[HN Gopher] Time to Upgrade Your Monitor
___________________________________________________________________
Time to Upgrade Your Monitor
Author : neonbones
Score : 587 points
Date : 2020-06-17 14:40 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (tonsky.me)
(TXT) w3m dump (tonsky.me)
| dusted wrote:
| I'm still in love with the default sized bitmap font used by
| xterm, I'd never want to look at any other font if I had a choice
| (which I do for terminal programs)
| dmoy wrote:
| You can pry my cheap A- panel Korean no-name brand 8+ year old
| monitor with one working button (thankfully the power button!)
| and a bunch of stuck pixels from my cold, dead, miserly hands.
| genpfault wrote:
| So where are y'all finding 4k, high refresh-rate 16:10 panels?
| brento wrote:
| I need new eyes after viewing this website. I think yellow burned
| out my retinas!
| alkonaut wrote:
| 4K at 200% scaling feels wrong for a big monitor like a 27". The
| desktop looks like a 1080 desktop. And if the monitor is to be
| used as a gaming monitor too then 4K is again wrong because even
| with the best graphics cards, 4K@120 is out of reach.
|
| The perfect 27" monitor for me would be one that has 5K@120
| because at 200% scale you'd get a desktop that looks "1440-size"
| and when gaming you can run half resolution at 1440@120 with a
| decent graphics card.
|
| These don't exist though, at least not as IPS I think, so I'll
| stick with my 1440@144 for a while longer.
| metafunctor wrote:
| The LG UltraFine is a 27-inch 5K (5120 x 2880) IPS display. The
| maximum refresh rate is 60 Hz, so not the best for gaming; but
| it's designed for a Mac anyway. I've had a couple for over
| three years now and it's the best display for a Mac I know of,
| outside of Pro Display XDR, I suppose.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Yeah an alternative is always to just keep the screen I have
| now (1440@144) for gaming, and simply get a second screen for
| work with High DPI. Seems silly to get a 5K@120Hz mega
| expensive screen to play games at half resolution. I'll buy a
| bigger desk instead.
| csomar wrote:
| I couldn't care more for resolution. I use three 1080p 27" Dell
| monitors and the only upgrade I did was moving to IPS which
| slightly relieved my eye-strain. Now if you can find me a monitor
| which will reduce eye-strain, I'll just dump money on that. For
| someone who uses the screen for 10-12 hours on a normal day,
| headaches induced by the eyes are my biggest worry.
| epx wrote:
| I opted for spending money in a 34" 21:9 display which is just
| 1080p in vertical axis, and it was not cheap.
| draw_down wrote:
| I recently bought a Mac Mini and a display not made by Apple.
| This is the first time I've used a display not made by Apple in a
| long time, and boy is it not good. And I didn't cheap out, I
| thought I was getting a decent one, I read reviews and bought the
| one that was supposed to be good. Plainly, it looks like fucking
| shit.
|
| Of course Apple is not the only one capable of making decent
| displays, but the baseline is surprisingly awful. People just use
| these things all day, it's amazing. For me, it isn't a big deal
| because this is not my main computer, I don't use it for hours at
| a time.
|
| There's a line out there nowadays that hardware is amazing and
| software quality is in the gutter. I think they're still more
| closely matched than that, unfortunately.
| edanuff wrote:
| Echoing some of the comments here, part of this depends on
| whether you're using MacOS or not and what else you're using the
| monitors for. I use 4K monitors for both Mac and Windows and I
| stick close to the Apple recommended HiDPI approach which means
| your 4K display isn't larger than 24" and your 5K display isn't
| larger than 27". YMMV but most people who have a bad 4K
| experience are trying to do 4K at 27" or greater. Due to
| DisplayPort 1.2 bandwidth limitations, the 5K 27" monitor market
| never got - great range of options. You either have the
| Thunderbolt-based monitors that are mostly for use in the Mac
| ecosystem (and only some Mac models) or a few expensive dual-
| cable DisplayPort 1.2 options or DisplayPort 1.4 options with an
| assortment of compatibility issues.
| [deleted]
| notatoad wrote:
| this all seems like a lot of hassle to go through for some
| slightly smoother font edges. i like high res and high refresh
| rates and all that other good stuff, but i'd rather have slightly
| uglier fonts and not have to do an arcane dance every time i plug
| in a screen - i'm pretty sure that erases any negligible
| productivity benefits you might get from a better display.
| kickingvegas wrote:
| Oh wow, I guess I'll add to this thread which is so tied to the
| fact that we don't have resolution independent graphics.
|
| I wrote an essay about resolution independent graphics back in
| 2012 here https://github.com/kickingvegas/12pt-should-be-the-
| same-ever...
|
| HN commentary on this happened on two occasions: -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15639616 -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4236429
| fortran77 wrote:
| His "research" was a Twitter poll?
|
| But I basically agree. I use a pair of 4K monitors and it works
| well. I run the UI at 150%.
| foolmeonce wrote:
| I'll upgrade when color E-Ink is ready, has a good spectrum and
| has 20" for a (near?) reasonable price.. I'm not sure who needs a
| high DPI Lite Brite, but it's certainly not relevant at my age.
| GaryNumanVevo wrote:
| I would LOVE to code outside on a Color E-Ink display. It's
| fairly impractical to work outside with modern screens.
| asdff wrote:
| 4k monitors are still so much more expensive and have noticeable
| costs on laptop performance at least. When I got a macbook air
| with USB-C, I was initially planning on getting two 4k monitors.
| However, that would mean spending ~$500 to get a 27" monitor,
| $120 for a thunderbolt adapter than can drive both displays at
| their proper refresh rate, and >$200 if I wanted an adapter that
| can also charge the laptop.
|
| All told, that's the total price of the laptop just in periphery.
| I ended up going with a $30 usb-c adapter and some ~$100 dell
| 1080p screens, and I'm happy as a clam.
| JayGuerette wrote:
| 37% of programmers are using Retina displays? Since the OSX
| market share is ~8.5%, your numbers are way off.
| jefftk wrote:
| The other direction is to use a high resolution 1x monitor,
| without anti-aliasing. Crisp, legible text, even at very small
| sizes: https://www.jefftk.com/xterm-vs-gnome-terminal-4x.png
|
| I'm currently using a 27" external monitor at 2560x1440 ("QHD")
| and this is wide enough for five terminals side-by side at 83
| columns each. (Monaco 10pt, anti-aliasing off, iterm2)
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| That's a great, comprehensive article!
|
| But I'm old, and most of the effort is wasted on me.
|
| What I need, is real estate.
|
| I have that. I use an ultrawide (5120 X 1440) monitor, broken
| into two screens (3440 X 1440, 1680 X 1440).
|
| Works great.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| I want to get a 240hz ultrawide personally, both for games and
| instead of having 3 separate monitors (I hate the bezels between
| them). Samsung is making a good one, 49 inches, HDR 1000, 240hz,
| and adaptive sync [0]
|
| https://www.anandtech.com/show/15396/sausng-odyssey-2020-mon...
| x3sphere wrote:
| I wouldn't get a 4K display since most of them are still only
| 60Hz. Yeah, you don't need a higher refresh rate to program but
| it makes daily desktop use SO much more pleasant for me.
|
| There are some high refresh rate 4K 27"s but those are pretty
| expensive.
| TacoToni wrote:
| Im personally waiting for a good 4k HDR > 60Hz monitor that is
| USB-C. Would be perfect for gaming and office use plugging in
| my Mac & PC.
| dentalperson wrote:
| The other side to this is that it may also be time to upgrade
| your eyes (with glasses, by getting your eyes checked). It's more
| likely this is true if you don't think it's time to upgrade your
| HD monitor.
|
| Somehow I went for years without realizing that I just needed
| glasses. I could read everything before, but after getting the
| glasses everything was suddenly unnaturally crisp.
| mastercheif wrote:
| It's frustrating that consumer Hi-DPI display development has
| completely stalled in the last five years.
|
| As mentioned in the article, macOS works best using true 2x
| integer scaling. Using 2x scaling, a 4k monitor will result in an
| equivalent workspace to a 1080p display--unusable for
| productivity and development. A superior option is iMac/LG 5k
| display results which nets an equivalent workspace of 1440p.
|
| The only options for greater-than-4k displays on the market
| currently are the 27" LG 5K ($1200, 2014) and the Dell 8k ($3500,
| 2017). I'm convinced this is due to the manufacturers focusing
| their attention on the high-margin gaming market which has no
| need for resolutions higher than 4k.
|
| I'm holding onto my 30" 2560x1600 Apple Cinema Display until I
| can get something that offers me the equivalent amount of screen
| real estate at 2x retina scaling.
| pkamb wrote:
| 30" Cinema Display has _better_ than 5k iMac resolution, but at
| 1x. 160 extra vertical pixels.
|
| Still the best monitor around. $3000 MSRP now available used
| for $200-300.
| clarry wrote:
| Why is everyone so attached to scaling? What is this shit
| software that 1) everyone relies on and 2) whose UI and font
| size can't be adjusted like any normal software (or web page)
| since the 90s? Is this yet another brainfart from Apple?
| asdff wrote:
| I think people just don't realize that you can change text
| size independent of scaling, even in finder.
| robertoandred wrote:
| Probably something to do with the fact that macOS has handled
| high-dpi perfectly since 2012 and Windows is still
| struggling.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| Windows has great High DPI support. It's Windows
| applications that often haven't seen upgrades since before
| even 2012. Windows' commitment to backward compatibility is
| the struggle. Windows hasn't had the option to just change
| processor architectures every dozen years on a seeming whim
| and subsequently force all software to be rewritten or die.
| robertoandred wrote:
| Mac apps didn't have to be upgraded to work with high
| dpi.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| macOS X was released in 2001 with the "Cocoa" application
| UI library. While "Carbon" helped older Mac OS
| applications run for a limited time on OS X, no
| applications today use any graphics stack older than
| Cocoa's 2001 release, as the drop of all support for PPC-
| targeted apps insured that in macOS' switch to x86.
| (Cocoa had High DPI support baked in from NextStep, even
| if it took ~11 years to be "needed".)
|
| Win32 was first beta tested by developers in 1992, and
| has had to remain stable and backwards compatibile to
| those first early 90s versions. There are still 32-bit
| apps written in 1992 that are expected to run unmodified
| on Windows 10 today. The last processor-architecture
| related API drop that Windows has been allowed by public
| perception and corporate strategy was Win16 support was
| dropped on 64-bit processors. (Hence why Windows on ARM
| has struggled and the current iteration of Windows on ARM
| now involves a 32-bit x86 emulator as a core feature.)
|
| Mac apps did have to be upgraded, it's just that Apple
| has been much better at requiring upgrades. There's
| barely no comparison here. There is no way that you can
| possibly find today a version of macOS that still
| supports Mac Classic applications unmodified from the 90s
| (for instance 94's Glider Pro v1) with High DPI support,
| yet Windows absolutely must run applications from Windows
| 95. Sure, Windows sometimes still stumbles in High DPI
| support for pixel-perfect applications written three
| decades ago in the 90s, but it at least _tries_ , macOS
| shrugged and gave up.
| _ph_ wrote:
| Scaling just works greatly as Apple implements it.
| Especially, if your screen has a 200ppi or larger. Trying to
| change the font sizes across all applications is a sysiphus
| task and eventually you end up with one, which doesn't behave
| greatly. Especially, if one of the applications is Linux
| running in a VM. I have a Dell 24" 4k - and for 4k at 2x, the
| screen should be about 22". But with macOS I can set it to a
| virtual resulution of 2300, which works great.
|
| On my 15" MB Pro, I usually use the 1680 resolution, but if
| needed, I can quickly change it to 1920.
| dont__panic wrote:
| On the other side of things, running dual 4k displays for
| anything remotely intensive (a browser, IDE, instant messaging,
| mail client, and terminal in my case) can bring some machines
| to a crawl or run the fans at high speeds indefinitely. I think
| graphics technology has to catch up to hiDPI before I'd go past
| 4k.
|
| And let's not even get into the fact that 4k 60hz is a struggle
| and a half -- you need HDMI 2.0 or displayport to make it work
| at all, and many modern laptops lack either port, forcing you
| to use USB-C/thunderbolt with adapters that have poor spec
| support and even worse documentation.
|
| Even if someone offered me dual 5k displays to replace my dual
| 4k ones, I would turn them down right now. Before we move on to
| 5k displays, we need to get 4k60 down. And while I'm on my
| soapbox... where the hell is 4k90 or 4k120? I only bought my 4k
| monitors last month, with virtually unlimited budget, but they
| just don't exist. I imagine they've fallen victim to the same
| issue: the cables to support it just barely exist, and
| certainly can't be doubled up for dual monitor setups without a
| mess of wires plugged directly into a laptop or desktop.
| daniel-thompson wrote:
| Same here. I'm using my Dell 3008WFP (also 30" @ 2560x1600)
| until something genuinely bigger & better comes out. I bought
| it over a decade ago and it still works great for programming.
| _ph_ wrote:
| I still use mine at work, and am extremely happy with it. The
| font rendering on my iMac 5k is better of course, but for
| work, the additional screen estate (especially vertically) is
| hard to beat. I am of course contemplating the 38" Dell with
| 3840x1600 :).
| kd5bjo wrote:
| > an equivalent workspace to a 1080p display--unusable for
| productivity and development.
|
| I have to disagree here. I use (and have used) a 1080p display
| for years and don't feel the need for anything larger. That
| might be an artifact of my early years on 80x25 character
| displays, though.
| Koshkin wrote:
| > _80x25 character displays_
|
| I am sure Doom and other great pieces of software were
| written on one of those.
| AlanYx wrote:
| Not to take away from your point, but Doom was actually
| written on a NeXTstation and cross-compiled for PCs, so at
| a minimum they were using 1120x832 resolution (2 bit
| greyscale).
| codydh wrote:
| I'm also hanging on to my 30" Apple Cinema (and adapters to
| work with a new USB-C MBP). The LG 5K seems like a decent
| replacement though, I'm not totally clear why it seems so
| unpopular.
| nicksergeant wrote:
| I've been using two LG 5k monitors for years and they are
| excellent. They got a bad reputation when they were released
| for build quality issues, but I haven't had a single issue.
| aplummer wrote:
| I use a Pro Display XDR for programming / design work, I think
| you forgot this one. It seems like it would fit your needs
| (with the obviously premium price) as it's 32".
|
| It's overkill for most, but still the best display I've ever
| used and I love it. I actually tried an Asus 4K 120hz for much
| less but the fan noise was a deal breaker even if the screen
| didn't break on arrival (it did).
|
| Disclosure: Apple employee
| mastercheif wrote:
| I'm impatiently waiting for a slightly less overkill 6K 32"
| option, it's obviously the best size + resolution for Mac.
|
| My hope is that someone will take the panel and pair it with
| a ~700nit backlight (vs 1k sustained 1.5k peak for XDR) and
| price it around $2k. Also interested to see what Apple has in
| store for the iMac, if the refresh comes with a new and
| improved display I may just go in that direction.
| _ph_ wrote:
| I think the Pro Display should be disqualified for the price
| :). Like with the new Mac Pro Apple made the dream
| Display/Machine for professional video artists with high-
| paying customer. As a price, they completely neglegted their
| power user base which requires something different than an
| iMac. I can only hope that either Apple or Dell makes a more
| basic version of that screen based on the same panel. And of
| course, on a high end screen I would expect more than one
| input. You might want to connect your laptop to your screen
| too... Alternatively, I am hoping for an iMac with a larger
| screen.
| PStamatiou wrote:
| +1, love my XDR for coding and designing:
| https://paulstamatiou.com/stuff-i-use/
| bredren wrote:
| Thanks for this. You don't comment on the 60 vs 120 hz that
| is highlighted in OP opinion piece. Any thoughts on XDRs
| apparent lack of support for 120?
| PStamatiou wrote:
| Color accuracy is far more important to me than 120hz
| capable. The faster displays today tend to be subpar at
| color accuracy, illumination uniformity, etc.
| silviogutierrez wrote:
| Great post! Noticed you have the Logitech webcam. I think
| it'd be helpful if you:
|
| - Added a picture of the back of your 6k with the webcam.
| I'm sure it changes the look, however short the cable is.
|
| - Address the lack of speakers. I see you mention using a
| bluetooth speaker or your home audio setup. What's it like
| using the MacBook Pro speakers?
|
| - Added a picture of your setup + speaker if that's what
| you use regularly.
|
| I love your minimalist look and have a similar one, but
| have been holding on to my LG 5k because of the
| speaker/webcam.
| slezyr wrote:
| Apple-only monitor? That's ridiculous. You can change its
| settings only from apple device.
| fumar wrote:
| As someone who also stares a monitor for work have you
| noticed any difference in eye strain or comfort? I have two
| 4K monitors but considering going to 5K+. I liken it to shoes
| or a mattress. If we spend all day with X object it, then
| quality should be a priority.
| aplummer wrote:
| No difference to eye strain or comfort vs the LG 5k I used
| before, although a major improvement vs my old 1440p
| monitor. Width makes a good improvement in Xcode and the
| color is very accurate to the iPhone screen which helps. I
| prefer one big monitor now I have this.
|
| I agree with your analogy, literally my livelihood feeds
| through this screen, and I find a good monitor lasts a long
| time.
| dragosmocrii wrote:
| This post is from the author of Fira Code, a font with ligatures
| that is incredibly pleasant to use. Highly recommend to give it a
| try if you haven't already!
|
| Shameless plug: I mentioned this as my favorite font for code
| editors in my blog post https://dragoshmocrii.com/my-favorite-
| tools-resources-for-da...
| cannam wrote:
| Fira Code is a big job (with so many ligatures) and working on
| it obviously takes great care, but let's not pretend that the
| same author is responsible for the font as a whole - unless you
| know something about Fira Mono that I don't?
| rocky1138 wrote:
| Thanks for the heads-up. Personally, I'm not a huge ligature
| fan in my code as my eyes tend to go directly to them instead
| of the code I want to read. It's great that Fira Code comes
| with a non-ligature version.
| dragosmocrii wrote:
| You're welcome! I can see how that could be a distraction for
| some. Personally, I enjoy the aesthetics. And as a bonus, I
| always get people intrigued when I show someone the code with
| this font that they never saw before. Nonetheless, in my
| opinion it's still an awesome monospace font even without the
| ligatures.
| mister_hn wrote:
| Using a 4K monitor with Gnome Shell and scaling 2x. I find it
| very pleasant for my eyes
| nsxwolf wrote:
| I'm not willing to give up my 3840x1600 ultrawide. That real
| estate is now non-negotiable to me. So to improve the dpi I'll
| need 7680x3200, and at 120hz I don't think that's happening any
| time soon.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| Same here. For coding work, I almost don't even see how it's
| worth discussing -- sheer real estate is going to win for me,
| every single time.
|
| I say "almost" because I've been doing this for nearly 25 years
| and I've learned that other coders have shockingly diverse
| preferences and styles. But still. Give me IPS, give me
| bucketloads of real estate. Everything else is secondary.
| deepspace wrote:
| Agree, I use a 3840x2160 43" 16:9, which gives a 'low' density
| of around 100ppi, but I have absolutely no trouble reading the
| smallest text. There is no way that giving up the real estate
| would be worth an arbitrary increase in density.
| ptomato wrote:
| Yeah, I'm at 5120x1440 on a 49" ultrawide, and I'm not really
| interested in ever going back to a multi-monitor setup to get
| the same amount of real estate.
| drcross wrote:
| Same. I'm at 7680x2160 pixels but over two 24 inch screens at
| 60hz. Once you get used to it you won't go back.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| It might be sooner than you think. 8K screens are easily
| available, 8K 120Hz screens have had working development
| versions for a while, and slightly cutting the height to 3200
| means that you can fit the data into a single displayport 1.4
| connection, using graphics cards that are already out.
| the_cat_kittles wrote:
| i got two of these for ~550. i really dont know what more you
| could want if you arent editing videos or photos or whatever:
| https://www.ebay.com/itm/Acer-KG1-28-Gaming-Monitor-4K-3840x...
| ddevault wrote:
| I have three 1080p displays and one 4K display. Text looks nicer
| on my 4K display, but it's just that: pretty. You don't _need_
| one.
| young_unixer wrote:
| The monitor I want:
|
| - 1440p
|
| - IPS panel
|
| - size between 23 and 27 inches, ideally 24 or 25
|
| - flatscreen, 16:9, normal monitor, no "gamer" or other weird
| stuff.
|
| - reasonably priced
|
| I don't live in a rich country so there's not much variety. I got
| tired of searching for it. All monitors with more than 1080p I've
| found are either "gamer" (which cost 5x as much because of the
| gamer tax and other features useless to me, like 144hz, gsync and
| "3ms response times") type of monitors, curved screens, ultra
| wide screens, etc.
| avalexandrov wrote:
| I think this is the monitor you're looking for:
| https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/ultrasharp-25-usb-c-monitor-...
| hasperdi wrote:
| What about this one / similar:
| https://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-LS24H850QFUXEN-WQHD-24-Inch...
|
| I'm using this and quite happy with it
| xyst wrote:
| Personally, my takeaways from this article are to disable font
| smoothing. I disabled it on my MBP and I like how the default
| fonts are rendered now. They appear less bright and more crisper.
| I haven't changed these settings on my MBP since I got it, so
| it's likely enabled by default. The rationale behind it makes
| sense in low resolution cases, but to have it enabled by default
| on rMBP doesn't make sense to me.
|
| However the recommendation to reduce the resolution scaling
| option is a no for me. The text is wayyyy too big for me and I
| lose out on the screen real estate.
| asdff wrote:
| I will say I just looked at my macbook air, haven't touched
| that setting myself and it is disabled by default in new
| catalina macs at least.
| elondaits wrote:
| That part of the article does not apply to my 13'' 2015 MBP...
| I checked and it already uses 2x resolution by default. Perhaps
| it applies to larger screens or newer models.
| thih9 wrote:
| Offtopic, I really like how the twitter post has been embedded as
| a screenshot and not using twitter's scripts.
|
| Even if that means that I can't click any link in a tweet; I
| probably wouldn't have noticed otherwise.
|
| I prefer the UX (and especially: fast load times) of an image to
| the one of a script. Also, an image means fewer requests and
| fewer potential privacy issues.
| lazyjones wrote:
| My 5 years old iMac 5K 27" monitor is just fine, thank you. But
| lately I'm beginning to notice the effect of the brightness of
| modern displays in my eyes...
| asenna wrote:
| I enjoyed the article, good suggestions.
|
| Slightly off topic but I have the 16" Macbook Pro with maxed out
| graphics, and as soon as I connect my monitor, the fans start
| getting ready for lift-off (~5.6k RPM). It's a Samsung 4k 32" (DP
| 1.4 to usb-c).
|
| I know this is a common issue but anyone else able to resolve
| this yet? It drives me crazy that this powerful machine starts
| sounding like jet just from connecting 1 monitor (Apple says it
| can support four 4k monitors).
|
| The CPU and GPU don't look to be under any stress as such.
| nickreese wrote:
| Try plugging it into the right side... seriously. Makes all of
| the difference on mine.
|
| Also try a USB-C to display port if you can.
| gdubs wrote:
| Good article.
|
| Have to say though, taste is subjective, but good lord those
| monitors are about as elegantly designed as a Rockstar Energy
| drink.
| santoshalper wrote:
| Yeah, for some reason these are all coming from "gaming"
| monitor makers. I think the last one is trying to conjure up a
| "pro" vibe with the hood, but yes - these are definitely tacky.
|
| Acer, Asus, et al. tend to just remarket OEM technology with
| relatively little value-add. I suspect these are all built on
| the same panel, but I could be wrong.
| pmiller2 wrote:
| Oh! Is that what those funny looking "hoods" are about? I
| thought for a second they might be functional, but I guess
| they're just decorative? "Gaming" equipment (monitors,
| chairs, mice, keyboards, _etc._ ) rarely seems worth it to
| me, simply because they spend too much effort and cost on
| things that are non-functional, but make the thing look
| attractive to the target audience. I am not a part of that
| audience, so I find the esthetic rather garish most of the
| time.
|
| The one exception for me is that I do like a couple of gaming
| mice. It's not so much for the hotkey functionality, but
| because they have a really high resolution, which makes
| mousing easier and more precise to me. Other than that, my
| setup is all really basic, office-style equipment, and I love
| it.
| amarshall wrote:
| Hoods are for reducing reflections on the screen. They are
| functional, and are not (at least originally) a "gaming"
| feature. Somewhat common on high-end color-accurate
| displays. How useful they are depends on the lighting.
|
| The monitors linked are actually quite good, the gaming
| styling they have is rather unfortunate.
| DavidVoid wrote:
| > Oh! Is that what those funny looking "hoods" are about? I
| thought for a second they might be functional, but I guess
| they're just decorative?
|
| The main use of those monitor hoods is to remove glare
| caused by ambient lighting. They're common (and often
| included) accessories for displays intended to be used for
| photo editing, color grading, and similar types of work. I
| was kind of surprised to see one on a "gaming" monitor
| though.
| zargon wrote:
| I have been using my current home PLP setup for 10 years. Dell
| U3011 (2560x1600) in middle and Dell 2007FP (1200x1600) on the
| sides. Off and on I have looked for high dpi replacements, but
| never found anything suitable.
|
| At the beginning of the year, my U3011 started blanking out on
| me. As it became more frequent, I started shopping again. But
| wow, the monitor situation right now is sad. There are no high
| dpi monitors with enough vertical space. And since they're all at
| least as short as 16:9, they're unusable in portrait as well.
|
| I ended up repairing the U3011. It's going to have to last me a
| while. There's just no upgrade path.
| zackees wrote:
| Best screen experience is a 6-foot TV at 4k @ 60hz.
|
| This allowed me to move the screen back 6 feet. The result was an
| improvement of my eyesight (I'm near sighted) within 6 months.
| HiddenCanary wrote:
| The author mentions to go for a 120hz monitor. Is a 144hz one
| also sufficient?
| gowld wrote:
| This person recommends 3 monitors, NONE of which appear to offer
| adjustments that are critical for ergonomic health. I don't find
| this perspective trustworthy.
|
| I'm not going to sacrifice my spine for slightly fancier
| characters.
| hinkley wrote:
| I recently bought a Thunderbolt 3 monitor as what I have vowed is
| my 'Last Thunderbolt 3 purchase (except replacing broken
| things)'.
|
| I'm holding out for Thunderbolt 4, when I can (hopefully) treat
| my wiring topology like USB instead of daisy chained all to hell
| and back. Because of this, I looked at good qualities in a
| _secondary_ monitor that were survivable on a primary. For
| instance sound quality and real estate are less important,
| raising the priority of PPI, color gamut, and VESA mount.
| s9w wrote:
| My take on having used quite a variety of displays: 1440p with a
| high (120, 144 etc) refresh rate is the way to go.
|
| With 4K you can lose a lot of performance especially since they
| are often paired with integrated graphics. Also what's the point
| of a higher pixel density when it's higher than you can resolve?
| Meaning if you have to zoom that's a sign that you get nothing
| more from increasing resolution. Also despite claims to the
| contrary, a lot of software is still not well suited for 4k
| resolutions.
|
| High refresh rates are completely underrated as it's at the same
| time a meme but also a widespread false belief that human eyes
| have some kind of limit that is being satiated by your 60hz
| displays. Scrolling code on 144hz is _smooth_.
|
| Bonus point that isn't mentioned in the article: HDR is a meme,
| don't buy into that crap.
|
| Also: CRTs are criminally underrated and still unfairly judged.
| We lost something from that era. Colors, black levels, subjective
| image quality and input lag have still not recovered from the
| peak of display technology in the year 2000 or so.
| cthalupa wrote:
| >Bonus point that isn't mentioned in the article: HDR is a
| meme, don't buy into that crap.
|
| I'd wager more people are going to notice the difference
| between HDR and SDR than they would 4k vs 1080p. It is by far
| the biggest picture quality upgrade I've seen since going from
| SD to HD.
