable at anything below 1080p in the video file).
If you’re referring to the PowerToys feature, you can customise your own layout too btw
It's been a transformative layout for coding and managing machines.
But that made me think. Maybe the optimal solution is one with a circular table (rotating in sync with the Earth, thus appearing motionless) and a monitor which spins around the normal axis of the table to force me to chase it around. Maybe it could have different tempo settings. A slow one which makes the user reposition every half an hour or so, a faster one for cardio, and an even faster one for volumetric persistence of vision applications.
Upon returning to the office for a few days a couple of months back, I noticed that my desk had been moved and I was given a standard setup with a 21:9 curved ultra wide 60hz Samsung. I HATE it. I have no idea what kind of person thinks these are superior. It can’t open two A4-size PDFs next to each other, and with macOS menu bar and dock (even auto-hide), toolbars in IDEs, terminals, and browsers took up far too much of the screen. Add to that the tendency of most websites these days to add their own pointless toolbars and cookie warnings and subscribe junk and again I just don’t see who would enjoy this for any type of work or gaming. I’ve tried dual portrait, I’ve tried quad, I’ve tried triple-wide with 1920x1200 16:10s as my “curved” setup way back in the late 2000s, and I still think that one single large high-res high-quality FLAT monitor is the way to go, hence my current LG setup. Everything else feels like it’s missing a piece. Multiple monitors just means bezels in your view and even though support is tons better now than it was a dozen years ago, toolbars and OS trays / docks still need some helper software to work really well across multiple monitors, especially where n>2.
My current workstation has side by side 24" 1920x1200
Things I'm considering:
Stick with side by side 24" 1920x1200 - Asus PA248QV ~$400 total
Two LG DualUp ~$1000 total
One 5k2k such as Dell U4021QW or LG 40WP95C-W ~$1800 total
One UHD 4K like LG OLED 48GQ90B-B ~$900
While I'm accustomed to the gap between my two monitors, I've never much liked it. The Asus gap will be smaller than with my current Dell.
But I do like having each computer "full screen". With one big monitor I loose the gap but I also end up with computers that float in the space of that large monitor. Not sure if that'll bug me.
While 1200px height is enough most of the time, I do want more - like 50% more would be great.
Much of my work is RDP based. I just Googled to find that the maximum vertical resolution is 2048, which is less than the DualUp vertical resolution. Is Google correct?
Curious how others resolved these competing visions (pun intended).
A lot of stuff does get confused by the mixed-DPI setup, but it's not obviously different from running the same programs locally.
https://sprocketfox.io/xssfox/images/PXL_20211202_035205492....
Something about this is hilarious.
I prefer avoid curved ones because they feel strange if we are not "at the right distance" and I like to be distant a bit and I use a standing desk with a magnetic treadmill for the standing part so my distance vary, but the real conclusion is: a good monitor is a LARGE one. Rotation does not matter much if the overall dimensions are large enough.
Most modern units have game mode and/or PC mode which I assume disables some processing to drive down lag. On my LG C2 OLED, changing the input type to "PC" results in a visible flicker (just one flicker) when the display is shifting into some new mode.
Another fun xrandr feature is not needing to have your display areas touch at the edges, so you can make your screens space accurate and lose your cursor and parts of windows behind bezels. You can have them overlap too, so you could have part of your screen shown on multiple displays.
I'm glad this functionality wasn't hampered by questions of necessity.
It works the same on FreeBSD and Illumos - its not limited to Linux in any way.
Below example from my http://vermaden.wordpress.com/freebsd-desktop setup.
- https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GChSlZHXIAEgT8T?format=jpg&name=...
- https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GChSlbFWUAA0x6G?format=jpg&name=...
Regards,
vermaden
You know, to fit the huge nest. :)
The question for people using single ultrawide screen instead of multiples - is something like this possible to achieve? are you able to define virtual "regions" on the screen space to move windows there?
