Hacker News Reader

Comment by r0h1n | Hacker News Reader

The article lists the "ideal size" for monitors at 50 inches, and the one for TVs at 100+ inches!

While I'm sure it's great to have such massive screen real estate (I wanna get a 4K in 2014 too), I can't but help think this is the programmer equivalent of consumers buying needlessly large TVs.

I work on a 24" desktop monitor and a 14" laptop one. How is 50" the "ideal size"? Even 39"? At what point does the law of diminishing returns kick in? Sure, it's great to gave 7 windows side-by-side, but is it that much of a productivity jump from, say, 4 windows or 5 windows?

Personally and subjectively, I'd draw the line somewhere around the 28-32" screen size.

To sum up, the core argument here seems to be that upgrading to a 39" or 50" monitor is great because (a) it's cheap, and (b) more is always and infinitely better.

View on HN

Jakob Nielsen's research on "ideal size" is 48Kx32K (1200 dpi) @ 1200 fps for perfect image quality.

See http://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-much-bandwidth-is-enough...

His 2012 recommendation was 30" or larger screens for knowledge workers (http://www.nngroup.com/articles/computer-screens-getting-big...).

120 fps, not 1200 fps

Only 120 fps actually in the article. He also doesn't talk about the color space, only about the granularity.

But anyway, quite nice that there are articles that take a little bit of a human point of view and not just the usual "existing technology, just 20% better is good enough for everyone"

It seems there's already a monitor which offers to upscale your 120Hz signal to 240Hz: http://www.eizo.com/global/products/duravision/fdf2405w/inde... . And the product page suggests that there's already a ready market for it, among viewers of high-res satellite imagery: apparently the blur when scrolling such images on a mere 120Hz (and high-persistence) display is notable enough to be distracting.

"A 48Kx32K pixel monitor with 24-bit-per-pixel color needs 4.6 GB videoRAM, so it will probably be about seventeen years (2012) before these perfect monitors are commonplace."

We probably would've had them now if display tech didn't stop progressing in 1999....

> At what point does the law of diminishing returns kick in?

Well, diminishing returns have already begun by the time you get to the sunlit uplands of about 1024 × 768 (non-interlaced! in 16-bit colour!). Every further step up feels somewhat incremental in comparison. But are further steps worthwhile? Yes. There's a reason why people use maps and papers printed in 600dpi and above, then spread several of them out at the same time on a big table. Can you display this chart http://xkcd.com/657/large/ so that all of the text is clearly legible, and without having to scroll or zoom? Can you display this chart and two long excerpts from LOTR side-by-side so that all of the text is clearly legible and you can move between all three just by moving your eyes, without scrolling or zooming inside any window or moving, resizing or tabbing between windows? If not, then your monitor isn't as high-detail as it should be and/or doesn't cover as much of your visual field as it should. And that test doesn't come all that close to testing the upper limits of what you can usefully do with progressively-better displays.

I use 6 19" monitors (using a combination of display port, HDMI, display link adapters). It's a bit of a mess to set up, but I like the actual physical splitting of the monitors (I have the logfile monitor, the google chrome monitor, the firefox monitor, the jira monitor, the editor monitor, etc...). Also, it plays in very well with a tiling window manager where I can just switch windows from one monitor to the next without having to worry too much about tiling "inside" of a screen. On bigger than 19" monitors, I find I can fit more than 2 windows side by side and then it becomes a weird game of rearranging windows.

I have been using this for 3+ years now, and while people always look at me like I'm crazy when setting up 6-7 monitors on my desk (I freelance so I usually lug them around or just buy a used set of monitors for a few bucks), I could never go back. Not switching windows, and using your peripheral vision for things like database load, or just plain having 2 editor monitors and 2 reference browsers open at the same time is invaluable.

While I can work on a single monitor, even a huge one (I love the 3k x 2k notebook resolutions), I feel cramped because I don't have the physical separation that comes from the multiple monitors.

Think I understand where you're coming from, but for me virtual desktops give the same separation.