|
| The problem is HDR sucks on LCDs, so it's largely useless on
| PC. FALD isn't enough to limit the halos, even with a ton of
| zones. I own the PG27UQ mentioned in this article and I hate
| it.
|
| I'll probably just buy an LG CX 48" for my next monitor.
| s9w wrote:
| I mean sure HDR is impressive, but for me it's always like 3D
| movies.. nice for 5 minutes and then you see the flaws.
| Dimming zones are a really crappy way to get around the
| fundamental display tech limitation like you said. But OLED
| has insane problems with burn-in. They officially don't exist
| but there are endless reports of this happening. Although I
| can't speak with high confidence about that. In general the
| major problem with non-OLED displays are the black levels.
| Going for HDR was a silly PR move.
| jrockway wrote:
| As an early adopter to monitor technology, I have to say that I
| consistently regret it.
|
| I got one of the first 4k mainstream monitors. I paid $3000 for
| it. This was back in the day when DisplayPort didn't really "do"
| 4k, so it was done by pretending it was two monitors internally.
| This broke EVERYTHING. For years, I struggled with Linux trying
| to treat two monitors as one big one (and putting new windows
| right on the border). Welp, they fixed that. But trying to treat
| two monitors as though it's one was completely impossible. I
| eventually got it to work by enabling a bunch of random features
| in the nVidia driver, that when enabled together triggered a bug
| that broke Xrandr, so everything thought I just had one monitor.
| (I could not, of course, add a second monitor.) Miraculously,
| they never fixed that bug. It worked for half a decade at least.
| (At some point in there I switched to Windows, which of course
| supported it perfectly because the driver was specifically hacked
| to detect that model number and do extra stuff.)
|
| Several years later, I wanted to get a monitor that supported
| more colors than sRGB. Big mistake! While inexpensive, I learned
| that NOTHING supports color spaces correctly. The Adobe apps do,
| but that's about it. Online image sharing services go out of
| their way to MODIFY the color space that you tag an image with,
| so there is no hope of anything ever showing the right colors
| unless you manually clip them to sRGB. Things like the Win32 API,
| CSS, etc. have no way to say what color space a color is encoded
| in, so there is no way to make the operating system display the
| right color. ("background-color: #abcdef" just means "set the
| color on the user's display to #abcdef", which is a completely
| meaningless thing to do unless your working colorspace is sRGB,
| and the user's monitor works in sRGB. It worked for years, but
| was never correct.) The worst thing is, nobody appears to care.
| ("It just makes colors more vibrant!" they'll tell you) Big
| mistake. Do not buy unless you never want to see a color as the
| author intended ever again. (I solved my photography colorspace
| problem by switching to black and white film. Take that, colors!
| You can't display them incorrectly if there aren't any!)
|
| The next thing I jumped on is high refresh rate. I waited until
| 144Hz IPS panels were affordable, and got one. It sure is better
| than 60Hz, which looks like a slideshow, but there are of course
| problems. The first is... it is pretty optimistic to think that
| an IPS panel will actually update at 144Hz. They do not. The
| result is blur. I run mine at 120Hz with ULMB (which basically
| strobes the backlight at the display update rate). That looks
| really good. There are some artifacts caused by the IPS display,
| and 120Hz is noticeably slow, but moving things sure are clear.
| You can pan a google map and read the labels as it moves. Try
| that right now on your 60Hz display, you can't do it!
|
| But because of IPS, at 144Hz without ULMB, you get a smooth mush.
| At 120Hz with ULMB, you can read moving content (like player
| names attached to people in an FPS, it is trippy the first time
| you use it). Having said that, it's bad for anything that doesn't
| render at 120Hz. Web browsers, games, CAD... great! Videos...
| AWFUL, just awful. On a 30/24Hz video, frames get strobed 4 or 5
| times, and this causes your brain to think "hey, a slide show".
| (You can record the display with a high speed camera, and it will
| look completely different from what you see in real life. Darn
| brain, always messing things up.) Things like pans skip and jerk,
| as your brain tries to interpret the video stream as a series of
| <image 1> <black screen> <image 1> <black screen> <image 2>
| <black screen> ... instead of a smooth blend of <image 1> <image
| 2> ... You can post-process the video to "invent" frames in the
| middle, so your monitor displays new image data each time it
| strobes the backlight. I do this with mpv and it looks great. But
| if you watch video in a browser, you are out of luck.
|
| My TL;DR here is that buying any sort of fancy monitor is just
| going to make you very unhappy. You will learn everything in the
| world there is to know about color space math, pixel transition
| times, using high speed cameras to debug issues (what a time
| sink), how your brain processes moving images, etc. It won't make
| you any happier. It won't make you better at programming.
|
| If you play competitive games, get a TN 1080p 240Hz monitor,
| simply because that's what everyone else uses. Don't use it for
| anything except the game, because every second that you use it it
| will make you unhappy. But it's absolutely a joy to play a game
| on it. (Why 1080p and not 1440p? Guess who bought a 1440p 165Hz
| monitor. Not anyone that has ever contributed code to the game or
| played the game at a professional level. But I did! Guess who
| gets to live with the bugs.)
|
| If you are a programmer, just buy whatever. Every single monitor
| ever designed will make you unhappy.
|
| If you are a programmer who works with color, get yourself a good
| therapist. You will be meeting with them on a daily basis, and
| even then, you'll still be scarred for life. It's all about
| damage control at this point.
| pokemongoaway wrote:
| Don't let them convince you that you're expecting too much or
| whatever. They're just liars and we need more people who can
| see truth like you.
| snailerz wrote:
| Interesting reading, but... I can't understand why he states that
| a 4k monitor at 1.5x is worst than a 1440p monitor at 1x...
|
| Pixel density will be better, for example, in game textures and
| movies?
|
| I am really interested in buying a new monitor from quite a
| while, but I really don't get that part, can somebody help me
| with that?
|
| Thanks in advance HN folks!
| kirstenbirgit wrote:
| The "120hz dance" reminds me of my "drag my 2 external monitors
| around in System Preferences every time I dock my MacBook,
| otherwise they switch places"-dance.
|
| It's amazing that all these display bugs still exist when Apple
| has presumably invested so much into their $6000 Pro Display.
|
| Dear Apple: Why not spend a little time making the software work,
| too?
| alyandon wrote:
| I'd possibly consider upgrading from my 2x Dell 2408WFP setup if
| modern IPS panels weren't such absolute garbage with respect to
| backlight bleed compared to the IPS panels made 15 years ago.
|
| Even my old laptops with IPS panels look better than newer ones.
| I was in the market for a laptop last year and returned 3
| different laptops with IPS panel displays from 3 different
| manufacturers because every single one of them had backlight
| bleed that was so bad that it was plainly visible even in a well
| lit room. The last company pushed back trying to claim that that
| level of backlight bleed was considered "normal" but eventually
| refunded my purchase once I threatened to do a chargeback through
| my credit card company.
|
| Do there actually exist any companies anymore that produce decent
| monitors with minimal backlight bleed?
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| 8K TVs are coming!!! I've been an enthusiastic user of 4K TVs as
| monitors for 40" TVs. They're only $200-$250 for a decent one! So
| much real estate.
|
| 4k at 40" is basically what the DPI of a 30" 2560x1600 was.
|
| But a 80" monitor for 8k is ridiculous. So with 8K we can finally
| just pick the real estate you want and the DPI will be great.
|
| It amuses me that the press always say "what will you watch on
| 8K!" ... this is just like 4K. The "content" on 4K isn't
| broadcast, streaming, or disc based. It's all generated content
| by game consoles and computer applications, and upscaling.
| ericls wrote:
| I've seen people making great code and great product on a
| 1280*800 monitor.
|
| And sometimes working with limitations is the fun itself.
| Const-me wrote:
| Agree about resolution.
|
| I was an early adopter. Didn't happen voluntarily though, my
| client wanted me to develop embedded Linux software that drives a
| 4K HDMI output, so I was kinda forced to upgrade. Never looked
| back. When that monitor broke just after it's 3 years warranty
| expired, I've bought very similar one with the same specs from
| another brand, 27" 4k IPS.
|
| However, I think 120Hz is overkill for programmers. The
| price/performance proportion is not great either, my current BenQ
| PD2700U is offered for just over $500 in the US, while the
| monitors recommended by OP are above 2 grands.
| brundolf wrote:
| Interesting info, but overly opinionated. I tried turning off
| font smoothing just now but the lack of boldness made everything
| appear dimmer, and I had to strain my eyes a bit when reading my
| code. Also I use my MacBook without a separate screen, with no
| scaling, so I really have to disagree with this:
|
| > This will make everything on the screen slightly bigger,
| leaving you (slightly!) less screen estate. This is expected. My
| opinion is, a notebook is a constrained environment by
| definition. Extra 15% won't magically turn it into a huge
| comfortable desktop
|
| For me a notebook is not a constrained environment, and screen
| scaling very much makes the difference between "a huge
| comfortable desktop" and not.
| sdflhasjd wrote:
| More than 5 years ago, I bought two 24" 4k monitors from Dell
| (UP2414Q), with a PPI of ~180 (and sitting over a foot away),
| they give me a retina experience with my desktop. They were an
| early product from Dell, so despite great picture quality, they
| are buggy and have large bezels.
|
| This week, one of them failed. While looking for a replacement, I
| was expecting the range of 24" "retina" displays to have improved
| somewhat. Surprisingly, it seems the opposite has happened. Dell
| no longer make an Ultrasharp range 24" monitor with 4k,
| everything is now 27".
|
| Although they do make a 'P' series equivalent, it's an old model
| released around the same time as my original ones, with similar
| bugs and early hardware (no 4k 60hz HDMI)
|
| 27" is sadly too large for me to fit two side-by-side on my desk
| (and even if they would fit, 27" is too large for my liking).
|
| Now I'm left struggling to find a replacement, I may have to live
| with downgrading to something like 120 PPI with a 2k (1440p) 25"
| display.
|
| It's sad that retina really hasn't caught on much in the desktop
| monitor space, we should really have 3k as a standard resolution
| for smaller desktop monitors.
| zaphoyd wrote:
| FYI: The Dell P2415Q does have 4K60hz over HDMI as long as you
| get one manufactured recently. They did a silent spec bump in
| 2017 or 2018 or so. I use a number of these and while they are
| still slightly buggy, I've found them much better in that
| department than the UP2414Q.
| Aaronstotle wrote:
| For me, I find 1440p + high refresh rate as the true sweet spot,
| the "affordable" monitor listed in this post is $900.
|
| That's not a bad deal for a 4k high refresh rate monitor, but if
| you play any games you would need at least a 2080 or 2080ti which
| is another 700-1200, 1440p high refresh monitors go for around
| $300-400.
| duncanawoods wrote:
| I struggle to hit 60Hz at 4k with 2080TI even with graphics
| settings knocked down a few notches. Maybe next generation.
| kenhwang wrote:
| 1440p144hz seems to be the sweet spot that real world single
| graphics cards can max out on.
| jamescobalt wrote:
| Talks about 4k at 120hz without mentioning that this _usually_
| sacrifices chroma, making text unreadable. Fine for games, but
| not for coding. No mention of Display Stream Compression. No
| mention of the importance of panel type (IPS vs VA vs TN). No
| mention of the various HDR standards (and especially how HDR400
| isn 't really HDR). Suggests getting a 5k, 6k, or 8k monitor
| while also insisting you get a 120hz display (it's going to be
| one or the other for the next couple of years). Suggests monitors
| whose adaptive sync feature only works on Nvidia GPUs.
|
| The author seems to know a lot about font rendering but he
| doesn't seem to know that much about monitors despite having VERY
| strong opinions about them.
|
| I suggest people wait till the new year before a big monitor
| purchase. EVE Spectrum is slated for Q4 of this year. If it
| delivers on its promises, it'll be the best value for what you
| get. And if it doesn't, you can fall back on the ROG XG27UQ or
| its contemporaries - assuming your GPU can support DSC, 4K, and
| 120hz.
| mmm_grayons wrote:
| Great theory. I'd definitely love to have 4k 120hz displays, but
| until I'm not broke, I'll stick with my old low-res monitors I
| picked up for $20 apiece. They suck, but not everyone has the
| money for $500 panels, let alone the insanely-priced four-figure
| ones the author recommends. I'll probably just suffer through
| another decade of garbage text until they get cheap.
| beckingz wrote:
| electronic waste recycling facility? More like christmas in my
| opinion.
| mmm_grayons wrote:
| Yep. I've got my own little fleet of machines, mostly laptops
| with busted displays, that I run as servers for my own
| personal edification. Dirt cheap and useful. I've even got a
| pentium box that still works fine.
| fossuser wrote:
| "Now, it might be tempting to use, for example, 1.5x scaling.
| That would give you an equivalent of 2560x1440 logical pixels,
| which, you might think, is much better. This is not how you
| should use it! The idea of a 4k monitor is NOT to get more pixels
| but to get the pixel-perfect, high-density UI rendering.
| Otherwise, a normal 1440p display would work better. A simple
| rule to remember: pixel alignment outweighs everything else.
| 1440p display is better at displaying 1440p content than 2160p
| display is at it."
|
| I like this idea in theory, but I disagree with it in practice.
|
| I use two vertical 4k displays (specifically: Dell U2720Q) and I
| use them at the native resolution.
|
| This is because I want IntelliJ to take up an entire vertical
| display where I can see a lot of code without having to scroll. I
| can also divide the other display into two halves (horizontal
| line, one window on top and one on bottom - I use a third party
| app from the macOS app store called magnet for this).
|
| I can appreciate the smooth fonts, but the screen real estate is
| more valuable.
|
| I guess all of this is to say that the best option for me would
| be an 8k display at 2x scaling. A 4k display at 1080p though
| isn't worth the trade-off (I'll take lower quality text for the
| additional space).
|
| They do say right after that that using the 4k display at native
| is also fine, so maybe it's not an issue?
| runawaybottle wrote:
| Any suggestions that are not over 500 dollars?
| josho wrote:
| I have an LG ultrafine 5k, and a cheap BenQ 4k. The difference
| is night and day. I hate the BenQ* and will dump it as soon a I
| can.
|
| My suggestion is to hold off until you can save up and buy one
| of the suggested displays when it's in your budget.
|
| * The BenQ has a matte finish which effectively blurs
| everything, e.g. it's like it reduces the resolution by 10-20%.
| The colors are not accurate to my macbook display, despite
| trying to color calibrate. The brightness is dimmer as well, or
| looses contrast if I make it bright. Built-in speakers sound
| awful and volume cannot be controlled by software. I could go
| on.
| runawaybottle wrote:
| 1200 feels like a lot to spend on a monitor.
| josho wrote:
| Agreed. I should have also mentioned that I bought my LG as
| a refurbished unit which made the purchase easier to
| stomach.
| errantspark wrote:
| Or you can just use pixel fonts (which imo look better than
| subpixel-aa fonts on 4k anyway) and donate the difference in
| monitor costs to [optimal virtue signalling charity]. Gaming on a
| 4k monitor sucks also, I don't know what kind of supercomputers
| people are running but my meager 1080Ti can't peg any of the
| relevant games to 144Hz at 4k.
| mdorazio wrote:
| > 144Hz
|
| That's your problem right there. Most people, myself included,
| are perfectly fine at 60Hz since we don't do competitive FPS
| gaming. At that refresh rate, my 2070 is perfectly happy to
| render games in 4k and I really don't notice any significant
| difference compared to 120Hz. If > 60Hz is really important to
| you, it's going to be another generation of video cards before
| single-card gaming can handle it well (probably the 3000 series
| cards will be capable).
| Slartie wrote:
| Regarding the "120Hz dance", which sure is ridiculous, the author
| could probably give the nice little tool "SwitchResX" a try. I
| adore that piece of software because it allowed me to force my
| MacBook to properly supply my Dell U2711, which is a 2560x1440
| display, with an actual 2560x1440x60Hz signal over HDMI (which
| was important to me because I needed the DP port for something
| else).
|
| That older monitor has some kind of firmware bug or maybe it's a
| wrong profile in MacOS or whatever, which makes it advertise a
| maximum of 2560x1440x30Hz or 1920x1080x60Hz to the Mac when
| connected via HDMI (DP works fine out-of-the-box), effectively
| preventing me from choosing native resolution at maximum refresh
| rate. I haven't been able to make MacOS override this limitation
| in any way using the common OS-native tricks, but SwitchResX can
| somehow force any custom resolution and refresh rate to be used,
| and the monitor is apparently able to deal with it just fine, so
| I've been running this setup for years now with no complaints
| whatsoever.
|
| Also no manual work was ever needed after display
| disconnect/reconnect or MacOS reboot. I had problems once after a
| MacOS update, which required a SwitchResX update for it to be
| working again, but other than that I'm in love with this nifty
| low-level tool.
| mthoms wrote:
| I had a similar problem with an older MacBook that would only
| (officially) power my 4k display at 30Hz. SwitchResX was the
| magic solution to bring it up to 60Hz.
| localhost wrote:
| I'm currently using a Sony 43" 4K TV [1] as my monitor. It
| supports uncompressed 4:4:4 chroma subsampling [2] which makes
| for a huge impact on visual quality. It's also quite inexpensive.
| I find that the height of the monitor is about as big as I can
| tolerate. I certainly wouldn't mind higher resolution, but that
| doesn't exist at this size.
|
| LG now has a 48" OLED TV [3] that supports a 120Hz refresh rate.
| I'm looking forward to trying that out. Either that or the new
| Samsung Odyssey G9 ultrawide [4] which is about the same price.
| It's also 240Hz but with VA pixels (which apparently aren't
| _that_ bad). The G9 will be better on the vertical axis (not too
| tall) given its size. The extreme curvature is also interesting -
| not sure about that yet.
|
| [1] https://www.amazon.com/Sony-KD43X720E-43-Inch-Ultra-
| Smart/dp...
|
| [2] https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/chroma-subsampling
|
| [3] https://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-oled48cxpub-oled-4k-tv
|
| [4] https://www.samsung.com/us/computing/monitors/gaming/49--
| ody...
| rob74 wrote:
| As far as I'm concerned, if I am going to buy a 4K monitor, I
| would probably go for a >40 inch one to be able to fit a lot of
| text on it rather than say a 32-inch Hi-DPI monitor. With
| subpixel rendering, fonts look good enough for me even on Lo-DPI
| displays. I'm just afraid that with Hi-DPI becoming more and more
| common, subpixel rendering will eventually disappear...
| XCSme wrote:
| Doesn't a 4k monitor fit the same amount of information whether
| it's 24" or 40", if scaling stays the same?
| rob74 wrote:
| Yeah, but if you are going to use the same scaling for the UI
| at 24" as you would at 40", your eyes might start bleeding :)
|
| ...my Android smartphone also has the same resolution
| (actually even slightly higher) as the monitor I'm using to
| type this, but I wouldn't dream to use the same scaling for
| both.
| kazinator wrote:
| I'm currently working from home on a 14-year-old ViewSonic
| VA902b.
|
| 19", 1280x1024, 75 Hz.
|
| It was a freebie from a folded startup.
|
| This exactly matches monitors I used in the more distant past,
| like NCD X/Window terminals: 19", 1280x1024.
|
| This form factor basically determines what is the ideal pixel
| size for most work.
|
| Basically, 1280 is about the right number of pixels for the angle
| of vision subtended by the display when viewed at the intended
| distance.
| kazinator wrote:
| At work (I remember the place well!) I have a pair of
| 1920x1024's. What size? Not sure. I rotated them 90 degrees, so
| there are two vertical panes of 1024x1920, side by side, making
| a 2048x1920 area.
|
| Approximately square is the most productive size. When we're
| working with text, be it code or prose, the height of it is
| unlimited, but the width isn't. So it ends up in multiple
| columns.
|
| Books are mostly oblong (taller than they are wide), but that's
| only if we think of them in their closed state. An typical open
| book is typically a bit wider than it is tall (but not greatly
| so), and you have two columns of text (the two pages).
|
| That open book geometry is an awful lot like my rotated monitor
| setup, isn't it.
|
| Until I rotated the monitors into this configuration, I was
| consistently just using one and ignoring the other. Moreover,
| ironically, using virtual desktops! I keep virtual desktops as
| large as 4x4. I would rather pane among virtual desktops with
| hot keys than turn my head between two excessively wide
| monitors placed side by side.
|
| People made remarks about my disuse of the second monitor,
| which prompted me to come up with a good way of using it.
| lexicality wrote:
| Alternatively, just make your text bigger?
|
| I use 120% zoom on a 1080p monitor and it looks great.
|
| Paying $900 so you can squint at tiny text a bit better seems
| silly to me...
| cosmotic wrote:
| It looks great to you but a lot of people think it looks blocky
| or blurry or both, and are willing to pay more to have what
| they prefer.
| m0zg wrote:
| If you're using a recent Ubuntu with a 4K display, the best way I
| have found to make things readable without making them huge is by
| enabling "Large text" under Universal Access. This sort of mimics
| the old Unity scaling, except you have to set your Chrome to 150%
| and your console font size separately now. Works for me on both
| Lenovo Carbon X1 and 32" Z32 desktop monitor.
| chromaton wrote:
| These monitors and most of the ones mentioned in the thread are
| tiny. Whatever happened to the dream of the full-wall display? I
| really like my 43" 4K LG monitor, but apparently this type of
| monitor is rarely produced these days. A quick Newegg search
| shows exactly 1 monitor with similar specs and it's more than
| twice the cost of what I paid for mine two years ago.
| buserror wrote:
| I use 2 _32 " 4K monitors side by side; Before that I had 2_30"
| 1920x1200 (not 1080p!) side by side too; to me it's
| sufficiently "a wall" that I put them about 80cm from me, each
| angled a bit inward.
|
| Quite frankly anything bigger and you get a kink in your neck
| by having to move your head so much!
| XCSme wrote:
| Having a large monitor (> 30") makes it harder to read your
| content all at once, and you constantly have light/information
| in your peripheral vision (which is not good for the eyes).
| Asuming that you keep them as the same distance as "normal"
| monitors (1m - 1.5m)
| sbierwagen wrote:
| >But even today you can peek into the future, if you have extra
| $4,000 to spare. This is Dell UP3218K, world's first and only 8k
| monitor:
|
| Note that the UP3218K isn't the brightest monitor in the world.
| I've read some reviews that claim you need a darkened room to see
| the full color gamut.
| tonsky wrote:
| I don't really understand the concerns about brightness. On my
| current display I work at 20% brightness, otherwise my eyes
| start to hurt.
| fireattack wrote:
| I only use hi-dpi monitor with non 100% scaling on my laptop, and
| to this day I still can't get over how bad raster images look
| like when they're not showing in 1:1 pixel to pixel (on web
| pages, mainly). It's just a blurry mess, integer scaling or not.
|
| I'm aware this article is mainly about text rendering, just want
| to point out something I hate with hi-dpi + non 100% scaling.
|
| Also, on Windows with 125%, I don't find text as blurry as the
| author showed on Mac. They look pretty crispy to me. I guess that
| "scaling twice" thing is a Mac only issue (at least for text)?
| cannam wrote:
| I came to the comments expecting lots of (irrelevant, I know)
| complaints about the painfully bright yellow background of the
| article - but nobody has mentioned it yet. Is it serving
| different colours to different people, or am I unusually
| sensitive to this colour? I found the page unreadable without
| switching to reader mode.
| Krasnol wrote:
| I have the same issue.
|
| It was painful to look at.
| morpheuskafka wrote:
| Wow, I just turned off the font smoothing setting on my 4K
| monitor and the test is dramatically easier to read. Really
| surprised that Apple doesn't provide a better definition of this
| feature/turn it off on HiDPI displays.
| boromi wrote:
| What's the point of 120Hz if your just programming?
| XCSme wrote:
| I have a 1440p 144hz monitor and a 4k 60hz monitor. I prefer
| the higher dpi one. I personally don't feel that extra-
| smoothnes during web browsing or web development when on the
| 144hz one, it maybe feels a bit better, but I don't mind 60hz.
| vardump wrote:
| Can read the content clearly while smoothly 120 Hz scrolling or
| moving windows around.
| majewsky wrote:
| How often do you read text while moving the window containing
| it around? Does that justify the 2000$ expense for a 4K 120Hz
| monitor?
|
| Personally, I find this 120 Hz endeavour pretty pointless
| when most applications have input lag that's way worse than a
| single 60 Hz frame.
| boromi wrote:
| Guess I never thought about that. Is the difference
| noticable. I always thought High refresh rate was for gaming.
| kazinator wrote:
| High refresh rate has to do with reaction times in
| competitive multi-player gaming.
|
| You absolutely don't need 120 Hz in any single player video
| game produced between 1978 and 2020.
|
| Games at 15 FPS (even less) used to be perfectly playable
| and fun. At 30 FPS things are smooth well past giving a
| damn.
| kazinator wrote:
| You can do that just fine at 60 Hz, if there is no tearing
| (all screen updates appear during vertical sync).
|
| You can read scrolling movie credits just fine at 24 FPS.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| >You can read scrolling movie credits just fine at 24 FPS
| Honestly I actually struggle with that. But working and
| gaming at 60hz is still perfectly fine with me. I even
| purposely run my Valve Index VR headset at 90hz instead of
| 120hz because I don't need the extra frames
| wondringaloud wrote:
| Who is reading content while scrolling? That's like buying a
| $10,000 stabilization unit to be able to read a book while
| jogging.
| erdewit wrote:
| I had to use 4k@30 Hz for the past week (waiting on a USB-C to
| DisplayPort cable to replace HDMI) and actually gotten used to
| it. Turning off animations and smooth scrolling helps.
| duncanawoods wrote:
| I notice that the main topic for > 100Hz monitor owners is how
| smooth it is to drag windows about. When they show off the
| monitor, they grab a window and wiggle it really fast. Given
| no-one has yet come up with a more meaningful demo I'm starting
| to think it's the only benefit!
|
| There is probably a term for this type of performance chasing.
| It's like car owners bragging about their top speeds despite
| only ever driving on roads with speed limits.
| kenhwang wrote:
| Only benefit I've noticed is it's easier to read text and
| smooth-scroll at the same time. Otherwise it just makes mouse
| movements and rapid console vomiting look nice. It's really
| unnecessary for programming in my opinion, use the budget for
| more pixels.
| duncanawoods wrote:
| How much do you hate going back to 60Hz?
|
| The hedonic treadmill is getting brutal. Going up to a
| 4k/34" monitor was nice but it quickly became normal. The
| main effect was how bad it made 1440p/27" monitors!
| kenhwang wrote:
| I have a 60hz right next to my 144hz and it doesn't
| bother me at all. It's just text, 99.99% of the time it
| doesn't move.
|
| But dropping down to 1080p or a smaller monitor is
| instantly noticeable and very very unpleasant. Everything
| just looks so fuzzy and hard to read.
| asdff wrote:
| In the car world, it's called bench racing. In photography,
| it's called pixel peeping.
| gsich wrote:
| Luxury. Once you have gone so high you can't go back. I have a
| 144 Hz monitor now. Even when not playing games, scrolling,
| moving the mouse, moving windows. It's smooth and I never want
| to go lower again. Using the computer is fun again.
| boromi wrote:
| I guess I'm trying to decide what would be better for me
|
| 4k @ 60 Hz 1440p @ 144HZ
| ulisesrmzroche wrote:
| Wow $2000 USD for a monitor? I thought I was pushing it yesterday
| when I got a new 27' monitor for $200.
|
| I don't think as programmers we need anything more than a 27'
| inch 1080p. What am I missing? I don't think it's worth the
| expense.
|
| On another note, that mustard yellow as the background color is
| an eyesore.
| dewey wrote:
| > Wow $2000 USD for a monitor?
|
| My monitors usually last me for a long time, right now I'm
| using a Dell P2715Q 4K that I got 5 years ago and I'm staring
| at it every day for multiple hours.
|
| It wasn't that expensive but a good monitor is definitely worth
| the money and is not something you should cheap out on if
| possible.
| huy-nguyen wrote:
| $200 is quite cheap for a 27" monitor. A good non-gaming 1440p
| 27" costs about $300-400 not on sale.