1x portrait 24" next to 2x landscape 24"'s on top of each other, all 1080p
Then switched to
1x 35" UWQHD 3440x1440 curved and 1x 24" 1080p monitor
Then was gifted the Mother Of All Monitors.
43" 3840x2160. The only thing it misses is a slight curve. Still, it's incredible.
The 43" 4K monitor is essentially an endless combination of portrait and landscape monitors. Window size/shape no longer matters.
Try it. You'll like it.
That should not be difficult, plug cables into the base instead of directly into the screen and have circular donut shaped plates connecting the base and the screen instead of cables. The plates do of course have to have a spring to put the correct pressure to give a good connection even after some wear on the plates
https://www.samsung.com/us/televisions-home-theater/televisi...
The early 90s - even the glorious VGA didn't have much large than 80 columns, it took VESA to bring the 132×43 text mode. Then early '00, with whoever managed to come with the extreme anti-pattern of having extremely long class names in Java, 1024x768 was not enough by far (and 800x600 was a joke).
https://www.reddit.com/r/geek/comments/1ds9en/from_the_movie...
It makes for a 3D texture monitor with task and reminders that I pull off and crush with my hand.
Now I have the LG 40WP95C-W at 40" and 5120x2160 and it is perfect. Especially with window tiling that does thirds well.
When I'm not working it makes for amazing ultrawide gaming. A video card to push the resolution is actually possible without a new mortgage. I don't understand the whole too wide thing tbh.
Only thing I wish is that it had better HDR with more zones, but it was a pretty early example of this kind of thing I think so can't have everything.
Maybe if I find an LG c2/c3 43" OLED for a good price I'll get that instead, but for now this thing is awesome enough.
Being able to have 4 or 5 non-ideal height windows side-by-side was just 4 or 5 times as annoying for me.
The LG solves all the issues I had with the Samsung. I get the same width in pixels, in a smaller dimension (so reduced head movement) and I get more pixel height.
For those benefits, as I am not a gamer, I happily sold the CRG9 and accepted lower (but still fine on the eyes) refresh rates.
Couldn't be happer. I used the CRG9 for a few years, it had to go.
Author optimized for this metrics. If you dont need this, no need to try :D
I really don't get the argument against short line lengths, and that they're somehow a relic of old display resolutions. I find them genuinely helpful.
Having to glance horizontally to read code is suboptimal compared to keeping my eyes fixed on a relatively narrow block. Being able to fit more documents open side-by-side without arbitrary line breaks is always helpful, especially when merging, even on ultrawide displays. This is why I still prefer shorter lengths, and try to keep it near the traditional 80 as much as possible. I compromise when working in a team and if someone has a different preference, but I never got the appeal, honestly.
I'm not strict on the 80 column rule. Readability for code is a balance in intent for me first and foremost, but I also do try to keep lengths close to it.
I used to follow 2 source files side-by-side easily on a 16:10 monitor. I'm struggling to do that on my 16:9 now due to how long the lines are on my current codebase with a regular editor.
Comparisons are hourly occurrences for me. Long lines require scrolling or word-wrapping, either of which is just horrific. If I try the same on github, which wastes even more horizontal space, two source files are barely fitting side-by-side even with 80 columns.
I'm kind of surprised authors writing these long lines, which also will review those long lines in the future, and not put off by the inconvenience they're doing to themselves.
I use 3x Dell P2715Q in portrait mode, side by side, 1440 × 2560 for an equivalent resolution of 4320 × 2560 (27:16), at a stand up IKEA Jerker desk.
30” portrait 1600x2560 next to it
I have 2 to 4 monitors for full stack web dev (win10) and having separate monitors instead of 1 big one is just 100% win
Too bad apple decided that using two external monitors is a "pro" feature and requires at least an "Pro" M1/M2/M3 processor. Even though my 2x 24" run at 1080p and I have been using them every since with my original MacbookPro from 2014 without issues...
Plus, what is the URL for that app? "square app macos" google returns vastly different/unrelated results.