Do you use virtual desktops as well?

nope, just that layout. 6 really comes into play when doing web development. These days I'm usually running with 2 or 3 external monitors, as I don't have as many things to keep track off. Having virtual desktops hides the kind of peripheral vision thing I like having, plus I have to think in terms of "hidden" things, which I usually tend to forget about anyway.

Having had a six-display setup for about 5 years, I agree. The Mac Pro made it quite easy to set up, too. Having separate (preferrably HD) panels, each dedicated to one window, feels excellent.

For about half a year now, I've been using a 3-display setup centered around a large iMac. While the iMac display is nice, I kind of miss my old work flow. The iMac resolution is quite awkward, actually, because it's too small to split in two or four separate work areas, but at the same time it's way too big for just one window. There is really no good way to use that screen efficiently. So I often end up splitting it into two overlapping halves with a code window and some other window, but on the whole the setup is not as satisfying as the 6-screen.

Out of curiosity, what iMac size? I've got the 22" one, which is perfect for vertical split of two windows, but I remember having the exact same issue you did with my previous 27".

I've now got my 2011 22" iMac sitting next to two 22" Dell UltraSharps, and it's amazing for my workflow :)

That said, I also do a heap of work on my 11" (1366x768) HP notebook, so I'm crazy, and use so very many virtual desktops its not even funny.

As I said, it's the 27". Too big for one window, too small for 2. Its pixel density has the same problem by the way: it's denser than the usual low-density HD screens, but it's also nowhere near "retina". I have a low-cost HP Pavillon 23" HD monitor on both sides of it.

Nice, but 6 is a bit much for me given my situation.

On the road with 2 LG 23" monitors (6.5 lbs each) and a Dell M4700 laptop. i3 WM provides the tiling needs. Love the setup, not too much context switching (i.e. changing virtual desktops) and sufficient screen real estate to do my work.

But, given a single large very high resolution monitor and a tiling WM, don't you get the same in the end but with vastly simpler hardware setups?

If you are so keen on the 'physical separation' then perhaps a WM that includes some synthetic black bars to give defined visual separation of tiles?

You didn't specify what resolutions your monitors are running. Out of curiosity, what are they?

i have 2880x1800 on the mbp, and 4-6x 1440x900/1280x0124 or whatever on the others (depending on which i find).

With my WM, I can switch the workspace of each of my three monitors independently. If I only had a single monitor, such composition really wouldn't be possible (unless you specifically built a WM capable of doing so).

I don't really understand how a TV can be needlessly large. Also, I don't understand why people still buy TVs in 2014.

When I replaced my TV about 4-5 years ago, I bought a 500€ beamer and a 100€ retractable canvas. Sure, that beamer only has 1024x768, but today you'll certainly be able to buy something significantly better in a similar price range.

With my living room PC connected to the beamer, my "screen" is 1.7 meters wide, I can watch movies, television, play games, have internet, linux (rsync!, ssh!) and all of that significantly cheaper than any "decent" television set.

Why do people (given they have the space) still buy televisions?

Because contrast and brightness are much higher on televisons.

Also, televisons often offer more features like usb, networking, sound and cec. I'm not entirely sure about most beamers, but I don't believe they offer the same integration with a chromecast or raspbmc that my current 500 euro sharp aquos does.

my setup is a Samsung 42" TV + AppleTV + a PS4. The colours and clarify are amazing (the sound isn't)

I use the TV for BBC iPlayer, Netflix, and Viki (I'm into asian soap operas) I use the Apple TV for Youtube, The PS4 is for Battlefield 4, I use Airplay for anything else

I did the same (but my screen is taller than yours is large :P), but I think there are a few reason why this hasn't seen larger adoption.

People like to have their TV on all day long: with a projector you can't, because it won't be very visible in daylight and it will burn through lamps like it's popcorn.

Second point, modern TVs usually have a tuner in, you plug them in and they work. Also you don't need to adjust the image until it's rectangular.

You don't need to have a line of sight for a TV, chairs and people are not an issue.