| mcny wrote:
| > $200 is quite cheap for a 27" monitor. A good non-gaming
| 1440p 27" costs about $300-400 not on sale.
|
| I think grandparent post meant 1920x1080. Depending on your
| needs (no adaptive refresh rate, no color accuracy, only one
| HDMI input and one VGA input, no rotating stand, no vesa
| mount), you can get a 27" monitor for about USD 100. For most
| programmers, two 27" 1080p monitors ought to be sufficient.
|
| I'm just amazed I never realized that a 27" 1080p monitor is
| barely over 80 pixels per inch. I'd imagine that doubles to a
| respectable 100+ ppi with 1440p monitors but I suspect it
| isn't worth paying more than twice the price in my context.
| gnulinux wrote:
| I have a single 1080p 13'' monitor (my old MacBook Pro) and
| that's sufficient for me. I seriously don't understand what
| people do with that extra space. This is enough to see 3
| horizontally split files open on Emacs. And you can double
| it (6) if you also have vertical split, but then page
| becomes too small.
|
| 1080 27'' sure sounds nice, but why do you think we need
| two 27'' monitors?
| buserror wrote:
| I think that it's a long article to just say that a 1) good 2)
| big screen, or two, or 3 is a good idea. The bigerrer, the
| beterrer.
|
| I wrote a lot of code on Mac classic format (512x342) using
| Monaco 9 -- it was great; next step was 640x480, and 800x600, and
| then (for a rather long time) 1024x768.
|
| It was still perfectly fine, as (at the time) Apple screens were
| some of the best, nice crisp, clear with good contrast. I didn't
| feel particularly handicapped because of the screen real estate,
| you just adapt to what you have.
|
| Now my main machine is Linux with 2*32" 4K screen side-by-side,
| and about 60cm from me. I use Liberation Mono 17pt as a terminal
| font, and 9pt is just microscopic on the screen.
|
| And guess what? I still wish I had a bit more screen space
| sometime! :-)
|
| One thing I always tell more junior developers who ask me about
| what the most valuable piece of information about programming in
| my whole career is: Get a good SCREEN, get a good KEYBOARD, and
| get a good CHAIR, the rest are just details.
|
| Oh, also, make sure the screen(s) are perpendicular to any
| window, and watch that posture!
|
| </walks off waving is cane in the air> :-)
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| Is it wrong that I'm at 720p 120hz still?
| rkagerer wrote:
| TLDR: Buy a high-end gaming monitor, and plug into GPU with
| modern connectivity... to make your fonts look better.
| quicklime wrote:
| The author says that you don't need to choose between 4K and
| 120Hz, because there are "reasonably priced" monitors on the
| market that have both. But their recommended monitor ($900) seems
| a lot more expensive than a 4K 60Hz monitor (which is around
| $300-$400 when I search on Amazon).
|
| The author also says (they think) that you need the discrete
| graphics card in a MacBook to take advantage of a 120 Hz display,
| and that the integrated Intel Iris graphics won't do.
|
| I was actually shopping around for a new MacBook earlier today,
| and noticed that the 13" MacBook Pros only come with integrated
| GPUs, and you have to get the 16" MBP if you want discrete
| graphics. So if you like the portability that a 13" laptop has,
| this might not be a good tradeoff (not to mention that the 16"
| one costs $400 to $800 more than the top-spec 13" one).
|
| I totally agree with the stuff they say about rendering fonts on
| 4k screens, but I don't think I'd be willing to take the hit in
| portability, or shell out an extra $700+, to get 120 Hz.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| For what it's worth, the latest 13" MacBook Pro (with
| integrated intel graphics) can power the 6016x3384 Pro Display
| XHR at 60Hz.
|
| I am unsure what refresh rates it can achieve with a lower
| resolution.
|
| But really as someone who made the jump from 60Hz to 120Hz, I
| wouldn't bother unless you're gaming. I accidentally was
| running my monitor locked to 60Hz and when I fixed it, I barely
| noticed the difference - it was only really when playing FPS
| that I noticed.
| quicklime wrote:
| Yeah you're right, it can do 6K at 60Hz, and according to
| Apple it can also do:
|
| > Up to two external 4K displays with 4096-by-2304 resolution
| at 60Hz in millions of colours
|
| So I guess if it can power 2 monitors at 60Hz, it should be
| able to do 1 monitor at 120hz, right?
| RHSeeger wrote:
| > A good monitor is essential for that. Not nice to have. A MUST.
| And in "good" I mean, as good as you can get.
|
| The whole discussion starts from a what I would say is an
| incorrect assertion, and then goes on to describe lots of ways
| that letters can be made better. If, in fact, you don't need
| better, then a lot of the points go away.
|
| 1. There is a point of diminishing returns, past which you are
| spending a lot more money for very little benefit.
|
| 2. There exists a point beyond which "better letters" are
| unlikely to contribute much to daily work.
|
| Both of those points are, to some extent, the same point. But
| either way, the idea that you MUST get as good of a monitor as
| you can" is, in my opinion, untrue and not worth basing an entire
| document on.
|
| I'd rather see a discussion of which features of a monitor
| contribute the most (per $) to how well they function for daily
| work. For gaming, I want high refresh rate and high contrast. For
| TV, the contrast (real black) goes up in importance. For daily
| work, neither of those is a huge contributor to how well I can
| work.
| new_realist wrote:
| I have an 8K monitor, but unfortunately it's unusable with AMD
| graphics cards (amdgpu) under Linux. The NVIDIA proprietary
| drivers have worked like a champ.
| holtalanm wrote:
| well, time to throw my brand-new BenQ 24" 1080p monitor in the
| garbage, I guess.
|
| but really....1080p is just fine for looking at text on a screen.
| Maybe the reason the text is blurry for you is that _you need
| glasses_.
| whalesalad wrote:
| I adore my HP Z27. It's 4K, usb-C, charges my 15" MBP and serves
| as a thunderbolt hub for other peripherals. The chrome or bezel
| around the screen is extremely minimal, and the only light that
| isn't the backlight is a tiny little LED indicator dot that is
| very subtle and Apple-esque. From time to time I use it with an
| old PC and even RPi's. Real intuitive mode switching and menus.
| Highly recommended along with a heavy duty monitor arm to keep it
| from shaking.
|
| As much as I miss my 2012 MacBook Air and consider it the
| greatest computer I've ever owned... I definitely couldn't go
| back to a non retina experience.
| ralmidani wrote:
| I actually "downgraded" from a 43" 4K to a 30" (2560 x 1600).
| Trying to focus strained my eyes, and the brightness from the big
| monitor meant I had to position it as far back as I could on my
| desk, which made it even harder to focus and caused even more eye
| strain. I also realized a 16:10 ratio is more friendly for
| coding.
|
| Frankly, 4K/5K monitors seem like a gimmick for most people.
| Especially puzzling is why you would pack so many pixels into
| smaller (~27") monitors and require more power and graphics
| muscle for imperceptibly "better" images.
| arturb wrote:
| As a web developer, I have Eizo ev2785 with 125% scaling and it
| worked fine so far.
|
| From code maintenance perspective, I noticed that if you feel
| that there isn't enough space on your screen, it might be the
| right time to refactor and split it to the smaller chunks:
| extract another view partial, class etc.
| foobarian wrote:
| All my life I had an obsession with more pixels. As kids we
| always envied the classmates with the highest resolution graphics
| cards and monitors. The pinnacle of my life at one point was the
| unnamed best CRT ever made which got up to 1280x1024, but then
| LCDs happened.
|
| My new pinnacle is a beautiful 32" IPS panel on a Benq 4k
| monitor. I don't care for the refresh rate jump from 60 to 120 as
| much as 30 to 60. But I absolutely insist on large panel area,
| and lots of pixels to fill it with, so I don't understand how the
| blog author can live with 27". This is basically programmer
| nirvana and I don't know what could make it better, maybe some
| kind of VR setup with similar PPI but I doubt it.
| sneak wrote:
| That's a pretty low ppi setup you describe. All of the retina
| iMacs are 27" 5k, so >200 ppi. A 27" 4k is 160ppi, and a bigger
| 4k is lower yet.
| foobarian wrote:
| Indeed. It could be my eyesight, but given a 4k monitor at
| 27" or 32", I prefer 32" because I can see the (equivalent)
| information better.
| tjr225 wrote:
| I will never give up my 24" 16:10 Dell Ultrasharp even if it is
| low def.
| Koshkin wrote:
| My favorite 19" 4x3 LG monitor is what is keeping me from
| getting cross-eyed.
| foepys wrote:
| I have one, too. It's pretty sad that 16:10 has fallen out of
| style and that there is no 27" 2560x1600 display available.
|
| Dell has the Ultrasharp UP3017 with 2560x1600 at 30", maybe
| that's something you can try if you want more pixels. It's just
| pretty expensive and has a big bezel since it was released in
| 2017.
| santoshalper wrote:
| I did have a dream once of a "4k Pro" that was 4000x2500.
| Never gonna happen.
| cpascal wrote:
| I bemoan the fact that there are so few 16:10's on the market
| and nothing high resolution. 16:10 is such a great aspect-ratio
| and the extra vertical screen real-estate is very useful when
| programming.
|
| It is interesting to see some laptops move off of 16:9 to 16:10
| or 3:2. This gives me hope that we'll see new/better 16:10
| panels.
| Wistar wrote:
| I have two of them and I sure like the 16:10 aspect. I recently
| bought a refurb Dell UP3017 30" at 2560 x 1600/60 and I love
| the thing.
| santoshalper wrote:
| The image quality upgrade from HD to 4K is pretty massive. I
| still have a few 1200 and 1080 displays around and they look
| like shit compared to my main display. You can't fight time and
| the market forever.
| markkanof wrote:
| Do you find any problem with text being too small? I am
| typing this right now on a on a 30" 2560x1600 display which
| is right at 100dpi which I find is very readable. In the past
| I had tried 27" displays at 2560x1440 which has a dpi of 108
| which made things just small enough to be hard to read.
| Obviously I could scale stuff in the OS, but that typically
| left me with some UI elements looking fuzzy/distorted. My
| ideal I think would be a 29" 5k monitor, so that probably is
| never going to happen.
| zarmin wrote:
| >Lowercase letters only have 7 (seven!) vertical pixels to work
| with. That's NOT MUCH. I have more fingers than that.
|
| Quite an argument.
| Koshkin wrote:
| Indeed. (Especially given the fact that _two_ characters have
| 14 pixels in them.)
| zarmin wrote:
| IIRC, I have fewer fingers than that.
| raegis wrote:
| Yes, but you have _more_ fingers and toes than that!
| wondringaloud wrote:
| It was at this point I realized the entire premise of the
| article was a very long-winded way of saying "I like using high
| DPI monitors when I code". And then tossing in a bunch of
| technical details to make it sound like a "fact".
| bostik wrote:
| More like "I like looking at really smoothly rendered TTF
| fonts".
|
| I've tried to use TTF fonts in terminal. None of them work
| well enough, or renders better than the classic 6x13.
| city41 wrote:
| I have the Samsung CHG90, which is 3840x1080. It's literally a 4k
| TV cut in half horizontally. It enables me to very comfortably
| display three windows side by side. More than anything I have
| ever bought, this monitor has improved my productivity. They now
| have a newer version that is 5120x1440.
|
| The trade off is this monitor is very low res, about 100ppi. I
| don't know anything about how the various OSes render text. But I
| have found that by far, Ubuntu renders the text the best. Text in
| both OSX and Windows looks absolutely dreadful on this monitor,
| but Ubuntu is really quite pleasant. Which is not at all what I
| was expecting.
| dhosek wrote:
| I used to long for the days of 200dpi monitors when I was younger
| and we lived with 72dpi or less on-screen. Now, my vision has
| deteriorated to the point where I honestly can't see the
| difference despite being a type nerd. I'm increasingly using the
| zoom feature in MacOS to read smaller UI elements. I suspect my
| days of driving my MacBook display at "more space" (2048x1280)
| instead of "default" (1792x1120) are numbered.
| [deleted]
| alliao wrote:
| interesting, this must be why animal crossing looks so damn good
| on my 4k OLED....
| asadkn wrote:
| I have the same opinion as the author here. When I buy a 4k
| monitor, it's generally for the higher PPI. There's just less eye
| strain for me reading less pixelated fonts.
|
| Personal sweet spot me in terms of pleasant readability is: 4k
| 24" @ 200% scale (so same screen estate as 1080p) or 5k 27" @
| 200% scale (same screen estate as 1440p).
| nahtnam wrote:
| I just recently went from 2 4k monitors to 3 2k 144hz monitors.
| I'd argue as long as the panel quality is decent, 144hz is a much
| better quality of life improvement than 2k to 4k is
| tyho wrote:
| I have the ultrafine 5k. 27 glorious inches @ 218ppi. Not only
| does this provide a colossal amount of real estate for crisp text
| (I run with no scaling, which requires good eyesight), but
| combined with a macbook pro, provides a near perfect computing
| solution. One cable provides video, audio, usb hub, webcam and
| power. Two monitors might be better, but I find leaving the
| laptop screen open on a stand works well. One quarter of the
| ultrafine provides 2560x1440 resolution, so side by side, or
| corner layouts work very well.
|
| https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-27MD5KA-B-5k-uhd-led-monit...
| read_if_gay_ wrote:
| > I run with no scaling, which requires good eyesight
|
| I have been on the fence about upgrading to a large hi-res
| screen specifically with the aim of maximizing screen real
| estate, which effectively means little scaling. However I
| couldn't find much info about running hi-res monitors with
| little or no scaling. Could you share your experience and/or
| post a screenshot, just to get an idea of how big UIs end up
| being?
| tyho wrote:
| Judging by the resolution of my screenshot, it appears as
| though there is still some scaling going on. I can
| effectively reduce the scaling by zooming out in VSCode, but
| I'm limited by my eyes, not by the resolution of the monitor.
| In other words, the text becomes illegible far before it
| becomes pixel limited.
|
| https://i.imgur.com/PXyOr7R.png
| read_if_gay_ wrote:
| Thanks, that is massive but surprisingly readable even at
| 27"/1440p. Nice cowsay btw.
| chias wrote:
| Only tangentially related, but encoding text into the subpixels
| themselves is still one of my favorite github repos I've stumbled
| across in a good long while :)
|
| https://github.com/graphitemaster/breaking_the_physical_limi...
| ashton314 wrote:
| Nice article. But for a post griping about illegibility of bad
| character rendering, _why_ did they decide to make the background
| this egg-yolk yellow? I 'd prefer a white background to that
| mess. Is there some reason why they chose yellow?
| kstenerud wrote:
| He puts up some nice technical arguments, and I'm sure a 4k
| monitor is right for him, but really it comes down to what you're
| actually comfortable with. I stopped worrying about resolution
| the moment I got my first 19" (CRT) monitor. Resolution was high
| enough to fit as much text as I needed, and really that's all
| that ever mattered. I've used retina displays but I've never felt
| they make enough of a difference to matter. I've worked on 32"
| displays, and while they're nice, I've never felt like I'm
| missing real estate when I move back to a 1080p display.
|
| Font smoothing has never bothered me, but what DOES bother me is
| this trend towards lower contrast, and "flat UIs" that lack any
| differentiation between sections in the UI. Win95, while ugly by
| today's standards, was easy to read and follow. And the black-on-
| white text is something I miss dearly.
| nighthawk454 wrote:
| > Why is it 119.88 Herz, not 120 Herz? No idea. It seems to work
| the same.
|
| I'm guessing it's 119.88Hz because that's an even 5x multiple of
| the conventional "24Hz" of TV - which is really 23.976Hz.
| komali2 wrote:
| > Well, the split does not exist anymore. Since not that long ago
| (yes, I'm too lazy to check) you can have both! You can have a 4k
| monitor that runs on 120 Hz. In fact, that discovery was the main
| motivation for this article.
|
| With... good color gamut? Without ghosting? If so I want to buy
| that monitor today.
| speeder wrote:
| I still use a CRT, because features I want are still ludicrous
| expensive in newer tech (although they are getting cheaper over
| time).
|
| 1. Arbitrary resolutions, great to run old software and games,
| even better to run new games at lower resolution to increase
| performance.
|
| 2. Arbitrary refresh rates.
|
| 3. Zero (literally) response time.
|
| 4. Awesome color range (many modern screens still are 12bit,
| meanwhile silicon graphics had a CRT screen in 1995 that was
| 48bit)
|
| 5. No need to fiddle with contrast and brightness all the time
| when I switch between a mostly light or mostly dark content, for
| example I gave up on my last attempt to use flat panel because I
| couldn't play Witcher 3 and SuperHot one after the other,
| whenever I adjusted settings to make one game playable the other
| became just splotches (for example the optimal settings for
| Witcher 3 made SuperHot become a almost flat white screen,
| completely impossible to play).
|
| 6. For me, reading raster fonts on CRT gives much less eyestrain
| and is more beautiful than many fonts that need subpixel
| antialias on flat panels.
|
| 7. Those things are crazy resilient, I still have some working
| screens from 80286 era (granted, the colors are getting weird now
| with aging phosphors), while some of my new flatpanels failed
| within 2 years with no repair possible.
| myself248 wrote:
| You raise some very interesting points. I've appreciated the
| physical lightness and ease of positioning of LCDs, plus the
| absence of flyback whine. And they can go to higher resolutions
| than the scan circuitry in a CRT can physically manage.
|
| But all those other things, yes the color resolution, the
| smoother fonts, the response time. I might have to swing by the
| recycler and pick up a nice "new" Viewsonic. :)
| ksec wrote:
| Nice, I think I still have a Sony Trinitron somewhere.
|
| I wonder if there are any market for a modern take of CRT.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| I kept a CRT for quite a while but when I switched, I realized
| I didn't miss it.
|
| 1- True, if there is a thing I'd miss, that's it. At low
| resolutions, CRT sometimes get really nice refresh rates too
| (I've seen up to 18O Hz).
|
| 2- Modern gaming monitors have freesync/g-sync that not only
| give you arbitrary refresh rates, but they are also adaptive.
|
| 3- Also true, but not as significant as one might think. The
| monitor itself is zero latency, but what's behind it isn't. We
| are not "racing the beam" like in an Atari 2600 anymore, the
| image is not displayed before the rendering of a full frame is
| complete. The fastest monitors are at around 144Hz, that's 7ms.
| So for a 1ms gaming monitor to a 0ms CRT, you actually go down
| from 8ms to 7ms, to which you need to add the whole pipeline to
| get "from motion to photon". In VR, where latency is critical,
| the total is about 20ms today. More typical PC games are at
| about 50ms.
|
| 4- CRTs are usually analog. They don't use "bits" and it is all
| your video card job. Also 48bits is per pixel, 12bits is per
| channel. Apples to oranges comparison. CRTs do have a nice
| contrast ratio though, good for color range. Something worth
| noting is that cheap LCDs are usually just 6bit with dithering.
| True 8bit is actually good and I'm not sure that you can
| actually make a difference passed 12bits.
|
| 5- Never noticed that, maybe some driver problem. An
| interesting thing is that CRTs have a natural gamma curve that
| matches the sRGB standard (because sRGB was designed for CRTs).
| LCDs work differently and correction is required to match this
| standard, and if done wrong, you may have that kind of problem.
|
| 6- I hate text on CRTs. And unless you have an excellent
| monitor (and cable!), you have tradeoffs to make between
| sharpness, resolution, and refresh rate. And refresh rate is
| not just for games, below 60Hz, you have very annoying
| flickering. I wouldn't go below 75 Hz. And at max resolution,
| it can start getting blurry: the electron beam is moving very
| fast and the analog circuitry may have trouble with sharp
| transitions, resulting in "ringing" artifacts and overall
| blurriness. One old games, that blurriness becomes a feature
| though, giving you some sort of free antialiasing.
|
| 7- Some CRTs are crazy resilient, others not so much. Same
| thing for LCDs. And as you said, phosphors wear out, that's
| actually the reason why I let go of my last CRT (after about 10
| years). My current LCD is 8 years old and still working great,
| if fact, better than my CRT at the same age (because it doesn't
| have worn phosphors).
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| 3. 60hz CRT refresh rate is 16.67 millseconds of delay.
| Interestingly, I connected a VT220 to my 56' 4k Samsung TV via
| a BNC-to-RCA cable, and by comparing the cursor blinking on
| both screens there's a very noticeable and visible delay, like
| a 1/4 second.
|
| 4. CRTs are analog. It's as many bits as your output hardware
| can make up.
|
| 5. CRT is still supreme for contrast (at least over LCD)
| despite all the tricks and such for LCDs.
|
| 7. That VT220 I mentioned above is from 1986. It's monochrome,
| but works great.
| robocat wrote:
| > CRTs are analog. It's as many bits as your output hardware
| can make up
|
| Actually the horizontal resolution of a CRT is limited by:
| the dot pitch of the colour phosphors, the bandwidth of the
| amplifiers, and the electron beam spread.
|
| The vertical resolution is limited by a combination of:
| electron beam scan rate, delay for horizontal
| flyback/retrace, delay for vertical flyback, desired refresh
| rate, and electron beam spread.
|
| There are more details for the resolution limitations, but I
| think I covered the main ones.
| pokemongoaway wrote:
| Totally! I really think there's an opportunity for a CRT
| company to start. All of the modern flat panel displays have
| not measured up in many ways. Which CRTs do you use? The Sony
| FW900 is basically where the technology left off - and that's
| where we should pick it up. I used that and I also loved the
| Iiyama Vision Master Pro 514 too. Unfortunately, I moved across
| the world several times and was not able to bring them. I'd
| like the next wave of CRTs to have better tools to fix & refine
| the geometry - hate it when the outer lines get bent over time.
|
| I don't think it is just you, but that most people are sheep
| and really don't have any taste or sense of their own.
| GordonS wrote:
| Do they even still make CRTs, or are you using a really old
| one?
| speeder wrote:
| Sadly, the CRT manufacturers back then when it was still
| obviously superior to LCD and Plasma, decided to kill it
| early, SONY was still selling CRTs faster than flat panels
| when they shut down their factories.
|
| Many people today think that noone make CRT because noone buy
| it, but is the opposite, you couldn't buy CRTs anymore
| because manufacturers intentionally killed them.
|
| There was even research ongoing at the time to make a slim
| flat panel CRT, but they cancelled that too.
|
| CRT due to being analog, doesn't support DRM, thus this
| contributed a lot to its rapid death. (among other reasons).
|
| People still use CRT in some arcade machines, medical
| industry (for example to diagnose certain visual disorders,
| and a plasticity research I know, require zero update lag,
| thus only possible with CRT), industrial applications where
| flat panels are too fragile and whatnot, but all of these are
| basically buying existing CRTs, driving up the price.
|
| There was some people trying to restart production, but...
| the companies that have the patents refuse to sell them, the
| companies that know how to make them also refuse to sell the
| machinery and whatnot, and the few independent attempts
| failed often due to regulations.
|
| Also in USA someone invented a machine to recycle CRTs, and
| ended being shut down due to regulations too, so in USA
| because of regulation instead of safely melting glass and
| lead, the law basically says to dump it all in landfills.
| jtl999 wrote:
| > medical industry (for example to diagnose certain visual
| disorders,
|
| I think I can guess what's this is about but do tell
| BearOso wrote:
| > 1. Arbitrary resolutions
|
| Consult the dot pitch of your monitor for the actual
| resolution. Everything is "scaled" to that resolution. Of
| course, the algorithm is physics, which is much better than
| cubic interpolation, so it does look slightly better, but a
| modern hidpi lcd will provide a higher dot pitch and thus a
| sharper, more accurate picture.
| speeder wrote:
| That is exactly my point, CRT don't scale things, monochrome
| CRT can even draw pure vector graphics, having "infinite"
| resolution.
| noisem4ker wrote:
| Color CRTs do have something akin to a native resolution
| too, defined by the phosphor arrangement, so they do
| "scale" things. It just happens that the scaling is
| naturally blurry and artifacts aren't noticeable.
| mnw21cam wrote:
| When do you ever see a monochrome CRT these days?
|
| I had one _mumble_ years ago as my second screen. It was
| really nice.
| strictnein wrote:
| What CRT(s) are you using?
| speeder wrote:
| My personal workstation has a Samsung Syncmaster that I don't
| have model number available now. The maximum resolution is
| around what people call 2k, but 60hz, that I don't like. My
| current resolution is 1600x1200 75hz.
| gruez wrote:
| >many modern screens still are 12bit
|
| Unless you're using a really cheap screen, most LCDs are 8 bits
| per color. The cheap ones use 6 bits + 2 bits FRC. 12 bits
| (presumably 4 bits per color) seems insanely low because it
| would mean only 16 possible shades per primary color.
|
| >meanwhile silicon graphics had a CRT screen in 1995 that was
| 48bit
|
| Source for this? 10 bit color support in graphics cards only
| became available around 2015. I find it hard to believe that
| there was 48 bits (presumably 16 bit per color) back in 1995,
| where 256 color monitors were common. Moreover, is there even a
| point of using 16 bits per color? We've only switched to 10 bit
| because of HDR.
|
| >7. Those things are crazy resilient, I still have some working
| screens from 80286 era (granted, the colors are getting weird
| now with aging phosphors), while some of my new flatpanels
| failed within 2 years with no repair possible.
|
| This sounds like standard bathtub curve/survivor bias to me.
| speeder wrote:
| I am talking about SGI workstations, indeed the 1995 ones
| didn't support (without modification) 48bit, instead it was
| "only" 12bit per channel, 3 channels, thus 36bit.
|
| Here is a photo of John Carmack using such workstation:
| https://external-
| preview.redd.it/EnhEls7GJgm9UxR8FE9Dc3FfH4X...
|
| In 1997 then they launched the "Octane" Workstation line,
| that could output 4 channels of 12bit, thus reaching 48bit.
|
| https://hardware.majix.org/computers/sgi.octane/
|
| One of the purposes of these machines, was make HDR images
| (among other things).
|
| Sadly for THAT, I don't have time to track sources now, I am
| busy with something else.
|
| As for a monitor that could support this stuff, one is SONY
| GDM90W11 that could do 1900x1200
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > 10 bit color support in graphics cards only became
| available around 2015.
|
| That's off by a decade.
|
| > 256 color monitors
|
| Is that a thing that exists?
|
| > We've only switched to 10 bit because of HDR.
|
| You can get clear banding on an 8 bit output, and 10 bit
| displays are used at the high end. 10-bit HDR isn't immune to
| banding, since most of the increased coding space goes into
| expanding the range. There's a good reason for 12 bit HDR to
| exist.
| gruez wrote:
| >That's off by a decade.
|
| mainstream support, at least. 10 bit HDR support for AMD
| cards was introduced with Fiji (2015), and Nvidia was
| introduced with Maxwell (2014)
| tomaskafka wrote:
| 2002. I remember this. Matrox was one of major GPU
| players at the time.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrox_Parhelia
| testfoobar wrote:
| Anyone else gets eye strain from retina macbooks? Everything
| looks _too_ sharp. The sharp contrast between the tiny pixels is
| visually perfect, but seemingly the perfection is what is causing
| me eye strain. Or perhaps it is some other effect.
|
| Its just that when I use my retina macbook for hours, my eyes
| hurt. In particular, it is a relief to go back to a older non-
| retina macbook that I use for some minor projects. The non-retina
| macbook seems less visually taxing on my eyes.
|
| I would appreciate any ideas.
| megous wrote:
| For coding I just use bitmap fonts, and I don't have any blurring
| issues this blog describes. I can do that even on old IBM T41's
| screen, and text still looks just fine.
| sly010 wrote:
| I concur with everything said, but it is still a bit unclear to
| me who is this article targeting. What is the takeaway? "Anyone
| who can afford a $1500 monitor should have one, so poor font
| designers don't have to break their back manually hinting fonts
| anymore"? Isn't that a bit like solving poverty by moving to a
| better neighborhood?
| the_af wrote:
| The technical details are all right (or seem right to me,
| anyway), but this is too opinionated for my liking. No, you do
| not _need_ a 4K monitor for software development. Some people
| might like them, some won 't. [edit/clarification: someone
| rightfully pointed out that nobody will actively _dislike_ a 4K
| monitor. I was unclear here: I meant "some people won't need
| them" more than "dislike them"]
|
| This sounds like when Jeff Atwood started that fad that if you
| didn't have three external monitors (yes, _three_ ) then your
| setup was suboptimal and you should be ashamed of yourself.
|
| No. Just no. The best developers I've known wrote code with tiny
| laptops with poor 1366x768 displays. They didn't think it was an
| impediment. Now I'm typing this on one of these displays, and
| it's terrible and I hate it (I usually use an external 1080p
| monitor), but it's also no big deal.
|
| A 1080p monitor is enough for me. I don't need a 4K monitor. I
| like how it renders the font. We can argue all day about clear
| font rendering techniques and whatnot, but if it looks good
| enough for me and many others, why bother?
| a1369209993 wrote:
| > nobody will actively _dislike_ a 4K monitor
|
| In addition to what thomaslord said [
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23554382 ], 4K monitors
| tend to be widescreen. 1280x1024 user here; you'll take my
| aspect ratio when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
| bitexploder wrote:
| What if I gave you more vertical pixels? Would that be okay?
| 1280x1440 maybe? Just a few more.
| ggregoire wrote:
| > No. Just no. The best developers I've known wrote code with
| tiny laptops [...] it's no big deal.
|
| I coded on a MacBook Air 11" on daily basis during 1 year. I
| thought it was no big deal too until I started developing
| myopia.
| partyboat1586 wrote:
| The author is biased because of ligatures. These special glyphs
| are a little more dense than normal text, e.g the triple line
| equals and need a higher res display to look good. I personally
| dislike ligatures, I have no problem chunking two characters
| together in my head.
| a1369209993 wrote:
| > e.g the triple line equals and need a higher res display to
| look good.
|
| Do you mean '[?]' (U+2261 identical to)? Because no, it very
| much doesn't; in fact I'm not sure I've ever seen a font
| where it looked bad short of vertical misalignment with
| surrounding text.
| partyboat1586 wrote:
| It looked bad in the article.
| logicprog wrote:
| My laptop has a 4K screen, but I switch to an external 27" QHD
| (2560x1440) display when I'm at my desk and boy ... I used to
| like that external monitor. Now all I can see, all I notice, is
| how much worse and more pixelated text looks on it than when
| I'm reading on the laptop's screen. It practically looks
| blurry!
|
| So yeah, nobody _needs_ a 4K display. But I would think most
| people don 't know what they're missing. (:
| compscistd wrote:
| I feel like HN as a whole want blogs to come back, and part of
| that is well written exposition (the technical details)
| followed by near-outlandish opinions that tend to generate
| discussion. It's more fun, it leads to more conversation (here
| we are!), and clarifies our own values.
|
| I think three monitors is distracting, but that whole community
| discussion gave me the opportunity to compare how I use a
| multi-monitor setup compared to others.
|
| I generally dislike how fonts are rendered at floating-point
| scaling or lower resolutions, but I too just learned to live
| with it over years of ignoring it. Unfortunately, now I can't
| unsee it!
| kilo_bravo_3 wrote:
| >I feel like HN as a whole want blogs to come back
|
| Blogs never left-- they may have withered to near-nothingness
| after the same exact people who claim to want them abandoned
| them, but they're still here.
|
| I may be wrong but I believe the people who claim to want
| blogs abandoned them for sites like Hacker News.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| HN is a link aggregator that gives a lot of blogs more
| exposure than they would otherwise get. I would say
| something like Twitter (micro-blogging and social
| networking) has contributed to decline of blogs.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| If you are going to blame anyone, it's easiest to blame
| Google's failed EEE attempt on the blogging world with
| sunset of Reader and attempt to push everyone to Google+.
| There were so many blogs and meta-blogs I saw directly
| lost in that fumbled transition. In trying to build their
| own Facebook, Google did irreparable harm to the blogging
| world in the process.
| hyperdimension wrote:
| I'm certainly no fan of Google, to say the very least.
| That said, they've kept Blogger relatively unchanged,
| which is nice.
|
| At least count your blessings that making blogging
| platforms must not impress promotion committees nearly as
| much as writing new chat apps.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| "Relatively unchanged" is such an interesting POV. It's
| been in such a stasis that I pretty much assume it is as
| dead as LiveJournal. Maybe not in literally the same way
| that LiveJournal got shuffled around in a shell game to
| some strange Russian owners, but in a very metaphorical
| sense.
|
| At one point Blogger in the early oughts was ahead of the
| pack in leading mainstream acceptance and usage of blogs.
| At one point my feed list was over half Blogger sites,
| but today I can think of only a few Blogger-hosted blogs
| left at all in my feed list, none of them have been
| updated recently, and those that have updated recently
| were claimed by spammers and (sadly) dropped from my
| list.
|
| I can't imagine there's much more than a skeleton crew at
| Blogger keeping the lights on, and I would be
| unsurprised, if in pushing the metaphor to the
| LiveJournal thing, to learn that they were being kept in
| the Bay Area equivalent of Siberia by some half-mad state
| actors that need Blogger's zombie to keep its current
| undead behavior in some strange psy ops nightmare.
| fouric wrote:
| > I think three monitors is distracting
|
| Could you elaborate on this? Specifically, do you feel that
| having three/multiple monitors is _necessarily_ distracting
| (no matter what you do with them) or just _encourages_
| distraction?
|
| My experience is the latter, and that if I am disciplined and
| only put windows from one task at a time on all three, then I
| have no more temptation to be distracted than I usually have
| at my internet-enabled glowbox, but maybe I'm an outlier.
| shoes_for_thee wrote:
| My experience is that my attention span sucks enough that
| there's not a functional difference between encouraging
| distraction and being necessarily distracting.
|
| I do basically all my work on my laptop without an external
| display. I use two displays for some specific tasks where I
| need to look at two things at once.
| Scarblac wrote:
| So it needs more discipline to use them, and I need to
| apply discipline for so many things already. I'm much
| better off with just the one screen.
| majormajor wrote:
| I'd take a 2560x1440 monitor (or 2 or 3!) over 1080p displays
| that the author seems to prefer, even if those 1080p display
| are actually 4k pixel-wise...
|
| Being able to see more things >>>>>>> sharper text, once you're
| past 100dpi or so at least.
| cocoa19 wrote:
| Funny you said that about Jeff. I read his article just
| recently and also happened to use three monitors in my office
| for a while.
|
| I started developing neck pain, so I had to go back to one.
|
| At least buying a 4k/120hz monitor is not painful to your body,
| only your wallet.
| valuearb wrote:
| We used to write great code on the original Mac's 512 by 384
| screen, doesn't mean we were very productive at it.
|
| A 5K monitor allows you to view an enormous set of workspaces
| and code, and sharply. It will cost you less than $300 a year,
| which for any decent developer is less than 1/2 of 1% of your
| annual revenues (and its tax deductible for contractors!).
|
| There is no way the increase on productivity doesn't far
| outweigh that cost.
| GoblinSlayer wrote:
| I write code on 1366x768 and 1080p and see no difference. 1080p
| is slightly bigger, but that's all.
| the_af wrote:
| Aside from the added screen real estate, I find my external
| 1080p LG monitor simply looks better than my Dell Latitude's.
| The laptop display just looks... cheaper. It's hard to
| explain, it just looks worse.
| gfodor wrote:
| I built the majority of the software for my first startup on a
| tiny under-powered netbook, since I couldn't afford a more
| expensive laptop. Today I have a very wide monitor for work.
| Agree that the display size doesn't seem to matter that much,
| but you do have to learn how to take advantage of features like
| multiple desktops, etc.
| lukashrb wrote:
| >The best developers I've known wrote code with tiny laptops
| with poor 1366x768 displays.
|
| I'm sorry to say this but that is not a real argument.
| acdha wrote:
| Acclimation is a huge factor: if you're used to writing on a
| small laptop that will seem normal but few people won't see a
| benefit moving to a larger display even if they don't expect
| it. That's one of the few durable research findings over the
| decades.
|
| Multiple monitors are slightly different: the physical gap
| means it's not a seamless switch and not every task benefits.
| arvinsim wrote:
| > Multiple monitors are slightly different: the physical gap
| means it's not a seamless switch and not every task benefits.
|
| Probably why ultrawides are gaining popularity.
| TheOperator wrote:
| One advantage to ultrawides that I think goes understated
| is their ability to display large amounts of tabular data
| easily.
| acdha wrote:
| Yes -- I notice this a lot while doing anything where I
| have an app and debugger / log windows open simultaneously.
| The extra width is an enormous win.
| smichel17 wrote:
| I agree, and not. I like having many windows side-by-side
| (code, docs, thing I'm developing), but I _also_ like
| having more vertical space. I keep one of my monitors
| vertical for coding, although that 's a little too tall so
| there's some lost space at the top and bottom (9:12 would
| be better for me).
|
| Really I want a single plus-shaped monitor that can act in
| several display modes:
|
| - mimic 3 monitors. Left and right are 4:3 (ideal for
| single application), center is 9:12 and larger. Shape: -|-
|
| - Single vertical monitor. Same as above but with left and
| right "virtual monitors" turned off for reduced eye strain.
| Shape: |
|
| - Single ultrawide horizontal monitor (connect the left and
| right parts with the strip in the middle, turn off unused
| pixels at the top and bottom). Shape: ---
| thomaslord wrote:
| Hello! Person who actively dislikes 4k here. In my experience:
|
| 1. No matter what operating system you're on, you'll eventually
| run into an application that doesn't render in high dpi mode.
| Depending on the OS that can mean it renders tiny, or that the
| whole things is super ugly and pixelated (WAY worse than on a
| native 1080p display)
|
| 2. If the 4k screen is on your laptop, good luck ever having a
| decent experience plugging in a 1080p monitor. Also good luck
| having anyone's random spare monitor be 4k.
|
| 3. Configuring my preferred linux environment to work with 4k
| is either impossible or just super time consuming. I use i3 and
| it adds way more productivity to my workflow than "My fonts are
| almost imperceptively sharper" ever could
|
| My setup is 2x24" 1920x1200 monitors - so I get slightly more
| vertical pixels than true 1080p, but in the form of screen real
| estate rather than improved density. I also have 20/20 vision
| as of the last time I was tested.
|
| My argument in favor of 1080p is that I find text to just be...
| completely readable. At various sizes, in various fonts,
| whatever syntax highlighting colors you want to use. Can you
| see the pixels in the font on my 24" 1080p monitor if you put
| your face 3" from the screen? Absolutely. Do I notice them day
| to day? Absolutely not.
|
| I genuinely think 4k provides no real benefit to me as a
| developer unless the screen is 27" or higher, because increased
| pixel density just isn't required. If more pixels meant
| slightly higher density but also came with more usable screen
| real estate, that'd be what made the difference for me.
| monadic2 wrote:
| I agree with all your points, however I've found the mac is
| extremely variable DPI friendly. I think the games with
| custom UIs (Europa Universalis IV comes to mind) are the only
| things that haven't adapted and it's hardly a problem if you
| set the scaling to "large text" or whatever, just a little
| pixelated like you would see on a 1080p screen.
| boltzmann_brain wrote:
| To each their own but it's mindblowing to me that one cannot
| see a massive different in text quality of 4k or higher
| monitors compared to ancient sub 4k resolutions.
| Bayart wrote:
| >My setup is 2x24" 1920x1200 monitors - so I get slightly
| more vertical pixels than true 1080p, but in the form of
| screen real estate rather than improved density.
|
| I'm working on an old 24"16/10 display (the venerable ProLite
| B2403WS) and an OK 32" 4K display with a VA panel. Both are
| properly calibrated.
|
| There is __no amount __of tinkering that can make fonts on
| the 24 " look good. It looks like dog shit in comparison to
| the 4K screen. It might not be obvious when all you got in
| front of your eyes is the 24" display, but it's blatant side
| to side.
|
| On top of it, the real life vertical real estate of the 4K
| display is also quite larger.
|
| I've never been a big 16/9 fan, but frankly at the size
| monitors come in today and the market prices, I don't a
| reason not to pick a few of these for developing.
| coffeemaniac wrote:
| I miss i3 so much. But I've succumbed to laziness and have
| been using my various macbooks. Agree that it's a huge
| productivity gain, moreso than any font improvements.
| tly_alex wrote:
| Same here.
| the_af wrote:
| Thanks for sharing your experience!
|
| > _My argument in favor of 1080p is that I find text to just
| be... completely readable._
|
| Yes, me too. To me it's more than just readable, I find the
| text crisp and comfortable. I don't need anything else.
| salex89 wrote:
| Completely agree! Went from a mediocre 2x1440p to high
| quality 2 x 4K, then back to a pair of equal quality 2x1440p.
|
| I would also add, when it comes to 4K and, for example,
| MacBooks, things fall apart quickly in my opinion. Cables,
| adapters/dongles/docking stations just must match up for
| everything to work in proper 60fps, and it gets worse if you
| have two external displays.
|
| As for my home set up, also stayed at 25" 1440p. Nice balance
| for work, hobby and occasional gaming without braking the
| bank for a top-tier GPU.
| porker wrote:
| By equal quality 2x1440p monitors are we talking Eizo
| quality or Dell UltraSharp quality?
| mthoms wrote:
| > Person who actively dislikes 4k here
|
| I don't think the reasons you illustrated support that
| conclusion. You don't _actively dislike_ the extra pixel
| density of a 4K display. You seem to only dislike the
| compatibility issues relevant to your use case.
|
| >No matter what operating system you're on, you'll eventually
| run into an application that doesn't render in high dpi mode.
|
| FWIW, I can't recall the last time I has a problem with apps
| not rendering correctly in hidpi mode on MacOS. Unless you've
| got a very specific legacy app that you rely on for regular
| use it's a non-issue.
|
| >Configuring my preferred linux environment to work with 4k
| is either impossible or just super time consuming
|
| Ah, I think I found the real issue ;-) If your linux desktop
| rendered 4K beautifully, seamlessly, and without any scaling
| issues right out of the box, I could all but guarantee that
| your opinion would be different.
| z3t4 wrote:
| Im on Gnome and use fractal scaling . 2x and everything got
| too big. But 1.6 looks OK. Its actually not on the app layer,
| its the screen that is scaled up. Although some low level
| programs can have issues with mouse pointer position if they
| dont take into account the scaling.
| jcelerier wrote:
| i3 user on a 4K screen here, has worked fine since 2014 for
| me (with the exception of the random super old TCL/Tk app) ?
| https://i.imgur.com/b8jVooO.png
| slantyyz wrote:
| So I'm a little nuts in that I run 2 x 27" 4K monitors side
| by side with no scaling. 27" is about the smallest I can
| tolerate 1:1 pixel sizes.
|
| Since aging has forced me into wearing reading glasses, I
| wear single vision computer glasses that are optimized for
| the distance range of my monitors' closest and furthest
| points.
|
| Because I dont have scaling enabled, I don't get any of the
| HiDpi issues that I've gotten on my laptops with Windows.
|
| I have found that I am still wanting for even more screen
| real estate, and for a time I had a pair of ultrawide 23"
| monitors underneath my main monitors, but it created more
| problems than it solved and I recently went back to only two
| monitors.
| TylerE wrote:
| 4K on a desktop is just sorta silly. Now.... 1440p is a very
| useful bump over 1080.
| turtlebits wrote:
| Being used to MacBooks with retina screens, 4K on at 30" is
| perfect to me as "retina". Anything larger needs to be 5k
| or 6k. 1440p is passable on <24".
| mulmen wrote:
| My day job involves untangling SQL that was written under
| fire. I consume more spaghetti than a pre-covid Olive
| Garden. Every vertical pixel is precious for grokking what
| some sub query is doing in the context of the full
| statement.
| sgt wrote:
| You still need to scale the resolution to make it easily
| readable on most common monitor sizes like 27". The end
| result is really good and sharp.
| hadlock wrote:
| 27" x 1440p has been my go-to for a while now. Works well
| without scaling between win/mac/linux, does not dominate
| the desk completely, high quality monitors are readily
| available in this resolution etc etc.
| nine_k wrote:
| FWIW, switching between resolutions in my favorite desktop
| environment, Xfce, is two steps: # This
| affects every GTK app. xfconf-query -c xsettings -p
| /Xft/DPI -s 144
|
| The second step is going to about:config in Firefox, and
| setting layout.css.devPixelsPerPx to a higher value than 1.0.
| I really need to write an extension to do that in one click.
|
| What is _really_ tricky, though, it 's having two monitors
| with different DPI. Win 10 does an acceptable job with it; no
| Linux tools I'm aware of can handle it reasonably well. Some
| xrandr incantations can offer partial solutions.
| jandrese wrote:
| Even Win10 struggles when you move windows between
| different DPI domains. Apps will slide in HUGE or tiny
| until you get past the midway point. And when the system
| goes to sleep everything can go to hell. You can come back
| to small message windows being blown up to huge sizes or
| windows crushed down to a tiny square. You can forget about
| laying out your icons perfectly on your desktop too,
| they'll get rearranged all the time. Even more fun when you
| remote into a high DPI display with a low DPI display. It
| actually works pretty well, but stuff will get shrunk or
| blown up randomly when you to back to the high DPI display.
| StillBored wrote:
| Logically having your OS maintain a consistent UI size
| makes sense until you try it without.
|
| I'm running a couple medium high density monitors
| alongside one of the highest density ones available. I
| don't scale the HIDPI monitor at all, which means when I
| drag windows to it they are tiny. Instead it works in two
| ways, as a status screen for activity monitors/etc and as
| a text/document editing screen. AKA putting adobe
| acrobat, firefox or sublime/emacs/etc on the high DPI
| screen and then zooming in gives all the font
| smoothing/etc advantages of high DPI without needing OS
| support.
|
| So the TLDR is, turn off dpi scaling, and leave the hidpi
| screen as a dedicated text editor/etc with the font sizes
| bumped to a comfortable size. Bonus here is that the
| additional effort of clicking the menu/etc will encourage
| learning keyboard shortcuts.
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| FWIW, my main monitor is a 43" 4k display, and it works
| perfectly fine on AwesomeWM - but I' don't use any scaling,
| the 4k is purely for more screen real estate - literally like
| having 4 perfectly aligned borderless 24" monitors. I can fit
| 10 full A4 pages of text simultaneously.
| jciochon wrote:
| 43" seems rather large--how far away do you sit? If it were
| as close as a more "normal" sized monitor (~2-3 feet),
| wouldn't you be craning your neck all day trying to see
| different parts of the screen?
| bitexploder wrote:
| Nah. I have a 49" curved 1440p monitor. Things you look
| at less often go to the sides. You can fit 4 reasonable
| sized windows side by side. Code editor holds over 100
| columns at a comfortable font size for me 40 year old
| eyes. It's the best monitor setup I have ever had. You
| can spend less and get the exact same real estate with
| two 27" 1440p monitors. Either way, it is a fine amount
| of real estate and not at all cumbersome for all day use
| in my case.
| cpursley wrote:
| Which model is your 49"?
| tomxor wrote:
| Haven't you effectively escaped the super hi-dpi issues of
| parent? I think he is referring to use of smaller screens
| at 4k.
|
| Interesting idea thought just effectively having a massive
| monitor.
| gorgoiler wrote:
| Which display in particular are you recommending, and what
| is the latency like?
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| I've only seriously tested the Dell P4317Q that I have in
| the office. Others have had good success with small 4k
| TVs. Can't say I've noticed anything about the latency,
| but I've never gamed or watched movies on it, so IDK
| okasaki wrote:
| I use Samsung 4k TV's (55in and 43in) at work and home
| and the experience is absolutely fantastic. In game mode
| the latency is reported to be 11ms and there's no
| difference visible to me compared to 60hz computer
| monitors.
| mulmen wrote:
| I recently upgraded to a 43" 4k monitor and use it the way
| you describe. I'm not sure I am happy with it. The real
| estate is nice but it might be too much. UI elements end up
| very far away. I rarely _need_ all that space.
|
| I either need a bigger (deeper) desk to sit back farther or
| just a smaller monitor physically with the same resolution.
| saltcured wrote:
| I am somewhere in between. I don't go for hi-DPI but am
| using 28" 4K on the desktop and 14" 1080p on my laptops. So
| identical dot pitch and scaling settings. I just have more
| display area for more windows, exactly as you say like a
| 2x2 seamless array of screens.
|
| I actually evolved my office setup from dual 24" 1920x1200
| and went to dual 28" 4K. But with the COVID lockdown, I
| only have one of the same spec monitor at home for several
| months, and realize that I barely miss the second monitor.
| I was probably only using 1.25 monitors in practice as the
| real estate is vast.
|
| People who complain that a monitor is too large should stop
| opening a single window full-screen and discover what it is
| like to have a windowing system...
| slantyyz wrote:
| I have found DisplayFusion and now PowerToys' FancyZones
| to be indispensable on Windows desktops with a ton of
| real estate.
| sevensor wrote:
| I had a similar setup at a previous job -- one of the early
| 39" TVs. It could only drive 4k at 30Hz, but for staring at
| text, nothing could beat it. It takes a good tiling window
| manager to get the most out of this setup. By the same
| token, a good tiling WM also makes a tiny little netbook
| screen feel much bigger. So I guess what I'm really saying
| is, use a tiling WM!
| jdhzzz wrote:
| I'm in the same boat. More real estate is the big win. I
| made a pandemic purchase of a TCL 43" 4k TV to use as a
| monitor primarily for programming. I sit a bit further from
| it: 30" rather than 24ish when working on the laptop. I
| drive it with a 2019 inexpensive Acer laptop running Ubuntu
| 20.04 and xfce. Every so often an update kills xWindows,
| but I can start it in safe mode and get things working.
|
| I do find my head is on a swivel comparatively, but while
| noticeable without being a negative. Overall I like it. A
| lot. The only thing that is painful is sharing the desktop
| over Webex/skype. That does bog the system down and
| requires manual resizing of font size to inflate it so that
| viewers on lower resolution systems can cope with it.
| bitexploder wrote:
| I have a 49" curved monitor. It is effectively two 27" 1440p
| monitors stapled together (5120x1440). It is the best monitor
| I have ever had. 1440p has a very decent [higher than
| typical] pixel density but is not "retina". Fonts look pretty
| smooth, but you can still see pixels if you try really hard.
| Overall, I do think high density screens look amazing, but
| the software has not quite caught up to them. The benefits
| are on the softer side, and if I could just have magical
| mega-high-DPI displays with no side effects, sure why not? As
| it stands, 49" curved monitor is pretty fine. It fits four
| windows side by side at reasonable resolutions.
|
| Primary apps go in the middle, such as code editor, etc..
| Tertiary windows, such as documentation go on the outer
| edges. Still quite usable, but a little out of the way for
| extended reading.
| abnercoimbre wrote:
| Hey, do you mind sharing more info. on how to get the
| monitor? I'm looking to invest in a curved one since it's
| an experience I've never had. And are there retina models
| out there, or is it not worth it, in your view?
| rvolosatovs wrote:
| > 1. No matter what operating system you're on, you'll
| eventually run into an application that doesn't render in
| high dpi mode. Depending on the OS that can mean it renders
| tiny, or that the whole things is super ugly and pixelated
| (WAY worse than on a native 1080p display)
|
| Never happened to me in 4 years, see below. That said, I
| barely use any graphical programs besides kitty, firefox,
| thunderbird and spotify.
|
| > 3. Configuring my preferred linux environment to work with
| 4k is either impossible or just super time consuming. I use
| i3 and it adds way more productivity to my workflow than "My
| fonts are almost imperceptively sharper" ever could
|
| This is just not true. I have used the same 32" 4k monitor
| for 4 years running NixOS with bspwm (a tiling window
| manager, which does even less than i3) on 3 different laptops
| - thinkpad x230 (at 30 Hz), x260 and x395 and it all worked
| completely fine.
|
| I used a script like this to setup monitors, I would run it
| every time I would change my monitor setup (e.g. on the go):
| https://github.com/rvolosatovs/infrastructure/blob/0e17a1421.
| ..
|
| It depends on a very simple tool I wrote, because I was sick
| with `xrandr`: https://github.com/rvolosatovs/gorandr , but
| `xrandr` could easily be used as alternative.
|
| Recently I switched to Sway on Wayland and it could not be
| smoother - everything just works with no scripting, including
| hot-plug.
|
| > I genuinely think 4k provides no real benefit to me as a
| developer unless the screen is 27" or higher, because
| increased pixel density just isn't required. If more pixels
| meant slightly higher density but also came with more usable
| screen real estate, that'd be what made the difference for
| me.
|
| Indeed, screen size is way more important than resolution. In
| fact, even 4k at 27" seemed too small for me when I had to
| use that in the office - I would either have to deal with
| super small font sizes and straining my eyes or sacrificing
| screen space by zooming in.
| turtlebits wrote:
| OS X handles hidpi perfectly. Never had an app that didn't
| display as it should.
|
| I do agree with you that 4K under 27" isn't necessary.
| jseliger wrote:
| _3. Configuring my preferred linux environment to work with
| 4k is either impossible or just super time consuming_
|
| This seems like a long-standing problem with Linux, rather
| than a reason to dislike high-res screens.
| fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
| So far, I've never had an issue with KDE Plasma and 4K@60Hz
| on linux, once I realized that you can't just use any old
| HDMI cable: you need DisplayPort or HDMI2
| enobrev wrote:
| Why not both? If I'm on linux, with no interest in changing
| and perfectly happy with my display, and 4k doesn't work
| easily on my system, why would I be interested in a 4k
| screen?
| dlannoye wrote:
| For #3, the creator of the i3 window manager is using the 8k
| monitor mentioned in the article I am pretty sure this is
| possible.
| https://michael.stapelberg.ch/posts/2017-12-11-dell-up3218k/
| AshamedCaptain wrote:
| One can definitely still see the pixels in a 4K 24'' monitor.
| That is not the point.
|
| But I do agree with points 1 and 2 (they tend to work better
| on windows, though).
|
| On the other hand, what about 3? I would find it ridiculous
| that it'll take you more than 5 seconds to enlarge DPI (no
| multi-monitor) even on the weirdest of X11 WMs. X11 is
| designed for this....
| ogre_codes wrote:
| > 1. No matter what operating system you're on, you'll
| eventually run into an application that doesn't render in
| high dpi mode
|
| You lost me right here on line 1.
|
| If there are apps on MacOS that can't handle high dpi mode, I
| haven't run into them as a developer (or doing photo editing,
| video editing, plus whatever other hobbies I do). Also, I
| don't have any trouble with plugging my highDPI MacBook into
| a crappy 1080p display at work.
|
| > 3. Configuring my preferred linux environment to work with
| 4k is either impossible or just super time consuming.
|
| Things like this are exactly why I left Linux for MacOS. _I
| absolutely get why you might want to stick with Linux_ , but
| this is a Linux + HighDPI issue (maybe a Windows + highDPI
| issue also), not a general case.
|
| > I genuinely think 4k provides no real benefit to me as a
| developer unless the screen is 27" or higher, because
| increased pixel density just isn't required.
|
| You could say the same for any arbitrary DPI; 96dpi isn't
| "Required", we got by fine with 72dpi. It's all about
| ergonomics as far as I'm concerned.
| tomxor wrote:
| Another linux+i3 user here, I've not tried 4k yet but you
| confirmed my suspicions.
|
| I did a lot of research before buying an xps-13 and went with
| the 1080p version due to basically all the reasons you just
| stated + poor battery life and video performance.
|
| I have hope for the future though... what would really make
| transitioning easier is a way to automatically upscale
| incompatible programs, even if it means nearest neighbor
| scaling at least it will make them usable on super hi-dpi
| monitors.
| auggierose wrote:
| If you are on macOS, all is good. Never had a problem with
| any of my 4 monitors (3x4K, 1x5K). I set the scaling to a
| size I like, and the text is super crisp. I don't see how any
| programmer can NOT like that.
| mulmen wrote:
| How do you manage multiple monitors with MacOS? I was doing
| this until recently and every single login involved
| rearranging my windows because MacOS moves them all to
| whatever display woke up first.
|
| In my experience MacOS multi-monitor support is effectively
| non-existent.
|
| Recently I picked up a 49" ultra-ultra wide monitor
| (basically 2x27" panels). It is one monitor but MacOS can't
| drive it. They just don't detect that resolution. I
| switched to a 43" 4k monitor (technically more pixels) and
| MacOS drives it fine.
|
| My experience with MacOS is not "it just works" unless you
| are doing something Apple already predicted. That's fine
| for me, I just wish they still sold a reasonable monitor
| themselves so I could be assured it would work properly.
| eludwig wrote:
| It helped me to check "Displays have separate spaces" in
| the Mission Control panel. MacOS seems to remember what
| went where with this checked.
| mulmen wrote:
| That might work but it breaks my workflow in another way.
| Physically the display is a single panel. I organize
| workspaces by task so changing to a new one needs to
| change "both" panels because I'm actually using them as
| one.