You are right that of course, not everybody has my usage pattern. Since my daughter becomes a mindless, staring zombie whenever a TV is running in her field of vision, we only watch TV late in the evening (for us, a lamp lasts about two years).

Before I first set it up, I expected the configuration to be a lot more tedious than it actually was. If you have the computer, some sort of sound system and your TV receiver lying around, all you need is a switch for the different audio sources and you can basically plug it all together. (In my setup, TV does not go through the computer. We don't have Hulu, HBO or Netflix over here.)

I'd say about 80% of the work was mounting the beamer to the ceiling and getting the upper hand on the cable mess.

With many (most?) cable companies now encrypting even "basic" channels, you need to use their box to watch anything. At that point, you don't need a tuner, unless you're actually receiving over-the-air broadcast TV.

Cables, for one. Most living rooms already have antenna plugs and power in one convenient wall or corner, where the TV is supposed to be located. The beamer needs to be opposite of this position (to beam at it). To not cast shadows, it will commonly need to be placed high. Not very popular with wifes, this setup.

Ok, I was lucky in that regard. Now it looks all neat, but the first time I set it up I was really, really sloppy. Fortunately my wife is a lab-hardened scientist, so the conversation went like this:

Me: "Do you mind if I nail these cables to the walls in our living room?"

Her: "Whatever. Just be done by tonight so we can watch something."

This time, I worked with well-hidden cable conduits and it is not that noticeable any more.

The fan noise for a projector can get fairly annoying.

Although your brain erases the noise after a while, it is indeed pretty annoying.

I mentioned that I used a sound system. That is actually not quite accurate any more, since we had to make some adjustments when my daughter was born.

At the time, we were living with an unfortunate flat layout which placed the bedroom directly next to the living room. So in order to avoid waking up the child, we started using headphones (and have never stopped doing so since).

Since I had checked before buying the beamer that it wasn't too loud, using (good) headphones had the side-effect that beamer noise is now an absolute non-issue for us.

I find it enlightening how all these responses show that my setup really isn't the right thing for everybody. In retrospect, I was also not consciously aware of all the quirks that my wife and I were willing to accept (headphones, cable conduits, TV only in the evening).

Nonetheless, as beamers become brighter and less noisy (LED?), they will probably become attractive to a wider range of people.

A couple of friend of mine have have gone with that solution and to be perfectly honest the bad image quality really annoys me on the cheap setups. The one setup that I've seen and liked cost in excesses of 2500€. I'd much rather have a 40" TV with the best image quality possible than a crappy 80" image from a cheap projector.

At my office they replaced the beamers with big ctouch touchscreens. It's a huge improvement even at the smaller diagonal because of the clear and sharp image. Plus, it's cool to stand there pulling stuff across the screen minority report style.

Try watching a projected picture on a canvas in brightly lit room. It can be difficult to view it if the room is not dimly lit.

TV is still king in these situations.

Because projectors in a given price range have much lower image quality (contrast in particular) than TVs in the same price range.

I've had three 30" Cinema Display's side by side for a while and it was awesome; except for my neck hurting like hell after a while when looking at the outer half of the outer screens :)

That convinced me that, unless you're going to make a circular desk with a keyboard that moves along with your chair, the perfect setup is a 30" display with two 20"-ers next to it in portrait mode.

I'd take that to the next step where in the future all workstations will be a nice tall igloo shape where the entire roof and walls are the display and you can swivel around you seat (with embedded keyboard).

> At what point does the law of diminishing returns kick in?

You won't know until you try. I hesitated a lot about switching my CRT from 14" to 17". After half an hour of work going back felt like staring at ATM bulb shaped display.

I'd like to try very large monitors but it's pointless without higher resolution so I'll wait until I can buy 4K as a toy.

Indeed. I remember in the 90s even going from 14" to 15" was noticeably better (running MacOS 7). 17" was better yet and the 19" on the Unix workstations - wow.

Now my Apple Cinema Display feels cramped and I'll probably add another...