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| > every single login involved rearranging my windows
| because MacOS moves them all to whatever display woke up
| first
|
| Maybe we can get to the bottom of this. What is your use
| case?
|
| I ask because as long as I plug them into the same ports
| it remembers how I arranged them previously (2018 macbook
| pro 15"). I haven't had to arrange them in over a year...
| even remembered when updating to latest operating system.
| Occasionally, I even plug in my LCD TV as a third
| external monitor and it remembers where that one should
| go in the arrangement too.
| mulmen wrote:
| MacOS cannot drive one 5120x1440 display using Intel
| display hardware. It will happily drive two displays at
| 2560x1440. The monitor had multiple inputs so by putting
| it in PBP mode I was able to drive one input as USB-C and
| another as HDMI through a dock converter. This means the
| wakeup was not in sync. MacOS would see one monitor,
| arrange everything on that then realize there was a
| second one and fail to move anything back in this "new"
| arrangement.
|
| The fact that it was all one physical monitor may have
| further confused the OS as a sibling comment mentions.
|
| The solution was to sell the monitor to a Windows-using
| architect friend and buy a different panel with a
| resolution MacOS supports. She has a macbook too but it's
| the fancy one with discrete graphics which _can_ drive
| 5120x1440.
|
| The value proposition of MacOS to me is that I plug
| things in and they work. Any fiddling beyond that
| destroys the benefits of using this platform. I'm willing
| to iterate on hardware until I find something that works.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > MacOS cannot drive one 5120x1440 display using Intel
| display hardware.
|
| For other readers, this is not technically correct. The
| 2020 13" MacBook Pro can drive the Pro Display XDR with
| its integrated Intel graphics.
| mulmen wrote:
| I do not have a 2020 MacBook so I cannot test but the Pro
| Display XDR is not 5120x1440, it is 6016x3384. The
| problem with my current MacBooks ('14 15" RMBP and '17
| 13" MBP, both with Intel Iris graphics) is that while
| they can drive 4k displays they cannot drive the
| 5120x1440 resolution _specifically_.
|
| This limitation is specific to the MacOS drivers. Windows
| in Bootcamp is able to drive 5120x1440 on these devices.
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| Ah ok, ya maybe it's related to it being the same
| monitor.
|
| I have two different monitors that wake up at very
| different speeds and it's no problem here. My 15" 2013
| and 2015 macbook pros had no problem with this either,
| and I've had 4 different monitors in the mix through
| those years too. I've transitioned to a CalDigit
| Thunderbolt 3 dock now and still no problem with it
| remembering.
|
| So there's definitely something unique about that
| monitor. That is sad news for me too -- I'm hoping they
| make a 2x4K ultra wide monitor like that someday.
| Hopefully they've solved this problem by then.
| auggierose wrote:
| That used to happen occasionally to me as well in earlier
| macOS versions. Didn't have to do any rearranging since
| Mojave, I think, definitely not on Catalina.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| >How do you manage multiple monitors with MacOS? I was
| doing this until recently and every single login involved
| rearranging my windows because MacOS moves them all to
| whatever display woke up first.
|
| At least for apps that are dedicated to one screen +
| virtual desktop, right click its icon in the dock and
| assign it to that display and workspace.
|
| Note that the effectiveness of window restoration also
| depends on the make/model of your monitors - many
| manufacturers incorrectly share EDID's across all units
| of the same model and sometimes across multiple models,
| making it much more difficult for operating systems to
| uniquely identify them.
| [deleted]
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| Text honestly looks like shit an any non 4k external
| monitor for macOS it's kind of crazy how bad it is compared
| to windows.
| monocasa wrote:
| It's just a different stylistic choice. A lot of font
| nerds prefer the OSX choices because they try to stay
| true to the original font spacing without regard to the
| pixel grid.
| noisem4ker wrote:
| Missing sub-pixel antialiasing is plain technical
| deficiency, not a stylistic choice. I agree arguments can
| be had about hinting and aligning the glyphs to the pixel
| grid, but not much beyond that.
| monocasa wrote:
| It's still there, you just have to go turn it on.
|
| But yes, I didn't know that they ripped out subpixel
| rendering in late 2018 by default.
| namdnay wrote:
| I'd say all is bad with MacOS and external monitors... It
| can't manage text scaling like Windows, so you either have
| to downscale resolution and get everything blurry or keep
| the ridiculously high native resolution and have everything
| tiny :(
| monadic2 wrote:
| Is it not visible for you in the displays settings? You
| DO need all the monitors to have the same DPI or you'd
| have a window rendered half in one dpi and half in
| another when dragging across a display boundary.
| zzo38computer wrote:
| > No matter what operating system you're on, you'll
| eventually run into an application that doesn't render in
| high dpi mode.
|
| It might depend on the program, too. Some might only work in
| pixels. Fortunately, it is usually not a problem if you are
| trying to run a program designed for Gameboy; the emulator
| should be able to scale it automatically, subject to the user
| setting. I don't know if any X server has a setting to
| magnify mouse cursor shapes, but it seems like it should be
| possible to implement in the X server. Also, it seems like
| SDL 1.x has no environment variable to magnify the image. My
| own program Free Hero Mesh (which I have not worked on in a
| while, because I am working on other stuff) allows icons to
| be of any size up to 255x255 pixels (the puzzle set can
| contain icons of any square size up to 255x255, and may have
| multiple sizes; it will try to find the best size based on
| the user setting, using integer scaling to grow them if
| necessary), but currently is limited to a single built-in 8x8
| font for text. If someone ports it to a library that does
| allow zooming, then that might help, too. However, it is not
| really designed for high DPI displays, and it might not be
| changed unless someone with a high DPI display wants to use
| it and modifies the program to support a user option for
| scaling text too (and possibly also scaling icons to a bigger
| size than 255x255) (then I might merge their changes,
| possibly).
|
| Still, I don't need 4K. The size I have is fine, but
| unfortunately too many things use big text; some web pages
| zoom text by viewport size, which I hate, and a bigger
| monitor would then just make it worse.
| bitwize wrote:
| What X server? You should be using Wayland. X does not
| intrinsically support automatic scaling. Wayland does.
| zzo38computer wrote:
| The protocol is irrelevant. It isn't an extension to the
| protocol, and would not be seen by clients. It is an
| implementation detail.
| bitwize wrote:
| Technically, that's true, but "Wayland is inherently
| better at security/DPI scaling/other" is one of those
| cultural myths that eventually come true because of the
| people who believe in it. It _would_ be possible to add
| these improvements to the X server, but no one wants to
| maintain or improve the X server anymore. All the
| developer effort is behind Wayland. So to get those
| benefits, you have to use Wayland.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > some web pages zoom text by viewport size, which I hate,
| and a bigger monitor would then just make it worse.
|
| Not that it excuses bad UX, but you might consider keeping
| your browser window at something below full width. I find
| this more comfortable anyway.
|
| Total aside: I've noticed Windows and Linux users tend to
| keep their windows fully maximized, whereas Mac users
| don't. Doesn't apply to everyone of course, but enough to
| be noticed. This was true even before Apple changed the
| behavior of the green Zoom button, and I've always wondered
| why.
| bityard wrote:
| > I've noticed Windows and Linux users tend to keep their
| windows fully maximized
|
| Interesting, I've noticed the exact opposite. Mac devs,
| especially younger ones, tend to have full-screen IDEs
| and browsers and constantly flick back and forth between
| apps. My theory was always that Windows and Linux users
| had gotten comfortable with the desktop metaphor while a
| large percentage of newer Mac users grew up using iPads
| which were all full-screen, all the time.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| Quick note I perhaps should have clarified, I wasn't
| thinking about the Mac's "full screen mode". This was
| something I noticed about other students in my high
| school a decade ago (why it's coming to mind now, I have
| no idea), before full screen mode existed on Mac.
|
| It used to be that if you clicked the green button on
| Mac, most apps (not all apps, for weird aqua-UI reasons,
| but certainly web browsers) would grow to fill the screen
| without outright hiding the menu bar and dock, just like
| the maximize button on Windows.
| stormbrew wrote:
| My experience pre-full screen on macs was that the green
| button would do just about any random thing _except_ make
| the window fill the screen. It would certainly change,
| usually it would fill vertically (but not always) but
| almost never horizontally.
|
| To this day I still rarely press that button because of
| years of it doing nothing but unpredictable nonsense.
| Nullabillity wrote:
| I guess macOS' window management is bad enough that
| treating it as a pile of paper is the only way to manage.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| I don't see how alt-tabbing through maximized windows on
| macOS is different from Windows and Linux like the OP is
| suggesting. Though I do keep my browser at half-width on
| my ultrawide monitor because it's somewhat of an
| exotic/untested aspect ratio for websites.
|
| Also any power user that cares will use a tool like Divvy
| on macOS for arranging windows with hotkeys.
| t-writescode wrote:
| For one, if you have multiple max-size windows of a
| single application in Mac OS X, alt-tab doesn't go
| between those windows. command-tab does.
|
| Alt-tab goes between applications
| devy wrote:
| > The technical details are all right (or seem right to me,
| anyway), but this is too opinionated for my liking.
|
| The author, Nikita, did exactly mention that point, mid page of
| the article under the heading of "Get a monitor".
| Let me express an opinion. This is my blog, after all.
|
| So yeah, opinionated piece, no big deal. And I happens to agree
| with him.
| phkahler wrote:
| I use a 55" curved 4k TV as my monitor. It's not pixel density
| that's important for reading text, but contrast. The best thing
| for coding is a high contrast bitmapped font with no smoothing.
|
| My monitor is still available at Walmart for $500. It's like an
| actual desktop when you can spread out all your stuff.
| johncalvinyoung wrote:
| My personal requirement though is 4:4:4 color. Too many TVs
| will only accept 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 chroma, and colored text on
| black will look horrid.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| We could still be programming at 640x480 like we did back in
| the early 90s. Thankfully, technology marched on and we went to
| 1024x768 and then even better resolutions. One would think that
| technology would march forward until we had ink on paper-
| resolution displays, because why not? But of course, we could
| still make do with 640x480 like we did way back when.
|
| The bigger issue is that, like we've been doing for the last 40
| years, a cutting edge 2X display should eventually become the
| new 1X display, while the former 1X's become obsolete. This
| makes building software a bit easier, even with resolution
| independence, it is difficult supporting more than 2
| generations of display technologies (e.g. right now we have 100
| PPI, 150 PPI, 220 PPI, even 300 PPI).
| chrismorgan wrote:
| Have you _used_ a 4K display, for at least a few days? If you
| have, I still disagree with you, but if not, I'm going to
| completely ignore your opinion, because I find the difference
| in how pleasant it is to use a good screen just _so_ vast.
| Sure, you can do things on a lousy monitor, but it's terrible
| and you'll hate it. :)
|
| (My first laptop was a second-hand HP 6710b at 1680x1050 for
| 15'', and that set me to never accepting 1366x768. So my next
| laptop was 15'' 1920x1080, and now I use a 13'' (though I'd
| rather have had 15'') 3000x2000 Surface Book, and it's _great_.
| Not everyone will be able to justify the expense of 4K or
| similar (though I do think that anyone that's getting their
| living by it should _very_ strongly consider it worthwhile),
| but I honestly believe that it would be better if laptop makers
| all agreed to manufacture no more 15'' laptops with 1366x768
| displays, and take 1920x1080 as a minimum acceptable quality.
| As it is, some people understandably want a cheap laptop and
| although the 1920x1080 panel is not much dearer than the
| 1366x768 panel, you commonly just _can't buy_ properly cheap
| laptops with 1920x1080 panels.)
| GoblinSlayer wrote:
| 4K display isn't bigger though. It only has better
| resolution, the size of all graphic elements in centimeters
| stays the same.
| chrismorgan wrote:
| That's the whole point in question: that higher resolution
| for a given size is an extremely good thing.
| distances wrote:
| That's true, undeniably. But I think the better tradeoff
| still is to go up in size: IMO the optimal monitor size
| is 38". Big enough, but not too much head turning. Would
| I get a sharper 38" if possible? Sure. But I wouldn't
| compromise on size to gain higher DPI.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| Not really. There is an end point. Also, resolution is
| not free, this is a tradeoff, when you push more pixels
| on screen it means more work for the GPU (or CPU in some
| cases) and more loading time and space to load all those
| high-dpi resources...
|
| At this point I clearly prefer lower latency and higher
| framerate over more pixels.
| chrismorgan wrote:
| Sure, to a point. But the step-up in question here (1080p
| to 4K, at sizes like 15-27'') has _clearly_ visible
| benefits.
|
| And sure, resolution isn't free, but at these levels that
| was an argument for the hardware of eight years ago, not
| the hardware of today. All modern hardware can cope with
| at least one 4K display with perfect equanimity.
| Excluding games (which you can continue to run at the
| lower resolutions if necessary), almost no software will
| be measurably affected in latency or frame rate by being
| bumped from 1080p to 4K. Graphics memory requirements
| will be increased to as much as 4x, but that's typically
| not a problem.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| When my monitors die (they are already 12 years old) I'll
| switch to 120Hz or more, but I am still not convinced by
| the high-dpi monitors I've tried.
|
| Also, I don't like using non-integer resolution scaling,
| the results are always a bit blurry/unpleasant, even on
| high-dpi monitors.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| I used a 4K display at work for about 18 months. I still
| won't trade my 1680x1050 monitors for anything else until
| they die.
|
| I don't mind the pixels, as long as the font rendering system
| is good.
|
| Of course I understand the need for a Retina display if
| you're working on macOS...
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > Have you used a 4K display?
|
| I'll go one step further: I used the LG 27" 5K Display for
| two whole years before returning to a 34" Ultrawide with a
| more typical DPI.
|
| Obviously I preferred the pixel density and image quality of
| the high-DPI screen, but I find myself more productive on the
| 34" Ultrawide with a regular DPI. (FWIW, LG now has a newer
| pseudo-5K Ultrawide that strikes a balance between the two).
|
| I look forward to the day that monitors of all sizes are
| available with high DPI, but I don't consider it a must-have
| upgrade just yet.
|
| Also Note that Apple made font rendering worse starting in OS
| X 10.14 by disabling subpixel AA. Using a regular DPI monitor
| on Windows or Linux is a better experience than using the
| same monitor on OS X right now. If you're only comparing
| monitors based on OSX, you're not getting the full story.
| jasonlotito wrote:
| Just want to second the use of an ultrawide (3440x1440).
| It's such a better experience all around. I can't go back
| to a non-ultrawide monitor.
| ashtonbaker wrote:
| I also have 3440x1440 on my Dell monitor at home, and I
| love it.
|
| My work monitor is a really nice 27" 4k LG monitor, which
| a coworker picked out. He's a real monitor specs nerd and
| made a lot of assertions like the OP. The scaling issues
| are endless and really bother me, and I don't notice the
| higher PPI at all. I much prefer the ultrawide Dell - it
| gives me a feeling that I don't even need to maximize my
| windows and I can still have lots of space.
| LegitShady wrote:
| I upgraded from dual 34" ultrawides to one 49" super
| ultrawide and won't look back. 5140x1440 on a single
| monitor at 120hz.
| kazinator wrote:
| That's just two monitors in one that you cannot rotate
| into a two-pane, effectively 2880x2570 configuration.
| Nice that there no division, of course.
| LegitShady wrote:
| It takes up zero desk space (one monitor arm that lets me
| adjust it anytime I want), and I don't need to rotate it.
| I've never found that a useful thing to do.
|
| On the other hand, when you're done work its amazing for
| flight simulator or other games that support the aspect
| ratio properly.
| pmiller2 wrote:
| > ... too opinionated for my liking.
|
| Put yourself in the mindset of a typography geek. Then, by
| default, you will care about almost all of these things. I'm
| not saying you _should_ care about all of these things all or
| most of the time, but that 's the correct mindset to put you in
| sync with the author's conclusions (mostly -- I don't really
| think 120Hz is that big a deal).
| GoblinSlayer wrote:
| Font are optimized for resolution they were designed for.
| Courier New is optimized for 800x600, and you can't have it
| on anything beyond 1024x768.
| DavidVoid wrote:
| > I don't really think 120Hz is that big a deal
|
| IMO 120 Hz monitors are overrated for pretty much everything
| _except_ for FPS games (and similar fast-paced interactive
| titles).
|
| I have a 144 Hz display and I would not want to go back to a
| 60 Hz display for gaming. At some point, my monitor changed
| to a 60 Hz refresh rate without telling me after some driver
| update. The first time I played Overwatch after that happened
| I could immediately tell that something was _wrong_ , since
| the game just didn't feel as responsive and smooth as it
| usually does.
| coppolaemilio wrote:
| Another OW player in HN? :) I feel the same about the 144hz
| monitor I have, only really worth it for playing OW, the
| rest of the time is nice but I feel like I'm not getting
| enough out of it. Maybe next monitor I get will be 4k, but
| not sure for now.
| distances wrote:
| After starting with 144 Hz monitor the difference to 60 Hz
| already with desktop mouse movements is so clear that it's
| immediately obvious if the refresh rate changed.
| dsabanin wrote:
| I love my 3 monitor setup. In 20 years of coding, I finally
| reached peak productivity in my workspace. No switching between
| windows, ease of throwing a window aside for monitoring, laying
| out information and tools side to side. It's incredible once
| you readjust your habits and learn to use that new space. I
| compare it to having a large, wide desk when you're working on
| something. Who wouldn't want that?
|
| I was one of the people who worked on 15" retina MBP
| everywhere, even in the office where I had 30" on my desk, to
| not have to readjust and keep optimal habits for the screen
| size. Now I simply refuse to work on a laptop at all, it feels
| like being trapped into a tiny box and I get literally
| claustrophobic :)
| holoduke wrote:
| I appreciate your favour. I am probably an exception, but i
| like to code on just a single 15 inch MacBook. I switch
| screens by pressing key combinations. I believe faster, but
| also more convenient than moving your head around constantly.
| for me everything must be accessible by various key combos.
| once I have that working I hardly need to use the trackpad
| mouse anymore. the truth is that most people in my team's
| work with dual or triple screens.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| Agree with other commenter who said you know what's best for
| you. Good job on iterating toward an optimal setup!
|
| But I will tell you why multi monitor setups aren't the best
| for me. It doesn't feel like having a nice big desk to work
| at; rather, it's like having a separate desk for each
| monitor, and I have to move from one to the other to use it.
| With more than one centered monitor, I have to move my head
| to look between them, or my entire body, so that I can face
| straight towards whichever monitor I'm currently looking at.
| I've tried going back to multi monitor setups many times and
| every time I get tired of it faster due to straining my neck,
| eyes, elbows and shoulders with all that turning-to.
|
| For me, it's one very nice monitor, with my laptop plugged in
| in clamshell mode (although now I leave my rMBP cracked so I
| can use TouchID).
|
| I've also been using a window manager (Moom) with hotkeys to
| be able to set up three vertical windows on my screen. That
| seems to be the sweet spot for me: I can have multiple
| different code editors, or editor+terminal+web, or throw in
| email/slack/whatever into the mix. (I can also split a
| vertical column to two windows to achieve a 2 row x 3 column
| layout, and lots of other layouts, 1x1 vert/hor, 2x2,
| centered small/large...) I feel like I've arrived where
| you're at, my perfect setup!
|
| I also still enjoy the 13" rMBP screen, although I can't get
| to 3 columns, and lately the keyboard hurts my wrists after
| extended usage. I use a Kinesis Freestyle 2 with the
| monitor+rMBP which has been absolutely fantastic for typing
| ergonomics.
| [deleted]
| cecilpl2 wrote:
| I got a 6 monitor stand for my home office, filled it with
| 22-24" screens, and never looked back. It is phenomenal.
| specialist wrote:
| I desperately want to use the new iPad Magic Keyboard with my
| iMac.
|
| I _LOVE_ the trackpad & keyboard combo on my MacBookPro. For
| a while, I was using Teleport to use my laptop as the input
| device for my iMac.
|
| I do occasionally use the Magic Mouse for drawing (direct
| manipulation) tasks.
| the_af wrote:
| I understand this and I don't want to argue against anyone's
| preferences. _You_ know what 's best for _you_.
|
| I'm just pushing back against these out of touch fads. _Most_
| developers worldwide don 't have a three-monitor setup. There
| is no proven correlation between quality software and 4K
| displays or mechanical keyboards (to name other fads). More
| importantly, the best devs I've known -- people I admire --
| used tiny laptops with tiny displays, and shrugged when
| offered even a single external monitor; it just wasn't a big
| deal for them.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| 20 years ago when GeForce 2 MX appeared I switched to 2
| monitors; in the next 6 months the software department
| (that was the name) switched to 2 monitors by contagion; I
| was in the infrastructure department, they just saw the
| benefits. Since then, I never worked with less than 2
| monitors. I can use productively 3 if I have it, otherwise
| (and most of the time) I use 2.
|
| I am not a good developer, it is not my job, but I started
| coding on a Commodore 64 in text mode, then I did Cobol and
| FoxPro for DOS on 80x25 screen with no problem. But when
| larger monitors appeared, I used it, when the possibility
| to use more than one monitor appeared, I used it. It is a
| case of technology helping you, not making you better but
| helping - I am more productive using 2 monitors than
| limiting to just one. Because of this, I use the laptop
| (1366x768 screen) only as a portable email tool, everything
| else is on a pair of 24" monitors, in the office or at
| home. Sometimes I pull a monitor from another desk (in the
| office) or other computer (at home) when I do specific work
| that benefits of 3 monitors, but it is not a matter of
| preference, just specific use cases where 3 is better than
| 2.
| akersten wrote:
| Yeah, I wouldn't say having a mechanical keyboard makes
| your code any higher quality - that'd be pretty silly.
|
| I think in general the thought is, if you care enough about
| your craft that you seek out refined tools, that care will
| be reflected in higher-quality development. Whether that's
| true or not, I don't know, but I'm inclined to believe
| there's a correlation.
|
| I mean, it would be weird to visit a professional
| carpenter's house and see Harbor Freight tools, right?
| opencl wrote:
| I've seen plenty of professionals using Harbor Freight
| tools, usually not carpenters but the tile saws and
| wrenches seem popular for professional use.
|
| The correlation seems more likely to me that if you can
| afford the fancy tools then you've already had some level
| of success. Though there are those new mechanics who bury
| themselves in a mountain of debt buying a whole chest
| full of Snap-On stuff...
| theshrike79 wrote:
| Well the old Harbor Freight stuff was REALLY good, then
| they sold out and it turned to crap.
| katmannthree wrote:
| In the last few years they've addressed that. Their
| Chicago Electric tools should generally be avoided but
| the Vulcan line of welders and Bauer/Hercules hand tools
| are all perfectly serviceable for light/occasional use.
|
| The issue with heavy use is not that they don't work but
| that they're heavier, less ergonomic, and less
| robust/repairable than the name brands; if you can afford
| the name brands and will be using the tool until it
| breaks, fixing it, and then using it more then you'll
| want to go with the name brands.
| itnAAnti wrote:
| Unlike carpentry, the quality of our tools (keyboard and
| monitor, specifically) don't affect the quality of our
| output.
|
| I think in many cases, people hide the fact that they're
| not competent with high-cost professional tools, because
| laymen use it as a proxy for talent that they cannot
| evaluate.
|
| I think that's also why many exceptional programmers just
| use a 5-year old laptop -- they don't need to compensate.
|
| A day-trader having 12 monitors mounted on the wall
| doesn't make him profitable.
| the_af wrote:
| Thanks for the reply. I think there is little to no
| correlation, but like the opposite opinion, I've no proof
| other than the anecdotal: the best hackers I've known
| didn't care about these things.
|
| Other bizarre opinions I've read from Atwood and his
| followers: that you should be an excellent typist (this
| is also related to owning a mechanical keyboard). No.
| Just no. Typing speed is not the bottleneck when writing
| software. The bottleneck is _my brain_. I 've never seen
| a project fail because people typed too slowly.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| I think the Python ethos applies directly to typing
| speed: "code is more often read than written".
|
| I agree, if speed of your typing is your bottleneck in
| getting code written, perhaps you should be coding
| smarter not harder.
|
| I think there is some wisdom that you should try to be a
| "good" typist, in that better typing skills reduce the
| risk of injury (RSI), but that's self-care/ergonomics,
| and while still very important, there are plenty of good
| software developers that hunt-and-pecked their way to an
| early retirement (and/or multiple carpal tunnel
| surgeries).
| megameter wrote:
| I do think there's a "CrossFit" mentality among the
| typer-coders who swear by mechanicals and end up with
| wrist braces - a kind of "more is more" approach that
| drives them to write lots of code, put in lots of hours,
| memorize innumerable details, and min-max their output in
| Taylorist fashion. It's optimizing for reps, versus
| mobility, stability, flexibility.
|
| I have let my WPM drop a fair bit over time. I'm still
| relatively young yet, but I see no reason to go fast when
| I realize that most of the typing amounts to disposable
| bullshit. It's better to spend time thinking and
| developing thought patterns, and then just type a little
| bit to jog your mind and clarify. I allow myself to write
| some cheap code, but the point of that is to sketch, and
| the sketch should be light and quick, for the same reason
| that artists will say to favor long, confident strokes
| instead of chicken-scratch markings.
| skocznymroczny wrote:
| I've had a phase of getting mechanical keyboards, but I
| always found myself typing slower on them. The added
| travel time, even on the "low profile" mech keyboards was
| making me type slower. I am back to scissor switch and I
| couldn't be happier. Although I prefer the low profile
| keyboards in general. One of my favourite keyboards is
| the butterfly Macbook keyboard, but I know it has mixed
| opinions.
| bitwize wrote:
| Mechanical keyboards don't make you a better coder.
|
| But the only thing that will is writing lots of code --
| over years and decades. And about 12 years ago, I started
| running into this anti-feature of human physiology known as
| "aging". And whereas in my think-I'm-so-l33t 20s I could
| bang out code on crappy desktop and laptop keyboards, by my
| 30s they were turning my hands into gnarled claws.
|
| The remedy for this, for me, was a keyboard with Cherry MX
| switches. The crisp feedback let me know when a stroke was
| registered, so I unconsciously pressed each key less hard
| and was able to type faster with less pain.
| cmroanirgo wrote:
| May favourite dev environment was a 7" Android 4 running
| Debian. I got plenty done with an external keyboard.
|
| I bang away at my mba 13" 2013 these days and the only real
| gripe i have is the lack of delete & backspace keys combo:
| I've never gotten comfortable without it.
|
| That said, the only reason i could possibly use more screen
| real estate is web debugging. But to me that's more of an
| indictment of the environment I'm "coding" in.
|
| The only time ever _needed_ two monitors was back writing
| 3d games on a 3dfx (before nvidia head hunted their
| engineers) and needed to debug something while running full
| screen.
|
| While i understand this argumentation, to me, monitors,
| their size & their number have always been pretty
| much...meh. instead it's the quality of the monitor itself
| (refresh rates, contrast, brightness)
| wtetzner wrote:
| > Who wouldn't want that?
|
| I don't want that. There was a time when I used multiple
| monitors, but I've found that just working on a laptop works
| better for me. It's less distracting, and I find switching
| between windows to be both faster and less disorienting than
| turning my head to look at another monitor.
|
| I can definitely understand other people preferring multiple
| monitors, but not everyone has the same preferences.
| gnicholas wrote:
| > _I compare it to having a large, wide desk when you're
| working on something. Who wouldn't want that?_
|
| I have used between 1-3 monitors over the last decade, and
| there sure are advantages to having 3 for certain tasks.
| However, I noticed that having multiple monitors resulted in
| me having a dedicated screen for email (usually the smallest,
| my laptop screen). This decreased my productivity.
|
| Perhaps not everyone has this weak spot, but for me using
| multiple monitors has a downside from an attention/focus
| perspective.
| smichel17 wrote:
| I have two monitors right now and wish I had a third. One
| for code, one for documentation, and one for running
| whatever I'm working on (website, android emulator, etc).
| Currently I have the code monitor vertical and swap between
| workspaces on the horizontal monitor for the running thing
| and documentation.
| markrages wrote:
| Coronavirus has robbed me of one of my favorite
| productivity hacks, which is coding on old Thinkpad with
| 4:3 ratio display, at a coffeeshop or library with Internet
| turned off. No distractions, no multitasking, just pure
| focus on a problem.
|
| I miss it.
| platz wrote:
| Which old thinkpad?
| phaus wrote:
| With a 4:3 ratio, probably a T60 or a T61.
| markrages wrote:
| Right on. T61, with one of the best thinkpad keyboards
| ever.
| jcastro wrote:
| When I need to concentrate I just turn off my two side ones
| and focus on the middle one.
| nicoburns wrote:
| I've solved this problem by having my email client
| (actually it's Slack in my case, but the same principle)
| and terminal share a screen. This works pretty well because
| I rarely want to use my terminal and chat at the same time.
| bluescrn wrote:
| IMHO, two monitors is an amazing upgrade. One screen for
| code, another for reference material or for the app being
| debugged. Better than one huge screen in many cases, as
| it's two 16:10 spaces that you can maximize things to.
|
| But with a 3rd monitor, you're well into diminishing
| returns, it may even end up being a distraction if it
| becomes a Slack/Mail/web screen.
| vzidex wrote:
| > I noticed that having multiple monitors resulted in me
| having a dedicated screen for email (usually the smallest,
| my laptop screen)
|
| I'm currently using two external monitors, with my laptop
| docked and closed. I find the "dedicated screen for
| <distraction>" was a problem for me when I had my laptop
| screen open, because it's a different
| size/resolution/position than my actual monitors. On the
| other hand, I never have that problem with my dedicated
| monitors - in my mind they're a part of the same
| "workspace" because they're the same size, resolution, and
| positioned together - so I could see myself going to 3
| desktop monitors one day.
| g-b-r wrote:
| In my experience 1366x768 is tight, but 1440x900 is already
| quite good
| jwr wrote:
| Having used CRT monitors, 1920x1080 displays, 4K displays and
| 5K displays, as well as various Retina Macbooks over many
| years, mostly for coding, here's my opinion:
|
| The only good solution today is the iMac 5K. Yes, 5K makes all
| the difference -- it lets me comfortably fit three columns of
| code instead of two in my full-screen Emacs, and that's a huge
| improvement.
|
| 4K monitors are usable, but annoying, the scaling is just never
| right and fonts are blurry.
|
| Built-in retina screens on macbooks are great, but they are
| small. And also, only two columns of code, not three.
|
| One thing I noticed is that as I a) become older, b) work on
| progressively more complex software, I do need to hold more
| information on my screen(s). Those three columns of code? I
| often wish for four: ClojureScript code on the frontend, API
| event processing, domain code, database code. Being older does
| matter, too, because short-term memory becomes worse and it's
| better to have things on screen at the same time rather than
| switch contexts. I'm having hopes for 6K and 8K monitors, once
| they cost less than an arm and a leg.
|
| So no, I don't think you can develop using "tiny laptops with
| poor 1366x768 displays". At least not all kinds of software,
| and not everyone can.
| the_af wrote:
| > _So no, I don 't think you can develop using "tiny laptops
| with poor 1366x768 displays". At least not all kinds of
| software, and not everyone can._
|
| This opinion seems bizarre to me. You start by offering
| personal (and valid) anecdote, then end up saying "I don't
| think you can develop [...]". But this flies in the face of
| evidence. _Most_ people _by far_ do not use your preferred
| monitor setup (iMac 5K) and in my country a vast number of
| developers use 1366x768 to develop all sorts of high quality
| software.
|
| It's one thing to say "as I grow older, I find I prefer
| $SETUP". No-one can argue with that, it's your opinion (and
| it might very well become mine as I grow... um, older than I
| already am!). It's an entirely different thing to claim, as
| you do here and I think TFA does in similar terms, "you
| cannot prefer lower tech setups", "you cannot develop
| software this way", "it's very difficult to develop software
| without $SETUP". The latter is _demonstrably_ false! I 've
| _seen_ it done, again and again, by people who were masters
| at their craft.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| I don't think they were doubting that somebody does develop
| in those random setups, they were disagreeing with the
| people that say it doesn't matter and you can code
| anywhere. In your quote, a royal you.
| the_af wrote:
| But they are not random setups. They are extremely common
| setups in my part of the world. People -- who are pretty
| good at what they do -- can and do develop using these
| tiny screens. In this regard, "it doesn't matter". Or
| taking less literally, they wouldn't complain if they got
| a better monitor, but it's not the primary concern for
| them. So taking a cue from TFA's title: "no, it's not
| time to upgrade your monitor".
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > Some people might like them, [some] won't.
|
| By 'like them' are you talking about the full set of tradeoffs,
| or the raw visuals? Because I'd be very surprised if someone
| actually _disliked_ how an all-else-equal 4K screen looks,
| compared to 1080.
| the_af wrote:
| Yes, the full set of tradeoffs. My comment is unclear. If
| someone gave me a 4K monitor for free I'd use it, but not
| having one is not an impediment for me (or most devs I know).
| SubuSS wrote:
| At least for me - I had a cheap 4k monitor. Managing the size
| of fonts / windows on it vs the connected laptop was a pita.
| Not to mention the display /graphics card overloading and
| glitching once in a while trying to power everything.
|
| So I am still stuck with my regular HD monitor + laptop
| monitor - which is pretty good.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Atwood is a bit of a prima-donna and part of being a blogger is
| a to make big statements.
|
| One of my roles for a long time was speccing/procuring computer
| equipment (later overseeing the same) for a huge diverse
| organization. I took feedback, complaints from users and
| vendors, etc. People are passionate about this stuff... I was
| physically threatened once, and had people bake cookies and
| cakes multiple times as a thank you for different things.
|
| The only monitor complaints I recall getting in quantity were:
| brightness, I need 2, and i need a tilt/swivel mount. Never
| heard about resolution, etc. Print and graphic artists would
| ask for color calibrated displays. Nobody ever asked for 3, and
| when we started phasing in 1920x1080 displays, we literally had
| zero upgrade requests from the older panels.
|
| Developers wanted 2 displays and SSDs.
| z3t4 wrote:
| You dont need a good display until you have used one. Its
| like glasses, you think you got perfect vision and then you
| get glasses its night and day in comparison. You dont know a
| good display until you have seen one. The thing with high res
| monitors is that you should upscale or everything will look
| tiny.
| slantyyz wrote:
| I think it's a complicated topic.
|
| IMO, there are two key criteria for monitors. Real estate
| and pixel density, and in some cases, you can't get both
| affordably.
|
| I have had 15" laptops with 4K displays for some time now.
| I love the pixel density. But I can't do certain types of
| tasks on them because I end up getting real estate anxiety.
| I feel so constricted on a laptop screen, even when I add a
| second monitor.
|
| My desktop has 2 x 27" 4K monitors running without scaling.
| So I have plenty of real estate, but the text could look
| nicer. Having said that, I don't miss sharp text in the
| same way that I miss real estate when using my laptops, at
| least from a productivity perspective.
|
| I don't think a 5K screen is an answer for me, because my
| first urge would be to try to use it without scaling for
| more real estate.
|
| On the other hand, a pair of 27" 8K screens (does such a
| beast even exist, and is it affordable?) would be ideal,
| because 1:1 scaling on such a beast is impossible at that
| monitor size, but 200% scaling would basically give me the
| same workspace real estate that I have now but with super
| sharp text.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| I agree and I'm also a monitor prima-donna! That said, most
| people have not been tainted. :)
| [deleted]
| geerlingguy wrote:
| If you use an OS that handles high DPI very well, and where 98%
| of all apps handle it just as well (including resolution
| scaling), it is an absolute joy to my eyes to be able to use 4K
| at the same effective resolution (so basically 1080p, but
| double the resolution, double the sharpness).
|
| Every time I use a 'non-retina' type of display (like an old
| laptop I use for testing or my 19" 1080p monitor), it feels
| like I'm looking through some dirty glass because of the
| blotchy effect.
|
| I tried 4K on one linux environment (and documented the
| experience[1]), and according to numerous responses, my
| situation was not unique: if you try 4K on any Linux
| environment, and don't enjoy everything being tiny, then it's
| not a fun time trying to get everything to behave like you can
| with Apple's built in resolution scaling options.
|
| [1] https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2020/i-replaced-my-
| macbook...
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| After trying virtually every display setup imaginable over the
| years, I've settled on a single, large, high-resolution display
| as the optimal setup. While I have written a lot of code on
| small, low-resolution displays, there are definitely
| disadvantages to that.
|
| I don't understand the value of multiple displays for code
| work. Just about everything that I could do with multiple
| displays can be more ergonomically achieved with multiple
| logical desktops. I can swap a desktop with a keystroke rather
| than pivoting, and that workflow translates well from laptops
| to large workstations.
| tasuki wrote:
| Yes, I find multiple monitors very engaging and also way too
| distracting.
| OOPMan wrote:
| I too use a single 1080p monitor. I find that, for me, the
| benefits of multiple monitors aren't really there.
|
| I tried it for a while but I find virtual desktops cover my
| multi-tasking needs just fine.
|
| When I had multiple displays the context switching involved in
| moving my head and focusing on the other displays wasn't great.
|
| I guess if I was a designer it would make more sense but for
| coding what I have now works fine.
| GordonS wrote:
| I certainly agree that some like them, while others don't.
|
| And some grow to like them - I used to scoff... before I tried
| it for myself.
|
| I think as well, it depends on your eyesight, and also your
| workflows and apps. I use Rider (and previously Visual Studio),
| and these have a lot of panes/windows - it's _really_ nice to
| be able to have the code front and centre, with debug output,
| logs and a command prompt in another screen, for example.
| Another example would be to have zoom /webex in one screen,
| while I'm taking markdown notes in another.
|
| A good while back, I moved to a dual monitor setup at home (1x
| 3k in landscape, 1x 1200p in portrait), and a triple monitor
| setup at the office (1x 1080p in landscape, 2x 1200p in
| portrait). I also use a Dell screen manager, so I can easily
| setup regions that windows can snap to - for example, the
| portrait displays are usually split in 2 horizontally.
|
| The triple monitor setup is admittedly gratuitous, but I'm
| never going back from a dual setup - it's just so convenient to
| have everything I need always there, instead of constantly
| flipping back and forth through the many windows I invariably
| have open. It feels like I'm context switching much less.
| the_af wrote:
| Oh, I do use an external 1080p monitor because I can't stand
| my work laptop's 1366x768 display, which usually gets
| relegated to email.
| EForEndeavour wrote:
| May I ask what specific laptop you're using? It's been a
| while since I've happened on that resolution myself.
| the_af wrote:
| No problem. Bear in mind I'm from Latin America, so we're
| usually several years behind the US (i.e. older tech,
| sold at excessive prices).
|
| My work laptop is a Dell Latitude 7480. It's display
| resolution is a 1366x768. I normally use it with an
| external monitor, because the screen is not only small
| but also low quality. This... _fine_... piece of hardware
| was bought my current employer I think 2 years ago.
|
| In all workplaces I've seen, either you get a macbook
| (with their high quality display) or an entry level
| laptop from Dell/HP/Lenovo (or some no-name brand) with a
| low quality 1366x768 display, which is what passes for
| entry level where I live. In many companies, macbooks are
| usually given to people who can explain why they need
| them, or to reward good performance. However, newer
| startups seem to default to macbooks.
| megameter wrote:
| I've worked on a range of setups from dual screens, 120hz to
| little CRTs and laptop displays, and even a bit of graphing
| calculator and smartphone coding. My conclusion is that the
| difference depends mostly on the workflow, and what the
| workflow changes is mostly how much information you're
| scanning.
|
| If you're scanning tons of text, all the time, across multiple
| windows, you need a lot of real estate, and in times of yore
| you would turn to printouts and spread them over your desk. A
| lot of modern dev goes in this direction because you're
| constantly looking up docs and the syntax is shaped towards
| "vertical with occasional wide lines and nesting" - an
| inefficient use of the screen area. Or you have multiple
| terminals running and want to see a lot of output from each. Or
| you have a mix of a graphical app, text views and docs. A
| second monitor absolutely does boost productivity for all these
| scenarios since it gives you more spatial spread and reduces
| access to a small headturn or a glance.
|
| If you're writing dense code, with few external dependencies,
| you can have a single screen up and see pretty much everything
| you need to see. Embedded dev, short scripts and algorithms are
| more along these lines. Coding with only TTS(e.g. total
| blindness) reduces the amount you can scan to the rate of
| speech, and I believe that consideration should be favored in
| the interest of an inclusive coding environment. But I'm
| digressing a bit.
|
| For a more objective ranking of concerns: pixel density ranks
| lower than refresh rates, brightness and color reproduction in
| my book. If the screen is lowish res with a decent pixel font
| that presents cleanly at a scale comfortable to the eye, and
| there's no "jank" in the interaction, it's lower stress overall
| than having smooth characters rendered in a choppy way with TN
| panel inverted colors, CRT flicker, or inappropriate scaling.
|
| Book quality typography is mostly interesting for generating a
| complete aesthetic, while when doing computing tasks you are
| mostly concerned about the symbolic clarity, which for English
| text is reasonably achieved at the 9x14 monospace of CP437, and
| comfortably so if you double that. There's a reason why
| developers have voted en-masse to avoid proportional fonts, and
| it's not because we are nostalgic for typewriters.
|
| And yet for some reason we have ended up with tools that
| blithely ignore the use-case and apply a generic text rendering
| method that supports all kinds of styling, which of course
| makes it slow.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| I have a hard time using three monitors effectively, so that in
| the end they are distracting for me. Probably you need some
| particular personality tics to make proper use of them.
| filoleg wrote:
| My personal way of organizing 3 monitors:
|
| 1. Main screen. For the code editor, intense web browsing,
| etc.
|
| 2. Secondary screen. For debugging visuals (since I work on
| web stuff, it usually hosts a Chromium window; for a mobile
| dev, I imagine it would be an emulator/simulator),
| documentation referencing (with the code editor open on the
| main screen), etc.
|
| 3. Third screen. For all comms-related things: MS
| Teams/Outlook/Discord/etc.
|
| I didn't mention terminal, because I prefer a quake-style
| sliding terminal. For a lot of devs, I imagine that having a
| terminal on their secondary screen permanently would work
| great as well.
|
| P.S. Not that long ago, I realized that the physical
| positioning of monitors matters a lot (to me, at least) as
| well. I used to have 2 of them in landscape orientation side-
| by-side and one in portrait orientation to the side. It was
| fine, but didn't feel cohesive, and I definitely felt some
| unease. Finally got a tall mounting pole, and now I have the
| landscape oriented monitors one on top of each other instead
| of side-by-side (with the rest of the setup being the same).
| That was a noticeable improvement to me, as it felt like
| things finally clicked perfectly in my head.
| tomtheelder wrote:
| I used to use this exact setup, but specifically eliminated
| monitor #3 as I felt it was counterproductive to have an
| "always on" comms monitor. These days my main monitor has
| one workspace, while my secondary has the normal secondary
| stuff in one workspace, and comms in another.
|
| I found it to be less distracting and the two screens are
| more physically manageable, and easier to replicate if i
| change setting (cheaper too!). The only thing I will change
| is whether I'm in landscape/landscape or
| landscape/portrait. I can never make up my mind about what
| I prefer.
| warent wrote:
| This is my exact layout too! Though the screen with the
| code editor is ultra wide, so with window tiling I have the
| editor and the terminal side by side
| the_af wrote:
| To clarify, my beef is with Atwood's opinion (and similar
| opinions) that you _must_ use a three monitor setup,
| otherwise you 're doing something wrong. Of course I
| understand for many devs this setup works, in which case
| more power to them!
|
| I just dislike being told unless I follow these fads I'm a
| subpar developer. I don't own a mechanical keyboard or a
| three monitor setup. I don't own a 4K monitor (I suppose I
| eventually will, when they become the norm). When Apple
| came up with retina displays, I didn't feel I had magically
| become unable to write code because my display at the time
| was 1440x900.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| as a general rule I like to have a computer that is sort
| the average crap that you think a person might have
| around who does not care that much about computers so
| then if the stuff I make works on that I know it's going
| to work on the upscale stuff as well.
|
| Also then when one of my disastrous kids destroys it I
| don't feel bad.
|
| on edit: fixed typo
| slantyyz wrote:
| > my beef is with Atwood's opinion (and similar opinions)
| that you must use a three monitor setup
|
| It's weird to me to specify the number of monitors given
| how they come in a vast range of shapes and sizes.
|
| For example, my dream setup used to be a single 55"
| curved 8K monitor. That's the rough equivalent of a 2x2
| grid of 27" 4K monitors (I currently have two 27" 4K side
| by side in landscape @ 1:1 scaling).
|
| The only problem with my so-called dream set up though is
| I don't think my computer glasses, which are sharp only
| for surfaces between a range of 21" to 27" would allow me
| to see everything sharp from corner to corner on that
| monitor, which sucks.
| lexicality wrote:
| Personally I use web browser on the left (eg docs), editor in
| the middle and output of whatever I'm doing on the right.
|
| Email hides behind the web browser and slack behind the
| output.
| banifo wrote:
| My mastery as a software engineere doesn't stop at my tools.
|
| I look at my screen most of the time. I'm not buying cheap
| screens anymore. It is just not worth it.
| the_af wrote:
| This is a perfectly fine point of view.
|
| I just refuse to be told that I _must_ use a { three-monitor
| setup, mechanical keyboard, 4K monitor, macbook, $LATEST_FAD
| } or otherwise I 'm using a subpar development environment.
|
| I still remember when Full HD monitors were all the rage.
| Nobody considered them cheap tools back then, and somehow
| code got written and developers were happy. There will come a
| time when someone on the internet will tell you that a 4K
| monitor is a cheap tool and that nobody can properly code
| using one.
| the_other_b wrote:
| Agreed. Was supplied two 4ks for my last job and just ended up
| using so zoomed in it wasn't even like I was using 4k monitors
| anymore.
|
| My ideal setup is two 1440p monitors, but even then I tend to
| zoom in quite a bit.
|
| I also had a coworker who was fine with their laptop screen.
| People you are finicky with these kinds of things seem to have
| their focus elsewhere over the actual work done.
| noja wrote:
| Ultrawide beats 4k for me.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| I found this article utterly baffling. The author clearly knows
| their stuff, having created Fira Code, but my experiences
| couldn't be more different. I spend most of my
| days in a text browser, text editor and text terminal,
| looking at barely moving letters. So I
| optimize my setup to showing really, really good
| letters.
|
| I certainly appreciate how _nice_ text looks on a high DPI
| display.
|
| But for coding purposes!? I don't find high DPI text more
| legible... unless we're talking _really_ tiny font sizes, smaller
| than just about anybody would ever use for coding.
|
| And there's a big "screen real estate" penalty with high DPI
| displays and 2X scaling. As the author notes, this leaves you
| with something like 1440x900 or 1920x1080 of logical real estate.
| Neither of which is _remotely_ suitable for development work IMO.
| But at least you can enjoy that gorgeous screen and
| pixel-crisp fonts. Otherwise, why would you buy a retina
| screen at all?
|
| It's not like you really have the option on Macs and many other
| higher-end laptops these days. And I am buying a computer to do
| some work, not admire the beautiful curves of a nice crisp font.
|
| So anyway, for me, I chose the Dell 3818. 38", 3840 x 1600 of
| glorious, low-resolution text. A coder's paradise.
|
| For purposes of software development, I won't really be
| interested until 8K displays become affordable and feasible. As
| the author notes, they integer scale perfectly to 2560x1440. Now
| that would rock.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| What's with the downvotes? HN is turning into Slashdot or
| Reddit, and that's not a good thing.
|
| I clearly stated my point. Maybe you disagree. However, the
| downvote button is not a "disagree" button. It's for posts that
| actively detract from the discussion.
|
| We need some kind of meta-moderation to ensure frivolous
| downvoters lose their downvote privileges.
| ascar wrote:
| I personally agree that the downvote button should be
| reserved for low quality comments rather than disagreement
| and that the diverse and high-quality comments are what makes
| this site and community awesome. Unfortunately neither the
| FAQ nor the Guidelines state anything about how to use the
| vote buttons. So how should HN users know when to use them?
| Is there even consent anymore (or ever has been?) that
| downvotes should not be used for disagreement? How did I form
| the opinion that downvotes should be reserved for low quality
| rather than disagreement? Somehow along the lines of
| contributing enough to this site to reach enough karma to
| downvote.
|
| Maybe the guidelines should add a section on how to vote. On
| the other hand, how can this really be enforced?
|
| It's a sad thing. I also stopped posting opinions that might
| trigger disagreement from a large majority.
|
| However, the guidlines clearly state:
|
| > Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into
| Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills. [1]
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| nkurz wrote:
| > So how should HN users know when to use them?
|
| It's not authoritative, and I don't know dang's feelings on
| the matter, but it's probably worth noting that long ago
| the founder of the site clearly stated that it was
| acceptable to use downvoting to express disagreement:
|
| pg: _I think it 's ok to use the up and down arrows to
| express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for
| applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the
| downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness._
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171
| nkurz wrote:
| For completeness, here's the primary moderator 'dang'
| very explicitly confirming that downvoting for
| disagreement is still allowed at least as of 2 years ago:
|
| dang: _Downvoting for disagreement has always been ok on
| HN._
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17666145
| robertoandred wrote:
| Blurry, pixellated text is not a coder's paradise.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| I'm in my 40s and my eyes aren't great. But I have _zero_
| issues with legibility on the non-high-DPI Dell 38 ".
|
| Depending on font choice (typically I use Input Mono
| Compressed) I can fit _six or seven_ 80x100 text windows
| side-by-side on the Dell with excellent legibility.
|
| That is up to 800 total lines of code and/or terminal output
| on my screen at once.
|
| That really is my idea of coder's paradise. You, of course,
| are entitled to your own idea. No two coders like the same
| thing. Ever.
| _ph_ wrote:
| That Dell would be the screen I would buy right now for coding.
| I am currently using a 5k iMac at home and a 30" Dell
| (2560x1600) at work. I really loved the resolution of the iMac,
| but for my work, I need screen estate. The font rendering on
| the 30" at 1x scaling is good enough, and having a lot of
| screen estate is essential for me. Having 50% more horizontal
| space would of course be great :).
|
| The new 32" Apple display would be great of course, but the
| price is just off. For coding, I don't care how much reference
| quality the color setup is. My only hope is, that Dell soon
| offers an affordable display based on that panel.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| I definitely have zero regrets about the Dell. Some of the
| best money I've ever spent. Depending on font choice
| (typically I use Input Mono Compressed) I can fit six or
| seven 80x100 text windows side-by-side on the Dell with
| excellent legibility.
|
| I can't imagine anybody justifying the cost of that 32" Apple
| display for coding either. I can't even imagine many high-end
| creative professionals justifying that.
|
| I mean, on one hand... if a person figures they'll get 5+
| years out of that Apple monitor and they work 5 days per
| week... that's less than $4/workday for a $5,000 monitor.
| From that perspective it's somewhat reasonable. But most
| people would probably get more benefit from picking a $1000
| monitor and spending that $4000 elsewhere.
| _ph_ wrote:
| The funny thing is, I would even think about the 32" Apple
| display, if Apple made a computer to go with it. But the
| new Mac Pro at the entry price is 2x of its predecessor and
| really not a great computer at the entry level specs. It is
| amazing fully loaded, but I would rather get a Tesla :p.
| Not sure how well the 32" Apple is supported by Linux :).
| ithkuil wrote:
| Which model is "that dell"?
| _ph_ wrote:
| The Dell 3818 the parent poster named.
| santoshalper wrote:
| Legibility is a funny thing. When you're paying attention, your
| standards for legibility will be very low. I was totally happy
| to read text on a 1024x768 17" MAG monitor for years. When
| you're paying attention to something else, like designing the
| code you are about to type, I think crispness and clarity of
| text absolutely matters. Microsoft Research did a lot of work
| on this when they released ClearType. They seemed to believe
| strongly that clearer text measurably improved speed to
| recognize characters.
| ascar wrote:
| Well, it's really about personal preference and while I know a
| couple of collegues with your preference, I feel it's the
| minority.
|
| I take two 16:9 screens over one 3840x1600 screen anytime. No
| need to setup some additional inner-mintor split-window
| management. Split-monitor management and workspaces works very
| well and I can even turn the 2nd monitor off, when I don't need
| it and want full focus mode (i.e. reading). Also I prefer my
| main monitor exactly in the middle in front of me and an actual
| 2nd monitor to the right. If I have the luxury of a 3rd
| monitor, it's to the left (usually the laptop that powers the 2
| big screens). Setting one half of an ultra-wide in the middle
| just feels wrong. And splitting in 3 is too small for me and
| again the inner-monitor window management issue.
|
| While I also strongly believed my old 1920x1080 24" (~92ppi)
| screens were good, I had the opportunity to use qhd 27"
| (~110ppi) screens for 3 months abroad and I was baffled when
| going home how incredibly bad text looked on my old 24"
| monitors.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| This is, of course, an issue of personal preference and I do
| not work for a monitor manufacturer so I'm not trying to talk
| anybody into buying anything hahaha. Also I
| prefer my main monitor exactly in the middle in
| front of me and an actual 2nd monitor
|
| I don't understand how dual 16:9 screens help with this! But
| I agree with you that I hate having a "split" in the middle.
| I need my main monitor centered.
|
| My monitor arrangement is:
|
| - Dell 38" ultrawide (centered in front of me). Work happens
| here, obviously. MacOS virtual desktops, while not the most
| feature-heavy, cover my needs well enough here. Of course I
| respect that some people lean into virtual
| desktops/workspaces harder and need more.
|
| - Compact ("portable") 15" 1080p monitor, centered in front
| of me _under_ the ultrawide. This is essentially dedicated to
| Slack and my notetaking app. This leaves the Dell at a decent
| ergonomic height at my eye level.
|
| - Laptop off to the side, for nonessential stuff - typically
| music app, sometimes Twitter or news feeds
| slg wrote:
| The benefit of a 3840x1600 screen over two monitors with
| lower resolution is that 3840/2 = 1920 and 3840/3 = 1280.
| Those are horizontal resolutions for 1080p and 720p
| respectively. The fact that these are standard resolutions
| means basically every app works as designed regardless of
| whether you have 2 or 3 windows side by side. This isn't true
| for ultrawides with resolutions like 3440x1440 that don't
| divide cleanly into other standard resolutions.
|
| The default software that comes with the Dell mentioned above
| handles everything. If I want to simulate two 1080p monitors,
| I just do the standards Windows drag to the side of the
| screen. If I want to simulate three 720p monitors I can press
| shift while dragging and that tells the Dell software to take
| over. It is more versatile than having individual monitors.
| ascar wrote:
| > The default software that comes with the Dell mentioned
| above handles everything.
|
| Does it really handle everything? Does it handle all (or
| even just a single one?) of the use cases I mentioned in my
| comment and that I care about. Can I turn of part of the
| screen, if I actually only need smaller space? Can I
| position a 1920 default width space right in the middle in
| front of me without it looking weird (i.e. symmetry of
| screen hardware borders)? Are workspaces working correctly
| (in unix, windows, macos, all of them?). Just splitting
| monitors isn't everything, I heavily use workspaces to
| switch between context.