Id say in terms of productivity it adds almost nothing because the biggest things holding a programmers productivity back have nothing todo with display size. Better get rid of interruptions, procrastination, bad tools etc.

That being said programmer happiness is elemental and a 42inch 4K screen would add to that for me :)

Tabbing between windows can be an distraction. The stack-like function of the tab mechanism does not help it either.

You should try a tiling WM in which you can switch between windows based on their location. eg, alt+{left,down,up,right}

Any recommendations? I dived into xmonad some time ago but I never found a good and fast windows manager for OS X.

There was some discussion about OS X window management options on another thread the other day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6998309

I use bspwm, which has a very simple design and follows the unix philosophy quite nicely. A single daemon process which manages windows, and all configuration is done with the shell via the `bspc` command, which talks to the daemon over a socket. A separate daemon (sxhkd) is used for keybindings, and the configuration for sxhkd is just a map of keybindings (including mouse buttons) to shell commands, with a very simple DSL to allow groups of commands, and the use of the cursor position. Example from my configuration:

    alt + {Left,Down,Up,Right,h,j,k,l}
        bspc window --focus {left,down,up,right,left,down,up,right}

    {alt,super} + Tab	
        bspc {window,monitor} --focus next
    
    alt + super + {Left,Down,Up,Right}
        bspc window --swap {left,down,up,right}

    super + {Left,Down,Up,Right}
        bspc window --edge {left,down,up,right} push
    
    super + shift + {Left,Down,Up,Right}
        bspc window --edge {right,up,down,left} pull

    super + q
        bspc window --kill

Worth noting that bspwm treats monitors individually when using window commands, so you need a separate set to handle windows on diff monitors (unless using Xinerama).

I've no idea whether it works on OSX though. 2bwm seems to be popular among OSX users, but I've not tried it.

wow, the tiling concept looks even more flexible than the tiling in xmonad. I will definitely try this.

I wouldn't say it's more flexible, as XMonad has all the power of Haskell behind it (+ ability to create sub layouts), and is easier to create more complicated arrangements than hacking together a bunch of bash scripts - but I think it's a good balance of flexibility:simplicity. XMonad is pretty complicated to configure even pretty basic things.

I personally use Divvy on my Mac, I needed something simple and it works perfectly for me :)

slate

I like SizeUp a lot: http://www.irradiatedsoftware.com/sizeup/

Totally agree. Using a single monitor works well if you use an IDE otherwise a multi-monitor setup is better.

Even then, IDE on one monitor; web for reference material on the other.

For a lot of devs having a third monitor for the database IDE is very useful.

Nope..hate that too. I've been using virtual desktops since the 90's to overcome that issue. I use up to 8 vdesktops that I address absolutely by using numpad1 .. numpad8. Each number has a specific function (generic browser, email, editors, db, virtual servers, gimp, ...). Nothing generally overlaps, and switching is instantaneous.

Assuming your window manager has some overall spatial layout of desktops, or a preview that highlights the current desktop: why not add a 9th one? Then you can arrange them in a 3x3 grid in your window manager, the same way they already are on your numpad.

I do this and it gives an incredibly tactile feel to desktop management.

A 39" monitor on your desk can block a lot distractions... from behind the monitor.

I feel like I'm less productive on multiple monitors. I've tried them a number of times, but they've never felt natural. I just prefer looking straight ahead, managing a single screen, and clicking between the few programs I'm running in the taskbar. Also, I like some room on my desk, and big monitor displays just seem overwhelming.

Screen resolution is important though, otherwise everything just feels cramped. I'm perfectly happy with a nice 23-30" monitor. Anywhere within that size range is fine, but it needs to be a quality panel. I work with a lot of very subtle colors, and light gray tones. With a TN panel they're invisible half the time, or I'm constantly shifting up and down in my seat trying to find the sweet spot for more accurate colors.

If I had to pick my dream setup, it would be a single 30" monitor. If Dell gets those 4K 30" displays rolling out, I'm sure they'll be great. For now, I don't feel like my productivity is suffering in any way with a 24" monitor.