|
| If all of this works (except the obvious middle problem
| that's phyiscally impossible to solve) I might actually
| consider it.
| slg wrote:
| >Does it really handle everything?
|
| It does for my use case, but obvious your mileage may
| vary.
|
| >Can I turn of part of the screen, if I actually only
| need smaller space?
|
| Sort of. The monitor can split into dual source mode that
| has two 1920 sources side by side. You could potentially
| turn that on and set one side to an empty source. You can
| also always use a black desktop if you need the rest of
| the monitor to be dark to allow you to focus on whatever
| window you have open.
|
| >Can I position a 1920 default width space right in the
| middle in front of me without it looking weird (i.e.
| symmetry of screen hardware borders)?
|
| How do you accomplish this with two monitors currently?
| You would have to choose between symmetry or having one
| monitor front and center. The Dell software allows you to
| customize the drag and drop regions. I use three columns
| that are the full height of the screen. You could set it
| up to have a 1920 section in the middle with two 960
| columns on each side. You could also setup your physical
| workspace so one side of the monitor is centered in your
| vision instead of the center of the monitor. Also I have
| mine mounted on a monitor arm that allows me to
| reposition it as needed.
|
| > Are workspaces working correctly (in unix, windows,
| macos, all of them?)
|
| It works in Windows and that is the only native GUI I
| use. Everything obviously works fine when in the terminal
| and I rarely increase the resolution of a VM past 1920. I
| would frankly be shocked if there wasn't similar software
| available for Linux and OSX that allowed you to setup
| customized zones like Dell's software if you need to run
| one of those natively.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| That Dell tool sounds a lot like Microsoft's PowerTool
| FancyZones. Have you tried FancyZones? It can optionally
| take over the Win+Left/Right shortcuts from Aero snap (the
| drag to side/quadrants tool built into Windows).
|
| I've been drooling over the Samsung curved ultra-wides
| since like January as a possibility for my gaming desktop.
| In March one of my gaming desktop's monitors blew so I've
| been done to just one monitor and started to use FancyZones
| and regular usage of FancyZones has got me much more
| convinced I'd be happy with the ultra-wide, now I'm just
| hesitant for merely financial reasons.
| slg wrote:
| I haven't used FancyZones. I will check that out, thanks
| for the tip.
|
| The financial aspect of this is definitely the toughest
| part to justify. A single monitor with this resolution is
| always going to be more expensive than multiple smaller
| monitors. The cost was justified in my experience, but
| that will vary depending on your use cases and budget.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| Yes the financial aspect isn't easy to get past right
| now, and the curved ones especially right now are a
| premium cost just because the option is still so new, but
| the curved ones do about what I tried to do in manually
| angling my previous dual monitor setup with added
| advantages in gaming (because I could actually use the
| center point and periphery in game rather than the center
| being bevels and in the way if I tried to span games
| across both monitors). Plus, all the usual financial
| concerns from the current state of the world and
| everything that has been going on.
| MegaDeKay wrote:
| I have a Dell 38" 3840 x 1600 Ultrawide and it is bliss. I
| don't think of it as two screens, I think of it as three. I
| can comfortably have three applications displayed side by
| side with no seam down the middle. For me, it isn't about the
| crispest font I can get. It is good resolution and tons of
| real estate.
| mthoms wrote:
| For those using JetBrains IDE's and MacOS:
|
| Try experimenting with the font rendering settings in the prefs.
| There's a "middle" option of "greyscale-only" text aliasing in
| addition to the regular off or on settings.
|
| Depending on your monitor, font choice, and personal preferences
| you might see an improvement by playing around with these.
|
| Anecdotally, when I had an older MBP with a weak integrated GPU,
| lowering the anti-aliasing setting to greyscale (or off) seeming
| to increase the responsiveness and framerate on my 4K display in
| JetBrains IDE's. It was particularly noticeable when scrolling.
| gautamcgoel wrote:
| I use a 2k Dell monitor which I picked up for around $400 a few
| years ago. To me, this strikes a nice middle ground between high
| resolution and affordability/comparability.
| rubatuga wrote:
| Good to know details:
|
| In 2018, as the article says, macOS stopped using subpixel
| antialiasing across all Macs. On low DPI screens however, the
| loss of subpixel antialiasing made fonts look blurrier, and look
| smaller and less dark. This occurs on high DPI screens as well,
| albeit to a lower degree. To bring low DPI screens up to the same
| level of "darkness", the behaviour of "Use font smoothing when
| available" was changed to simply makes fonts bolder. This is a
| plus for people who have difficulty reading the screen.
|
| Furthermore, the author seems to have an obsession around "pixel-
| crisp" fonts, during the section about the correct resolution for
| your display. What macOS does is render at 2x resolution, then
| scale down the image to the monitor's native resolution. Looking
| back, this was an amazing choice made by Apple, and has allowed
| for an amazingly bug-free high DPI experience. Even today, Linux
| and Windows have serious issues with high DPI. 99% of macOS users
| don't notice that their desktop is not running at native
| resolution, nor would they care.
|
| If the author just focused on monitors, this article would be a
| lot better.
|
| Also, 120Hz might be nice for a desktop, but if you are plugging
| in a laptop, you will notice your power consumption double. For
| battery life, choose a 60Hz monitor.
| defgeneric wrote:
| If I could just get an affordable 4:3 flatscreen monitor with any
| pixel density I would be happy.
| slavoingilizov wrote:
| This is a great article. Even if you disagree with the conclusion
| and recommendation, it shows what you need to look out for when
| buying a monitor.
|
| I had to go through a similar exercise recently. The DisplayPort
| / USB-C / Thunderbolt story is just insane. I was looking for a
| monitor to use with both MacOS and Windows. HDMI can't do 4k @
| 60Hz, DisplayPort cables never tell you which version they
| support.
|
| I ended up with LG UHD 4K 27UL650, which I'm very happy with, but
| switching between Mac and Windows is still difficult, because
| this monitor only has 1 DisplayPort input. I've settled to using
| HDMI for Mac and 30Hz instead of switching cables all the time.
|
| Improvement in experience is very subjective but I agree with the
| author on everything except maybe the 120Hz.
| city41 wrote:
| Have you considered a KVM switch? I really like mine. It allows
| up to four computers leaving me with two extras that sometimes
| come in handy (plugging in someone else's laptop or sometimes I
| connect my Raspberry Pi on).
| mcny wrote:
| I bought a 1080p 27" HP 27yh for under USD 100 last Black Friday.
|
| I thought my monitor would be squarely middle of the pack but
| turns out it is barely above 80 ppi
|
| Display size: 23.53" x 13.24" = 311.5in2 (59.77cm x 33.62cm =
| 2009.68cm2) at 81.59 PPI, 0.3113mm dot pitch, 6657 PPI2
| the_af wrote:
| The most important thing here: does your new monitor look good
| for you? Do you like how it renders graphics/text/whatever-you-
| use-it-for? If so, please disregard articles like TFA. They are
| trying to convince you of something you, by definition, don't
| need.
| mcny wrote:
| Yes, the monitor looks fine. It is connected to an old Dell
| Optiplex 390 with an i3-2100 and 8 GB of memory. I don't
| watch movies or play video games on it or anything. It is
| basically a glorified terminal for me to citrix/remote
| desktop to work.
|
| I've found my off-brand (Aukey) "blue" mechanical keyboard
| has been a greate improvement in my quality of life though
| (even though it is not very ergonomic).
|
| It is funny how when I started using Visual Studio around
| 2008 I didn't have a 1920x1080 monitor and I wanted to see
| all the panels and it was so painful.
|
| Right now, my biggest pain point is my horrible Internet (Wi-
| Fi) connection. It is especially painful because I move my
| mouse or type something and nothing appears on the display
| and I don't know whether the remote computer is slow or my
| network connection is crapping out again.
|
| Almost feels like I am whining about a non-issue because even
| fifteen years ago, I was on a dial-up "soft" modem and it
| would have been unthinkable to get pretty much live full
| 1080p remote desktop.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| I want to thank the author for the article, it comes at the
| perfect time for me. Earlier today I just had a main power line
| incident that resulted in burning almost half of all my electric
| equipment in the house, so I need to buy immediately at least one
| monitor and I was in doubt about spending too much on it (I need
| to buy other stuff too) and I am a cheap bastard, but I am moving
| a bit up versus what I was planning to get.
|
| I saw some discussions about multiple monitors; I am a heavy user
| of multiple monitors, 2 most of the time and 3 when really
| needed; I don't have space on my desks (home & office) for 3
| monitors all the time, so it depends on the needs and not on
| coolness. What I plan to do now is to get an asymmetrical
| configuration at home with one regular (1080p) monitor for some
| work and gaming (the CPU is an i3 7100, so I don't do much
| gaming) and a larger and better one for work only cases where a
| lot of information needs to be on the screen at the same time. As
| the article did not mention multiple monitors and buying 2-3
| monitors that are 120 Hz/4k resolution is extremely expensive for
| a home setup, I think it is worth mentioning this kind of
| compromise of mixing size to have one of each. Not having OCD the
| different size is not such a big deal, while the extra
| functionality/productivity helps.
| bjoli wrote:
| I inherited an old iMac with a 21" 4k monitor. There is simply no
| going back. I just ordered another one to have 2 of them.
| Everything looks better and even though almost no displays in a
| good price range have the same cd/m2 ("nits"), I am still looking
| forward to my new 2x4k life!
| tjoff wrote:
| Strongly disagree. Any subpixel rendering on low-resolution
| displays must be disabled. Otherwise you get color noise and
| blurry text. Pixelated fonts are not bad.
|
| It is fine on HIDPI displays though because it isn't as prominent
| there and the effect actually works.
|
| Instead of high resolution pick a display with a decent aspect
| ratio. 16:9 is a joke. 16:10 is superior but not exactly a game
| changer. 3:2 is very rare, especially for desktop displays, and
| 4:3 is pretty much dead. We do not talk about 5:4.
| screye wrote:
| I would strongly advocate for a 1440p 34" 21:9 ultra widescreen
| monitor.
|
| The 21:9 aspect ratio is perfect for having the standard IDE +
| chrome tab arrangement. It doesn't have the issues brought in by
| having multiple monitors and 1440p is a good middle-ground
| resolution.
| itnAAnti wrote:
| I had a 34" 4K monitor in 2019, and it was a mess in Windows 10.
| I sold it and picked up an ultra-wide, 38" 3840x1600 (~109 PPI)
| and I couldn't be happier. I agree that a "good" monitor is a
| necessity, but I disagree with OP that "good" = 4K 120 Hz.
|
| With any legacy application, and even many modern ones, UIs were
| either fuzzy, or tiny, or a mix of the two, even with all of the
| Windows per-program custom high-DPI settings tweaked. The UX was
| not consistent enough to be enjoyable, so I ditched it.
| amarshall wrote:
| For what it's worth, the "fuzzy" version is usually about what
| you'd be getting on a display if it wasn't HiDPI. Also don't
| forget to exclude the rarer, but still happens scenario where
| the UI is scaled twice for some reason, so everything is huge.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| I am using the same three Dell Monitors since 2008, they are
| still working perfectly (1680x1050) and in my opinion the text
| rendering with ClearText subpixel AA is excellent on both Sublime
| Text and VSCode.
|
| Of course, on macOS that's an other story, they didn't always had
| ugly fonts, but that's been the case since a very long time now
| and that prevented me to switch more than once (I still have use
| macOS in a VM to build for iOS)
| [deleted]
| asdff wrote:
| I'm not sure which version exactly, but somewhere along the
| line apple just ruined the experience for everyone without a
| retina laptop.
| tarsinge wrote:
| Wow just followed the steps for my retina Macbook and I love it,
| my thanks to the author.
| s_y_n_t_a_x wrote:
| After going to 1440p, I cannot use 1080p monitors for programming
| as the text is too blurry.
|
| Honestly I don't see the need of 2160p on a monitor, it usually
| just causes display issues and it's a performance drain.
|
| For gaming/everyday use, 2k w/ a high refresh rate is the sweet
| spot imo.
| joshstrange wrote:
| Eventually I want to go to 4k but price was a non-starter for
| me. I wanted 3 monitors and I was able to grab 3x2k (1440p)
| screens on black Friday last year for around $200/ea. I have
| them arranged in a "Tie-fighter" orientation (1 horizontal in
| the middle and 2 vertical on the sides) with an older 1080p
| screen above the center monitor (it's just for security
| cams/monitoring).
|
| I split the 2 vertical monitors into 3rds (top, middle, bottom)
| and I have keyboard shortcuts to move/resize windows as well as
| snap every window to it's designated space. I have been
| extremely happy with this setup so far.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| 4K is affordable if you're fine with a basic screen. I got a
| 32 inch 4K monitor (ET322QK) for $290 on a previous black
| Friday.
| liuliu wrote:
| I use a 32" monitor at 4K with 1x scaling. It is a productivity
| booster for me. More horizontal space is just much nicer to
| host debug sessions and jump between code sections. At the same
| time (of debugging), I can tile web browser to the other side
| and either do some lookups, or run a Jupyter notebook.
| mgr86 wrote:
| It has been years since I gamed regularly but my brother and I
| were probably some of the best at a particular FPS. It has to
| be about 15+ years ago. When we played in the physical presence
| of others we noticed that we were some of the only ones to turn
| the display settings way down while keeping resolution the
| maximum. Probably 800x600 or 1280x1024 in those days. The game
| ran smoother, and the less complex textures made movement
| standout.
| dragontamer wrote:
| People are playing CS:Global Offensive because its a
| smoother, less complex texture compared to other modern games
| (ie: Overwatch).
|
| I'd dare say that the "serious" FPS players stick to
| Counterstrike, and other easier-to-render games with 200+
| FPS. (even if the monitor doesn't support it, the higher FPS
| results in smoother gameplay and fewer hiccups).
|
| There's of course a huge casual crowd playing Overwatch, PUBG
| and Fortnite. But CS tournaments remain a thing to this day.
| Aaronstotle wrote:
| Was it quake by any chance?
| mgr86 wrote:
| No, but in 2002/3 we would play Quake during our CCNA
| classes every now and again instead of class work. The
| hardware was old so it was the original quake.
|
| I played a lot of MOHAA[0].
|
| [0] -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Honor:_Allied_A
| ssault
| rcarmo wrote:
| Quake(world) and Quake III Arena matches were often frantic
| twitchfests between blurry, nearly flat textured models :)
| sasaf5 wrote:
| Developer text editors won't benefit from 120Hz monitors. Their
| scrolling is not smooth pixel-by-pixel, but line-by-line. Also
| most developers will navigate code with search, and won't need
| scrolling anyways. I would rather put my cash on a display that
| renders still images better, and is comfortable on the eyes.
| pvorb wrote:
| Those colorful upscaled images of ClearType text are not that
| helpful. I wrote a tool several years ago to illustrate the
| effect of subpixel font rendering:
| https://github.com/pvorb/subpixel-illustrator
| fwipsy wrote:
| Disappointed that he didn't mention pixel-perfect programming
| fonts (e.g. proggy) which offer high-density text on low-
| resolution monitors while not looking nearly as bad as his
| Consolas example. These fonts make a huge difference imo.
| jeromenerf wrote:
| I also recommend them for the same reason. I use terminus. It
| looks great whatever the size.
|
| When writing prose, I prefer serif fonts such as go mono, at a
| bigger size.
| q3k wrote:
| Yeah, I've started using terminus... probably 10 years ago
| now, and I still haven't found a programming font that I
| liked more. Tried using some retina macbooks with hyped-font-
| of-the-month, they just didn't work for me.
| rocky1138 wrote:
| The author is apparently the same author as Fira Code, a
| ligature-supporting monospaced font.
| https://github.com/tonsky/FiraCode
| M5x7wI3CmbEem10 wrote:
| e-ink monitors, anyone? saves your eyes in the long-run
| seniorsassycat wrote:
| Bitmap fonts will look perfect on low res displays. I've been
| using a 1366x768 laptop with terminus font for six years.
| santoshalper wrote:
| Well, I don't know what DPI you are using (perhaps the display
| is tiny?) but it sounds low. Of course, we all used low DPI
| displays for years and were happy with them because we did not
| know better. Now that I've become accustomed to higher DPI, low
| DPI screens look like crap.
|
| It's the exact reason I am actively avoiding using 120 or 144hz
| screens. I don't want to get used to it and then need to ditch
| my current display. For several years I bounced back and forth
| between gaming on a PC and PS4. The whiplash between 60 and
| 30hz was absolutely brutal - but I never noticed it back when
| all my displays were 30hz.
|
| So in the end, I am not sure what advice, if any, I am trying
| to give you. I love my huge, high-DPI screen, but if you are
| happy with what you've got, you might seriously consider
| sticking with it for a while.
| fsckboy wrote:
| to reinforce your point, while I can appreciate more pixels,
| per display or per inch, I appreciate more being able to pick
| up a 1366x768 laptop and be productive and not feeling like I
| need to whine, complain, or write supercilious blog posts.
| hrayr wrote:
| Well timed article for me. I'm looking to buy an external monitor
| to go along with my older (mid 2015) 15" MBP.
|
| I was searching hacker news and elsewhere for opinions last
| night. I got confused, frustrated and gave up. Today is no
| exception. The only thing I know is, I want a large hi-res
| monitor that is at least comparable to my laptop.
| tonsky wrote:
| 4k 60Hz should work no problems. Last Macbook that didn't
| supported it was 2012 retina.
| pmiller2 wrote:
| This is all very interesting. I've recently, and very seriously
| considered getting a medium sized UHDTV (say, 40-50") to use as a
| display. The purpose of this would mostly be to render very high
| resolution photos while keeping more of the image visible at full
| resolution than is possible on a smaller screen.
|
| Anybody actually gone and done this?
| gcbw3 wrote:
| > Text can't be made look good on low-resolution displays.
|
| BS. Maybe true on user-hostile OSX/windows. But If LCD
| manufacturers provided the correct information on the DID data,
| it would be very trivial.
|
| On linux and with a little trial and error (you only have to do
| it once per monitor ever) you can fine tune the subpixel hinting.
| I use a photographer loupe (magnifying glass) to look at the a
| white region on my ancient LCDs to see the subpixel
| configuration, set it on my X config and have perfect aliased
| text just fine. ...well, except on some gtk2 applications :) But
| if you work more than a few minutes on those you have other
| problems.
| yc-kraln wrote:
| Checking in with 2xWQHD @ 144hz. Definitely invest in a good set
| of monitors...
| bob1029 wrote:
| For me, 2560x1440@144 on a 27" panel is by far the Goldilocks of
| writing code. 1080p feels like it's not tall enough with fat
| editors like Visual Studio, and anything bigger in size or DPI is
| starting to get too difficult to keep in focus.
|
| I do also have a separate workstation with a 4K 43" monitor that
| I use exclusively as a standing setup. The monitor is fairly far
| back, but still requires me to move my head slightly to view the
| extents. This is the workstation I typically use for daily stand-
| ups so that I can have a ton of relevant information up all at
| once. I will also do some large-scale codebase reorganization
| efforts on this setup as I can have 3-4 solution explorers side-
| by-side and still have 90% of my monitor remaining for code
| editor windows, debuggers, explorer windows, browsers, etc. That
| said, this setup is tiresome if you are trying to laser focus on
| a single area of the codebase for an extended duration.
|
| I will typically alternate between these setups throughout the
| day as appropriate.
|
| Also, I do appreciate the color accuracy of the 4k 43" monitor
| (IPS/8-bit). I don't do a lot of artistic work, but when I am
| trying to see if a certain shade of grey makes sense for a
| element relative to its contents, having an accurate monitor
| really helps pick a good color code. With TN you get much more
| 'coarse' results and its hard to find a good middle point.
| zedpoeticbits wrote:
| I am considering a 43" 4K monitor. Which one do you have, if
| you don't mind?
| tbirdz wrote:
| Another option for low DPI users is to use bitmap fonts instead
| of vector ones. I find blurriness of truetype fonts on low res
| displays to give greater visual fatigue than the jagged edges of
| misc-fixed or terminus.
| mrob wrote:
| Agreed. Anti-aliasing is only needed if you're trying to
| imitate printed text, which does not improve programming or
| writing productivity.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I've found my journey through tooling evolution to be fascinating
| (to me at least).
|
| When I was new and coding was slow, my worries were about so many
| other things (like how the language even worked) than even what
| text editor I used, let alone the monitor.
|
| As I became experienced, a lot of newbie problems went away and
| the next topmost problems emerged, leading to be obsessing over
| text editor, shortcuts, and even a multi-monitor setup with a
| vertical monitor.
|
| Then went through a minimalism phase where I was annoyed by how
| much time I was spending maintaining my tools rather than using
| them, so gone went almost all of that. Just one giant monitor and
| VSCode for better or worse (mainly because it does all six
| languages I use well enough).
|
| I'm now at a phase of thinking, "who are all these people who do
| so much coding in a day that these things matter?" because
| reading and writing code is maybe.... 35% of my job now? What I
| need to optimize for is reading/writing human text. And that's
| where I currently am: figuring out how to optimize writing
| documentation/design/architecture docs, given how awful making
| and maintaining a sequence or block diagram is currently.
|
| My conclusion so far is that I expect my needs to continue to
| mutate. I do not believe they are "converging" and do not believe
| there is any sort of golden setup I will one day discover.
| asdff wrote:
| Some of my colleagues love a vertical monitor for writing and
| reading documents.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I loved it too on a mac. When I switched companies and went
| to an Ubuntu-based laptop, trying to keep the whole monitor
| scenario working consistently was frustrating, so I dropped
| it.
| imhoguy wrote:
| Try `arandr`, you can design and save your perfect layout
| as bash script to promptly run at any time.
| agentdrtran wrote:
| I use one and have it setup at a 2/3 split, it's wonderful
| M5x7wI3CmbEem10 wrote:
| how do you build your projects using VSCode if you don't mind
| me asking?
| imhoguy wrote:
| And there is another phase - healthy: flicker free monitor,
| ergonomic keyboard, stand-up desk so on. When are these 27"
| e-ink monitors?
|
| And yet another phase - no-screen. Everyday I look forward to
| avoid screen-time as much as possible - more face to face time,
| more water-cooler chats, figuring out the solution with pen and
| paper or coding in head during outdoor walk.
| randallsquared wrote:
| I fully agree that higher DPI is better.
|
| I disagree that all available resolution should go to increasing
| sharpness and detail of text, which, after all, can only improve
| so much. There's only one metric that really matters for text,
| and that's reading speed. Any beauty or detail which doesn't
| serve to differentiate characters (thereby increasing reading
| speed) is essentially pointless.
|
| A better reason to get a better monitor is to fit more text on
| it. While coding or learning, there might be one or more editors,
| terminals, browsers, chats, etc. Can all this be behind tabs or
| in virtual desktops? Of course. But the value of having it all
| available at a flick of the eyes is so much higher! Even if you
| turn off all the animations, flipping virtual desktops or tabs
| requires a much more severe context switch than casting a glance
| to the right, left, or (slightly) up or down. I'm currently using
| a 5k2k monitor at its native resolution, and it's pretty awesome.
|
| I have been hoping for two decades that VR would solve this,
| allowing me to have a truly vast workspace that moved and zoomed
| just via eye movement, but not only is that day still far away in
| eye-tracking terms, VR goggles have so far all been much worse
| for text than high DPI screens, in my experience. I appreciate
| that there are VR workspaces in development, though, like
| Immersed, for the day when the hardware is good enough.
| bfung wrote:
| Longest ad I've read in a long time! Well done and done right! =)
| egypturnash wrote:
| Huh, 4k screens have come down. I could replace this eight-year-
| old 24" 93dpi Dell screen with a 27" 183dpi HP screen for $540
| (plus shipping). I think that's around what I paid for this one
| when it was new.
|
| (why that HP screen? First thing on Wirecutter's 'best monitors'
| list, which I think was how I chose the one I'm looking at right
| now.)
|
| I guess it'd be nice to turn off Illustrator's glitchy anti-
| aliased previews for good. But this monitor still works perfectly
| fine. Call me when I can get a color e-paper display with a 60hz
| or better refresh rate, I'm increasingly tired of staring into a
| giant light all the time.
| akersten wrote:
| It's interesting to see an argument against ClearType/font
| smoothing, but not anti-aliasing in general. They both change the
| font from what the designer intended, so why is font smoothing so
| much worse?
|
| I actually disable anti-aliasing in games on my 4K display - not
| just for performance, but because anti-aliasing genuinely isn't
| needed at that density. I think the author could go all the way
| here too, since after all, AA is just another crutch for low-
| density displays.
| neilobremski wrote:
| And I suppose writers must have a Moleskine notebook and use
| clear penmanship? Hmm ...
| fuball63 wrote:
| I still use an old boxy crt as my second monitor. It's at a low
| resolution, even for it, but it's primarily for slack and video
| meetings. I code and webbrowse using OSX full screen swipe
| mechanism on the main laptop screen.
|
| I often reflect on how blurry and oddly colored the crt is in
| comparison, and that how back in the day I never noticed or
| cared.
|
| It works fine for slack, and I prefer bigger text for chat
| anyway. Because it is still working, I don't see a reason to put
| it in a landfill or be "recycled".
| platz wrote:
| I was thinking about a 4k, but i'm not sure I will know how to
| get everything to run at 2x scale, on both windows and linux.
|
| Is this hard to do? Caveats?
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| It's the default under both Windows 10 and Gnome 3 for hi-dpi
| displays. In fact, it's near impossible to get fractional dpi
| working across the board on Gnome 3.
| platz wrote:
| I use i3 but I'm sure there are Nvidia settings to control
| the x display somehow
| skizm wrote:
| Personally I can't go back to a 60hz monitor at this point. So
| really can't go to 4K until there is a reasonably priced 144hz
| monitor with low input lag and response times. I'm okay
| sacrificing color for speed (TN panels are okay with me).
| nickjj wrote:
| 27" 4k is going to be pretty tough to read text at 1:1 scaling
| even with 20/20 vision.
|
| IMO you're better off grabbing something like a 25" 2560x1440
| monitor. You can comfortably read text at a few feet away, even
| small text with not the best contrast.
|
| If you start scaling to 150% or 200% with your 4k display you'll
| end up with the same screen real estate as a 2560x1440 or even a
| 1080p monitor depending on how much you scale up and you'll end
| up paying a lot more. For example a really good 2560x1440 monitor
| will run you about $300-350 (IPS display, low input lag, good
| color accuracy, etc.). The first 2 monitors in OP's post are
| $1,500 to $1,730.
|
| I did a huge write up on this at
| https://nickjanetakis.com/blog/how-to-pick-a-good-monitor-fo...
| if anyone is curious. I evaluated a bunch of monitors and
| ultimately picked a 25" 2560x1440 since it's the sweet spot for
| PPI at normal viewing distances while having normal vision.
|
| For programming, having a 2560x1440 1:1 scaled display is going
| to be a huge win. You can easily fit 4x 80 column windows side by
| side in most code editors. After using that set up for years,
| there's no way I would ever want to work on a display that's less
| than an effective 2560x1440 resolution again.
| adtac wrote:
| This is going to sound like I want to eat the cake and still have
| it, but I wish there was some sort of balance between real
| estate, sharpness, and affordability. A 24in 4K monitor without
| scaling makes text too small, but at 200%, it's no different from
| a 1080p monitor real estate-wise (even though text is much
| crisper). My current monitor, a 1440p 24in screen at 100%, serves
| all of my real estate needs, but leaves something to be desired
| in terms of sharpness, so a 5K screen at 200% and similar
| physical size would be perfect; alas, there aren't any general-
| purpose 5K monitors at an affordable price. 8K screens at 300%
| would offer similar, albeit slightly lower, real estate at even
| better text sharpness, but there's just one such monitor from
| Dell and it's ridiculously expensive.
|
| I hope 5K monitors become as cheap as 4K monitors over the next
| few years.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > 8K screens at 300% would offer similar, albeit slightly
| lower, real estate at even better text sharpness
|
| 5K @ 200% = 5120 / 2 = 2560
|
| 8K @ 300% = 7680 / 3 = 2560
| adtac wrote:
| Oops, you're right, I knew I should've just used Python
| instead of trying to do that in my head :)
| asdff wrote:
| You can make text bigger without scaling in pretty much every
| application there is with text.
| plorkyeran wrote:
| 5k 27" imacs have been out for a few years now, but the screen
| is a pretty significant chunk of the cost.
| adtac wrote:
| Which is why I said "general-purpose 5K". I want to use the
| hypothetical perfect monitors with a i3-like window manager
| on Linux.
| mv4 wrote:
| I work with documents a lot, and my current preference is two
| ultra-wide monitors, allowing me to have 4 windows side-by-side.
| CarVac wrote:
| I prefer real-estate to sharp fonts, so I run my 4K screens (24"
| and 27") with no scaling at all.
| tomchuk wrote:
| Couldn't agree more. My primary monitor is a 43" 4k LG at
| unscaled, native resolution. I can fit five 94 column wide
| terminals tiled across, each showing 140 lines of text.
|
| Is the text super crisp? Nope. Would I give up all this space
| for smoother text? Not a chance. Would I replace it with a 43"
| 8k monitor? In a heartbeat.
| KAdot wrote:
| I find text very hard to read on a 27" 4K monitor with no
| scaling. Not sure if it has something to do with me getting
| older and wearing glasses.
| pier25 wrote:
| You must have super sharp vision
| 0-_-0 wrote:
| Or nose against the monitor
| asdff wrote:
| Most software lets you increase text size. This lets you
| maximize functional resolution by letting ui elements remain
| small and text to remain legible. I don't need my window
| header to be twice as thick.
| yummypaint wrote:
| I do the same, but with a 36" screen to match the pixel pitch
| of standard size 1080p monitors. I can't imagine giving up 75%
| of my work area in exchange for prettier fonts.
| dspillett wrote:
| Similar. My last screen upgrade is a 32" unit at 2560x1440. It
| has more-or-less the same pitch as my previous 23.5" 1920x1080
| devices. With no scaling everything is the same size but I can
| have more visible. Sometimes I use the larger one effectively
| as two portrait screens instead of one landscape. One of the
| older monitors rotates, I have that set portrait too.
| orestis wrote:
| Do all that, of course. But when you're writing applications for
| other people, go buy a shitty middle of the pack laptop,
| resolution 1280x768, with the windows start bar and menu bars
| eating like 150pixels of that, and try to use your software
| there.
| tln wrote:
| Good call.
|
| I use this https://github.com/mattkersley/Responsive-Design-
| Testing too, modified with 1366 x 768 as one of the three "key
| sizes" to design for.
| chrismorgan wrote:
| Concerning the smoothing, I presume this is macOS's glyph
| dilation. pcwalton reverse engineered it in order to replicate it
| in Pathfinder (so that it can render text exactly like Core Text
| does), concluding that the glyph dilation is "min(vec2(0.3px),
| vec2(0.015125, 0.0121) * S) where S is the font size in px"
| (https://twitter.com/pcwalton/status/918991457532354560). Fun
| times.
|
| Trouble is, people then get _used_ to macOS's font rendering, so
| that (a) they don't want to turn it off, because it's different
| from what they're used to, and (b) start designing for it. I'm
| convinced this is a large part of the reason why people deploy so
| many websites with body text at weight 300 rather than 400,
| because macOS makes that tolerable because it makes it bolder.
| Meanwhile people using other operating systems that obey what the
| font said are left with unpleasantly thin text.
| microcolonel wrote:
| I've blocked font-weight: 300 in my browser because of this
| permanent macOS bug. It's funny because people now abuse a
| thoughtfully-designed CSS property to disable this dilation on
| webpages, to the point that that CSS property is used
| exclusively to account for macOS's incorrect font rendering and
| is inert on other platforms.
| tonsky wrote:
| this is interesting, thank you! And font-weight: 300 has been
| an old personal nemesis. That explained at least part of it! Do
| you know if font dilation is on by default?
| yreg wrote:
| Hello there, perhaps it's a joke, but dark mode makes the
| article unreadable.
| torb-xyz wrote:
| I tried turning off smoothing and frankly the text was
| uncomfortably thin to read. I guess maybe their font should
| just be bolder by default so you don't need the glyph dilation
| to compensate.
| tonsky wrote:
| You get used to it after few days
| chrismorgan wrote:
| I didn't actually know you _could_ turn it off before today!
| I've never had a Mac, I'm used to FreeType and Windows font
| rendering.
|
| I have a vague feeling that Macs also have somewhat different
| gamma treatment from other platforms, which would be likely
| to contribute to thickness perception.
| mianos wrote:
| I am old old old, and I agree. This is probably something Mac
| users would notice once they are used to 'retina' resolution. At
| work we have two monitors on stalks and laptops. Work provides
| laptops to plug into these. The big (23"?) monitors are big,
| that's all. They hold less text than the laptop screen and it's
| much worse to read. I just use the laptop as it's easier on the
| eyes. At home I always had multiple monitors but once I got a 4K
| monitor, at most I have the laptop open for more screen, often
| CNBFed. All this is probably more based on what you are used to.
| If you have big screens and nothing of 'retina' resolution you
| are not going to care until you do.
| gauchojs wrote:
| Conclusion after reading tens of comments here: no way to know if
| I'm young enough for 27" 4k (which is finally affordable in my
| country) or if I should go with 2560x1440 at 24", which feels
| outdated in 2020...
|
| And that isn't a great step over my working 22" 10-year old 22"
| FHD Dell.
|
| How long until we have affordable 'Macbook like' crispness as 22"
| or 27"?
|
| (Also Linux still sucks with fractional scaling.)
| nothal wrote:
| The article itself is interesting but I couldn't stop snickering
| after the author cited a Twitter poll as their research.
| dijit wrote:
| I have been looking to upgrade my aging U2412m's for some time.
|
| But 16:10 is dead; so why bother? it might only be a little
| horizontal space but it's a huge difference to not have it.
|
| Thankfully recent laptops are returning to 16:10 (Macbook's and
| Dell XPS's) But monitors still do not seem to exist.
| robertoandred wrote:
| MacBooks never left 16:10, thank god...
| dijit wrote:
| I seem to recall my macbook (2011) being 16:9, but it turns
| out 1280x800 is actually 16:10!
|
| It seems you're right for the retinas and upwards too, that's
| heartening[0]
|
| [0] https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2018/4/19/1702728
| 6/l...
| coreai wrote:
| After using a rMBP for 6 years, I realized that using a lower
| resolution and lower quality display makes absolutely no sense at
| all if both graphical power and budget is available (first 13'
| rMBP had some serious issue driving the display). Better quality
| image is better quality image. I think Apple's biggest selling
| point over any vendor right now, despite numerous issues with its
| hardware and software in the recent past, is absolutely top class
| input and output. It is such a simple concept. A great keyboard
| (seems to be fixed now) and absolutely incredible trackpad
| experience along with a display that basically is a huge step up
| from your past experience means that most users will prefer that
| setup even if they just use it for basic coding or web browsing.
| After looking at the first retina displays I realized that Apple
| didn't just change the displays but it changed how fonts behaved
| completely because the crisp and clear legibility was key to
| attract customers early on. I'd say even in 2020 most computers
| are struggling with good displays which can completely ruin the
| experience for someone using the product even if every other
| aspect of it was great.
| delecti wrote:
| I honestly find MBP trackpads to be too big, which is
| admittedly a preference thing, but their keyboards are
| absolutely horrible, and I have difficulty understanding how
| anyone could think they were "great". There's not enough
| distinguishing keys from each other, so I can't ground myself
| to the home row. I can't think of many keyboards I've used
| throughout my life that I enjoy _less_ than the MBP. And that
| 's not even mentioning the quality issues (duplicated or broken
| keys), or the lack of Fn keys.
| stu2b50 wrote:
| Are you talking about the butterfly (2016-2019) keyboards or
| the new magic keyboard OP (2020) was talking about?
| bredren wrote:
| I've been focused on Apple display products for the past few
| months as I'm looking to make an upgrade from the Dell P2715Q
| 4k 27" I use primarily for development.
|
| There is a three page thread on using the Apple 32" XDR for
| software dev on MacRumors. [1]
|
| I believe there is a major product gap at Apple right now in
| the mid-market display. Specifically a replacement for the LED
| 27" Cinema Display which was announced 10 years ago next month.
| [2]
|
| I am speculating that Apple could announce a new 27" 5k in part
| because of the rumored announcement of a new Mac Pro but also
| because the build quality of the LG 5k Ultrafine is just not
| great and there are obvious synergies with XDR production and
| Mac Pro.
|
| I think this should be announced at WWDC is because developers
| specifically are being left out of good display products and
| Apple should be looking out for what they stare at all day.
|
| While there are no supply chain rumors of such a display, I
| wargamed what this product might be and its pricing anyway.[3]
|
| In short, I speculate Apple will release a 27 inch IPS display,
| 5120 x 2880 @ 60Hz with standard glass at $1999, Nano-texture
| Glass at $2799.
|
| I had not paid a lot of attention to the refresh rate, but it
| does seem like kind of a miss that the XDR does nor offer this.
|
| ---
|
| [1] https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/xdr-for-software-
| dev.22...
|
| [2] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2010/07/27Apple-Unveils-
| New-2...
|
| [3] https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/wishful-thinking-
| wwdc-d...
| fossuser wrote:
| I _really_ wanted the new Apple display, but I just couldn 't
| bring myself to pay $14k for a pair of them.
|
| I ended up going with Dell U2720Qs, and after some tedious
| initial work to get them running natively at 60hz, they're
| fine.
|
| I would have bought the Apple displays in a second though if
| they had been priced up to maybe even 3k each.
| ksec wrote:
| I kind of thinking such Display's "Design" could overlap with
| the new iMac. One reason Apple used to having a "Chin" in the
| iMac was to distinguish it as a Computer and not a Monitor /
| Cinema Display. Judging from the leaks, New iMac would not
| have a Chin at all, and since there is no similar sized
| Cinema Display in the Line up this doesn't really matter.
|
| I just wish they bring back Target Mode, or something similar
| to iPad's SideCar.
| bredren wrote:
| I'm in agreement. Apple might have:
|
| - Proved and debugged on the XDR release at the pro price
| point.
|
| - Kept working on how it can be cheaper and fit into plans
| for whatever the ARM-based machine's initial graphics
| capability will be.
|
| - Designed it to use a similar manufacturing line to the
| iMac then offer it at a lower price point to support the
| current mac pro, mac mini and a possible dev kit for the
| arm mac.
|
| Or I suppose just keep making everyone buy the LG 5k
| ultrafine that is four years old. :P
| caymanjim wrote:
| I have a Dell P2715Q and I'm happy with it. I haven't tried
| anything with a higher resolution or DPI, but I can't see any
| individual pixels on the Dell, so for the moment, it's good
| enough for me.
|
| I can't go back to sub-4k though. Looking at a 24" 1920x1080
| monitor tweaks my brain. Pixels ahoy. It's jarring. I'm not
| the kind of person who cares about superficial things or
| style or brand at all, but I just can't get comfortable with
| sub-4k anymore.
|
| Be very wary of Apple monitors. If you can, try one out in
| the environment you intend to use it in, before you commit.
| Apple displays are _highly_ reflective. The glare is obscene.
| The display quality is great, but I can 't deal with the eye
| strain. It's like there's a mirror glaze on top. They used to
| offer a matte option, but I don't believe they do anymore.
| It's painful.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > 27 inch IPS display, 5120 x 2880 @ 60Hz with standard glass
| at $1999
|
| That's $200 more than it costs with the computer built in.
| Would rather see it more aggressively priced, or at least
| bring back target mode.
| ianhowson wrote:
| I've got a Planar IX2790 and it's great. Article is spot-on
| re. scaling -- it's much nicer to look at all day (native
| 2x scaling) vs. 4k at 1.5x scaling.
| bredren wrote:
| Thanks for this idea. The design looks surprisingly like
| the old cinema display. Actually, apparently they use the
| same glass from the cinema display but no camera. [1]
|
| It looks like the main concerns on this are around stuck
| pixels. Have you gone through calibration / QA on yours?
| [2]
|
| Otherwise, seems like a compelling alternative to the
| Ultrafine.
|
| [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Monitors/comments/8zomas/i_j
| ust_rec...
|
| [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/Monitors/comments/e5n9y5/pla
| nar_ix2...
| ianhowson wrote:
| I believe the theory that it's 5k iMac panels that Apple
| rejected. I have a few stuck pixels but I never notice
| because they're so small. I have a blue stuck-on in the
| lower-right quadrant and I can't even find it now.
|
| I haven't bothered calibrating it.
| bredren wrote:
| This is an important point. I have a pal with an aging 5k
| imac that he wishes he could use only as a monitor with a
| new mac mini.
|
| It seems display tech in imac is severely discounted in
| order to sell the whole thing. And it does seem to break
| the pricing if you don't see them as different products
| offering value for different configurations.
|
| Bringing back target mode, or allowing the iMac to act as
| an external monitor would greatly increase the value of
| that product.
|
| I can't explain how this pricing makes sense exactly,
| except that I can only assume Apple will want or need to
| price this stuff high to help differentiate the build
| quality in comparison to the collaboration on LG's
| ultrafine.
| freeqaz wrote:
| I bet somebody could make a business refurbishing those
| old 5K iMacs into usable monitors. Either yank the panel
| into a new case w/ a custom board to drive the display,
| or hack an input into the existing system (maybe with a
| minimal booting OS).
|
| Either way, that'd be a cool product to see and seems
| like a decent side hustle to get some $. :)
| udp wrote:
| I recently bought a 2015 27" 5K (5120x2880) iMac core i5
| for cheap, put in an SSD, and upped the RAM to 24 GB. It
| handles everything I can throw at it as a developer
| (albeit not a game developer, just "full stack"
| web/java/node/k8s) and the screen is just incredible.
|
| The SSD upgrade is not for the faint hearted, however. I
| used the iFixit kit with the provided "tools", and
| lifting off 27" of extremely expensive and heavy glass
| that sounded like it might crack at any moment was not
| exactly fun. Having said that - I would do it again in a
| heartbeat to get another computer/display like this for
| the price I paid.
|
| With regards to scaling: I have had zero problems with
| either my rMBP (since 2013) or this iMac, when in macOS
| running at high resolution. Zero. As soon as I boot
| Windows or Linux, however, it's basically unusable unless
| I turn the resolution down.
| coob wrote:
| I've just switched to a an LG "5K2K" ultrawide [1]. 5120 x
| 2160 and fairly reasonably priced.
|
| [1] https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-34WK95U-W-ultrawide-
| monito...
| bredren wrote:
| Thanks for this idea. The product page says it is 218 PPI,
| but I don't see how that is possible given it is 34" wide.
| Pixensity says teh actual PPI is 163.44. Can you confirm
| the PPI on this monitor?
|
| https://pixensity.com/list/lg-34wk95u-w-39631/
| coob wrote:
| It's 163. I think the 218 you got from a Cmd-F and picked
| up the SEO blurb for the 5k ultra fine in the footer).
|
| I cannot tell the difference between the LG and my
| MacBook's retina screen at my normal viewing range, but
| this may just be my eyes.
|
| I also use a non integer scaling factor on both screens
| as I find it has the right combo of resolution and real
| estate for me, and I don't notice artefacts.
| diffeomorphism wrote:
| For the trackpad I agree, but definitely not for the keyboard.
| And apple was late(!) to hires screens and to hidpi and now has
| lower res and density than the competition (e.g. 16:10 better
| 4k on dell xps or 3:2 screens with MS and others).
|
| Also, apple had TN screens forever when the similarly priced
| competition had higher res IPS screens.
| EForEndeavour wrote:
| Isn't 4k on a laptop a significant power drain? And isn't the
| point of "stopping" at Retina resolution that the human eye
| can't tell the difference between Retina and higher
| resolutions like 4K at typical laptop screen size and viewing
| distance?
| robertoandred wrote:
| Who else had hi-res screens in 2012?
| TacticalTable wrote:
| Nobody in the laptop scene. They were the only ones with an
| OS that could correctly handle scaling at the time.
| wtetzner wrote:
| I had a 1080p Alienware laptop in 2004. Then for some
| reason, laptops all went even lower resolution for a long
| time, and I couldn't find a good one until Apple came out
| with their Retina displays. Not sure what happened.
| Manufacturers just became cheap?
| ksec wrote:
| >Also, apple had TN screens forever when the similarly priced
| competition had higher res IPS screens.
|
| As far as I am aware Apple only used TN screen for their
| MacBook Air. They were also the first to push Retina / Hi PPI
| Display on Consumer PC.
| diffeomorphism wrote:
| Before "retina" apple used TN and lower res displays on
| their mbp (compare WUXGA dreamcolor for hp or flexview on
| thinkpads).
|
| They were not the first. That would be Sony Vaio for hidpi
| and ultrabooks and ibm and hp for hires ips. Apple were the
| first widely successful ones.
| mthoms wrote:
| >And apple was late(!) to hires screens and to hidpi
|
| Are you sure about that? It doesn't seem to mesh with my
| recollection.
| diffeomorphism wrote:
| Yes.
| mthoms wrote:
| Actually, no.
|
| >At 220 pixels per inch it's easily the highest density
| consumer notebook panel shipping today.
|
| https://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-
| pro-...
|
| >"Of course, the real highlight is that new Retina
| Display. Its resolution is 2,880x1,800 pixels, providing
| a level of detail never seen on a laptop before. The
| highest standard Windows laptop screen resolution is
| 1,920x1,080 pixels, the same as an HDTV."
|
| https://www.cnet.com/reviews/apple-macbook-pro-with-
| retina-d...
|
| >The signature feature of the new MacBook Pro is the new
| 15.4-inch (39.11 cm diagonal) Retina display. [...] So
| far, no notebook screen has topped resolutions of 1900 x
| 1200 pixels (WUXGA) or 2048x1536 (QXGA in old Thinkpad
| models).
|
| https://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Apple-MacBook-
| Pro-15-Re...
|
| If you manage to dig up some obscure laptop that had a
| higher resolution at the time I wouldn't be completely
| surprised. However, to suggest that Apple was "late(!)"
| with high DPI screens is provably false and frankly,
| ridiculous.
| robertoandred wrote:
| Who else had high dpi screens in 2012?
| wtetzner wrote:
| I've found the keyboard on my Surface Book to be _much_ better
| than the keyboard on any of the MBPs I 've used and owned.
|
| The trackpad was just as good, too. But of course, the OS was
| worse, mostly in terms of performance. Windows 10 just always
| feels slow for some reason.
| adamch wrote:
| Wow. He was right. I just changed my 15 inch Macbook Pro scaling
| away from default and WOW the text is clear. I also just turned
| my second monitor onto 144hz and WOW the animations are fast. My
| work from home setup just got significantly better.
| eqtn wrote:
| i have a 4k 27" paired with a thinkpad. On ubuntu with gnome
| there is a huge performance dip on x11 with fractional scaling
| turned on. So i use this at 1x with font scaling of 1.25x.
| tln wrote:
| Damnit! This article fucked up my setup.
|
| I just went in and fiddled with Display settings and my 4k TV
| doesn't show 1:1 scaling anymore.
|
| I mean, it's Catalina issue, but still. Tonsky: May your
| Helvetica always be silently replaced with Arial
| h2odragon wrote:
| That's a lot of words to say that vector fonts suck for less than
| 24 px sizes. use bitmaps; there's lots of them to mitigate that
| problem. It was not that long ago that 640x480 was a screen and
| it sucked but things got done.
|
| My last (almost) 2k CRT last just long enough that i could afford
| a 4k LCD when it died. I'm pleased with a pair of these but once
| MOAR PIXELS become affordable i'll buy them.
| laurentdc wrote:
| I don't know. Text is important to me, but high refresh rate is
| much more.
|
| Even scrolling text or dragging windows around at >120 Hz is a
| game changer. Going back to the MBP display gives me instant
| headache until I re-adapt. It's hard to describe, it's like all
| of a sudden everything has a very distracting input lag.
|
| Now I just need to wait for a 4k 144Hz IPS that can be driven via
| MBP (or just get what's on the market and run eGPU)
| JohnBooty wrote:
| At the end of the article, the author mentions the Acer Nitro
| XV273K, which Macs can drive at 4K@120hz (though you have to
| jump through a hoop in the Displays prefs on each boot)
| tonsky wrote:
| 4k can be driven by Mac at 120Hz, but the mac has to be new
| enough (2018+ is my guess, based on thunderbolt 3 upgrade in
| 2018) and have a discrete graphics card.
| mumbisChungo wrote:
| Interesting article, but I'll stick with my dual 144 hz 27" 1080p
| monitors for less than the cost of a single 4k 144 hz that I
| wouldn't be able to use for gaming without investing another $10k
| in my tower.
| jedberg wrote:
| I have two monitors. A 27" Apple Cinema display from 2012 that I
| got used in 2015, and an LG Ultra HD (4K) that I picked up last
| year new.
|
| Yes, the LG is newer, 4K, has a higher DPI, etc. But I often find
| myself putting my most important windows on the Apple Display.
| The color is just so much more beautiful and vibrant, the clarity
| and contrast are superior, it's just so much better.
|
| Sure, I can't fit as much code on it as the LG, but boy is it
| pretty. Apple definitely puts quality in their monitors. It's a
| shame they left the consumer market in 2016.
| pkulak wrote:
| The problem is that a little more can be waaay worse. You need to
| to double your pixels to avoid turning everything into a blurry
| mess, which means 200+ PPI. But there are literally no monitors
| like that not made by Apple. A 4K monitor at 32 inches is 138. No
| thank you. Gross. There actually are some 4K 22-inch monitors,
| but I don't want a 22-inch monitor.
|
| I'm just going to stick with my 1440p 27" monitor until someone
| can sell me something better.
| johncalvinyoung wrote:
| I hate the idea of scaling and blur, but I find I really like
| 6K-equivalent on my 27" 4K monitor at my desk (driven by a MBP
| below the monitor). And no, I don't have budget for a Pro Display
| XDR, as beautiful as it is. If I could get an IPS 6K panel for
| 15-2500, I'd save my pennies.
| zrm wrote:
| Does anybody make a reasonable 16:10 aspect ratio 4K monitor yet?
| Because I'd buy it, but I can also stick with 2K forever if
| nobody wants to shut up and take my money.
| pmarin wrote:
| I prefer the low cost solution of using pixel fonts.
| andai wrote:
| Surprised there's no mention of bitmap fonts. Solves all the
| problems for free :)
| biosed wrote:
| Using 55" LG OLED @4k as my main display, nothing compares.
| CoolGuySteve wrote:
| Yeah this is the right answer. I use a 40" 4k display, it has
| the same dpi as a 27" 1440p display.
|
| The extra real estate is a way bigger productivity enhancer
| than smoother fonts. Like there's not even any comparison.
| post_break wrote:
| Oled for a monitor is tough because burn in a very real for
| high contrast static images. They have done a good job but I
| watch a lot of high end oled tv reviews and it doesn't take too
| long for menu bars and the like to start ghosting.
| _JamesA_ wrote:
| Have you experienced any of the reported OLED burn-in issues?
|
| I would love to upgrade to an OLED but my screens are on at
| least 16 hours a day with semi-static content. That's a hefty
| price to take a chance on burn-in.
| biosed wrote:
| Its the C9 and I have all the anti burnin features turned on,
| I have no issues, you can see the tv moving the whole screen
| a few pixels every so often.
| pier25 wrote:
| At what distance? Do you have a picture of your setup?
| biosed wrote:
| about 45 to 60 cm
| Shivetya wrote:
| The new CX generation from LG comes with a 48" model which may
| fit people better and supports variable rate refresh which is
| good for gaming as some cards and consoles can support it.
|
| Living with a C9 65" as my main television, not computer
| monitor, while I acknowledge the picture quality is
| incomparable from my point of view I am in the camp of that for
| a general work computer screen it would be best to wait for
| micro LED technology to spread. OLED still suffers the risk of
| burn in but this is mostly from fixed elements where the screen
| is level on for days if not years. Still not worth the
| degradation that will come as most elements are fixed and
| always on display with Mac OS.
|
| So for the most part a well lit IPS display will serve users
| just fine these days and reserve OLED for the living room.
| zzo38computer wrote:
| Really the problem is they are using vector fonts; I use bitmap
| fonts in my xterm, and it is not as bad as the vector fonts used
| in Firefox. The text is not blurry if you are using bitmap fonts.
| How can I force Firefox and other programs to prefer bitmap
| fonts? (What I have tried, just results in no text being
| displayed at all.)
|
| (High DPI is probably useful if you are doing a lot of print
| previewing, though.)
| GoblinSlayer wrote:
| Uncheck the checkbox "allow sites to use their own fonts", then
| Firefox will use configured fonts.
| zzo38computer wrote:
| I did that. But I still can't seem to configure it to use
| bitmap fonts. I got it to use bitmap fonts for the tab
| titles, the location bar, and the status bar, but it won't
| use bitmap fonts for anything else.
| AnthonBerg wrote:
| OCD.
| ryanmjacobs wrote:
| Yeah... I've got a small anecdote. I find that I write better
| code on lower resolution screens. Right now, I'm on a 1440x900
| display at 75 dpi. And it's annoying, for sure. But it keeps my
| code concise and well-organized. It forces you develop your code
| around a mental model, instead of a visual model.
|
| I find that at 4K, my code starts spreading out -- horizontally
| and vertically. That's fine when you're writing it, but when you
| come back to it months later, it's so hard to comprehend that
| much information all at once IMO. It's weird. And I might not be
| explaining it properly.
|
| If you were to write your code on an 800x600 display, you would
| make sure that every function did not go over 800 vertical
| pixels. It would probably give you a headache if you did.
|
| I can look at code and almost immediately tell that it was
| written on a 4K display. Oftentimes, everything is spread out and
| chained obtusely.
|
| Completely different game for web dev though -- having the
| browser side by side with your code helps.
|
| ...
|
| Also, 4:3 is awesome for code. All I need is two, side-by-side
| panes of 80-column text :)
|
| 16:9 has me glancing left to right too much.
| SSLy wrote:
| You can change the font size everywhere.
| boltzmann_brain wrote:
| > 2020 > using 1080p monitor c'mon now
| starpilot wrote:
| Missing from article are any specific productivity or health
| benefits that come from an upgrade to 4K. For a sane guide, check
| out the /r/monitors google doc link in
| https://www.reddit.com/r/Monitors/comments/h8vb4s/rmonitors_...
| 0-_-0 wrote:
| I have the same monitor as the author (Acer Nitro XV273K) and
| it's simply amazing with VSCode. It makes working from home a
| very pleasant experience, I'm not looking forward to going back
| to the office and a 1080p monitor... Not to mention how good
| games look at 4K 120 fps.
| Aunche wrote:
| I agree with other commenters that monitors are subjective, but I
| find it surprising that FAANG companies are so stingy when it
| comes to monitors. We get top of the line desktops and laptops,
| but rather mediocre monitors.
| Androider wrote:
| 3840 x 1600 is the perfect resolution for programming in my
| opinion, and is now starting to become more widely available in
| 38" wide form factor (equivalent to a "normal" 32" but wider). At
| this size, you can finally comfortably have 2-3 normal-size
| windows side by side: your editor/IDE, your browser/app, and one
| third for documentation, without having to go multi-monitor. The
| 1600p vertical resolution is fantastic for coding. If you're
| interested in this size, LG 38WN95C is a great one just starting
| to become available that hits all the marks: Thunderbolt, 144HZ
| refresh rate (including G-Sync and Adaptive Sync), IPS panel
| (must) and looks "normal" without any gamer aesthetics or RGB
| lighting.
|
| Unfortunately it's going to be a very long time before we get
| high-dpi equivalents. 4K, which is frequently 1080p equivalent in
| terms of workspace, is just not doable after you've been using
| 1600p.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-06-17 23:00 UTC)