Personally, I find I'm most productive when I have a nice clean workspace, natural light, and a good chair. For example, I just grabbed a photo off Google...

http://articlesofton.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/01-04_home_...

Replace the chair, and it's ideal for me. Bright light, and minimal clutter.

>> I feel like I'm less productive on multiple monitors. I've tried them a number of times, but they've never felt natural. I just prefer looking straight ahead, managing a single screen, and clicking between the few programs I'm running in the taskbar. Also, I like some room on my desk, and big monitor displays just seem overwhelming.

You might (maybe, just saying what I like) want to try one 'main' monitor and one subsidiary. Can be the same size or smaller. Main monitor is for the work you're focussed on, the other monitor is where you have documentation or other reference material you need while working. I quite like this pattern rather than just throwing programs all over the two screens.

I'm using a 30-inch monitor to program regularly, and it isn't nearly enough once you learn to use it properly. Have you really tried this out?

I've tried a 30-inch monitor for a couple of days and to be honest I much prefer 2x24" monitors.

I can't argue about a 39" monitor, but having more screen estate boosts productivity for me to the extend that I'm sure that I could use 3 27" over my current 2 24". Avoiding alt+tab means I get my information quicker when I need it from another window, and I get back to the previous context faster. Sometimes I need both but does not have space and is tabbing back and forth.

Sure, but if one were to plot (a) the number of alt-tabs you do in a day, versus (b) screen size in inches...don't you think at some point the delta benefits would start leveling off?

Sure, diminishing returns kick in but monitors are cheap and programmers are expensive. It's the same reason that 16+GB of ram and SSD's are worth it. Not because most people need it but the cost is low enough that the productivity gains need to be minuscule to be worth it.

aka Assuming monitors last ~3 years and cost below 2,000$ it takes a tiny difference to be worth it because your not just comparing productivity delta's but also cost delta's. In other words a 2,000$ monitor that improves productivity by 1/20th of 1% than a 1,000$ monitor is clearly worth it over 3 years even if the difference is simply eye strain. 3x (salary + benefits + overhead) * .0005 > 1000$.

PS: Another way to look at it is spending an extra 1-2k per year on salary over industry standard rarely tempts programmers but an extra 1-2k per year on hardware might.

That wasn't the best thought out example. The total yearly cost for a programmer would have to exceed 666.666 $ to justify a 1000 $ purchase, if the improvement is only 0.05%.

That said, I agree. The benefit doesn't have to be big to justify it.

Ops. Yea 1/2 not 1/20th of 1%. The .0005 number is correct, but I messed up changing that to a fraction of a %.

1/2 of 1% is 0.005

Yep. At my home office I have 3x Dell U2412Ms (1920x1200 i.e. 16:10) on an Ergotech stand and I'm absolutely loving this physical setup for programming. The side monitors float over my desk (an Ikea Galant, corner version), and having a central monitor with two surrounds is just ideal for me. I much prefer this to a dual screen setup.

I think that ideally the same 24s would deliver a 2560x1600 resolution, however I'm still quite happy with the setup as it is. 3x 27"s might be nice, but I fear it could become too much. Well, at least for my wallet, that is!

An issue with the 4k displays is that if you're going to have 3x of them, you're going to hit GPU walls very, very quickly.

indeed it is subjective. it varies between persons, and for the same person it varies between tasks.

i use 4x2 24" in the office. some days it feels like i could use more screen space. but it has also reached a point i need to roll back and forth on my desk to read all ends. coding work is concentrated in 3.5 screens. spreadsheets, browsers, email, front ends, other software occupy the rest. and yet it still hasn't released me from alt-tab hell. there will always be that bunch of information that you must have in front of you no matter the cost, and the cost is that you still have to alt tab the less important windows -email, excel, hacker news.

I think the "ideal size" depends on the size of the monitor you are currently using. I was happy with 29" initially... now I can't wait to try something larger.

I am not sure where this process ends, but 50" sounds very nice indeed. :)

I found 24-27" the right size for me. Anything larger than that feels uncomfortable due to too much movement of the head.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com