Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers

Thanks for supporting LPF!

Avery's Instagram | Open Source Cybersecurity Software by Avery | Considering selling LPF, DM if interested

Windows 10 , Have you?

InfinitusEquitas

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
15,444
Points
113
Well, unfortunately UPS screwed up, and I didn't get my tv/monitor today. Should have it tomorrow hopefully. On the plus side, walmart did agree to credit me back $25 for the 5 day delay.

One thing I would like to learn from my experience with 4k at home, is whether it would be worthwhile to adopt it for work also. At least 50% of my time is spent in mundane things like writing emails in outlook, and documents work in word/pdf, where having two monitors is very helpful. That said with a wider monitor may be helpful since I would be able to quickly see more fields in wide excel spreadsheets.
 



Bionic-Badger

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2007
Messages
5,458
Points
83
As i'm very slightly nearsighted (-1.25 or so) having very high resolutions would prevent me from being able to see that at normal working distance. Something like 1920x1200 at 24 inches or so is ideal for me. For a larger screen 2560x1600 would be nice at 30 inches or so, though i don't really need it.

Hmm, most of the programs I've used, such as Photoshop and even old ones like Fireworks 8, can properly zoom down so I can see the pixels without much issue. If I really need inspect something I can also use the screen magnifier (Win + plus or minus).

I found that 28" @2560x1600 monitors (or was it by 1440?) have the same pixel size as 24" @ 1920x1200 which is pretty nice, but that was mostly for some VNC sessions to a Linux machine where I really couldn't change the DPI.

I like the 16:10 aspect ratio over 16:9 as i do quite a lot of (php) programming too and having more vertical space is nice for that.

I really do miss 16:10, especially on screens that are still 1920xWhatever. It sucks that computer screens were reduced in vertical dimensions just for HD movies, which is pretty ridiculous. I was quite annoyed that I lost vertical space when upgrading my laptop.
 

Bionic-Badger

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2007
Messages
5,458
Points
83
One thing I would like to learn from my experience with 4k at home, is whether it would be worthwhile to adopt it for work also. At least 50% of my time is spent in mundane things like writing emails in outlook, and documents work in word/pdf, where having two monitors is very helpful. That said with a wider monitor may be helpful since I would be able to quickly see more fields in wide excel spreadsheets.

Even with a giant screen I still use a second monitor. I just like having stuff off my main screen no matter how much space I may have. It's also nice for playing games and being able to see stuff on the second monitor. I also keep my (vertical) taskbar on the second monitor.
 

InfinitusEquitas

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
15,444
Points
113
I also usually have skype, fb, and some other stuff always open on a second screen, and often have another terminal up on part of the second screen too. Definitely not dropping 2nd monitor though, I don't use one as much at home.
 

Benm

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
8,113
Points
113
I really do miss 16:10, especially on screens that are still 1920xWhatever. It sucks that computer screens were reduced in vertical dimensions just for HD movies, which is pretty ridiculous. I was quite annoyed that I lost vertical space when upgrading my laptop.

I guess at some point it made sense to use the same panels in tv's and computer monitors.

At this point that's not really valid anymore, most tv's sold are very well over 30 inches and most pc monitors are below that, so the markets for the panels have separated once again.

The market for 16:10 isn't really gone though, major brands like dell, hp, eizo, iiyama and even samsung still carry them, over the whole 22 to 30 inch range. These are not the cheapest displays on the market, but then again, you'd probably want a proper IPS panel anyway making the really cheap stuff unusable.
 

dden4012

New member
Joined
May 30, 2016
Messages
1,002
Points
0
I cannot use more than 1 video card on windows 10. Enabling SLI thrashes my desktop and i have to go through the 3 boot failures to get to safe mode lol. Now on new tech it seems to run fine minus some bloatware compatibility issues. In my corporate setting forgettaboutit. Lots of issues with licensing servers we have for programs like Cyclone, Bently Microstation, Bently Projectwise, Topodot, ArcGIS....along with hardware drivers and UI's for our surveying equipment...there isnt a work around for these issues yet. Plus possible privacy concerns. Win 7 really was an improvement to win xp. I can see win10 being great for a tablet computer.
 

InfinitusEquitas

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
15,444
Points
113
Literally just installed 4k tv as monitor. Went from 27" 1920x1080 to 40" 4k, and 13" is quite a difference. Can't see pixels at all at regular seating distance, and amount of screen real estate is great.

One thing I didn't really count on, that will take some getting used to, is my eye level is not more toward the bottom of the monitor as opposed to center, with the smaller one.

The other is, I'll have figure out a way to keep from turning on my tv, and monitor when I only want one on and not the other, since both are Vizio's and the remotes are all cross compatible.
 

Dr_Evil

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2008
Messages
2,244
Points
63
I really do miss 16:10, especially on screens that are still 1920xWhatever. It sucks that computer screens were reduced in vertical dimensions just for HD movies, which is pretty ridiculous. I was quite annoyed that I lost vertical space when upgrading my laptop.

I'm not sure where companies thought it would be a great idea to remove vertical space on monitors. That's one reason I've stuck with my 3 1280x1024 monitors for so long.

I am looking at something like this and splitting it into 3 separate "screens." I'd lose about 400 horizontal pixels but gain about 400 vertically.

LG 34UM88-P 34" FreeSync IPS LED Monitor 3440 x 1440 WQHD 21:9 UltraWide 5ms On-Screen Control with 4-way Screen Split, Thunderbolt 2.0 and USB 3.0 Quick Charge HDMI DisplayPort-Newegg.com
 

InfinitusEquitas

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
15,444
Points
113
I remember "upgrading" from a 19" to a 22" 1920x1080, and thinking it must have been a mistake when I actually received the monitor. Sent it back to newegg the following day. The different aspect ratio is really annoying for smaller monitors.

That LG is nice, but very expensive for what you're actually getting. Would be far more economical to upgrade to two or even three 27" 1920x1080 monitors.

Btw, vizio d40ud1 looks great in games (which is what I wanted), but I think it's actually too large for comfortable work. Maybe I'll change my mind later on.
 

Dr_Evil

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2008
Messages
2,244
Points
63
I would like to upgrade but a 3440x1440 monitor is the only reasonable solution I've found. I despise 1920x1200/1080 because of the skewed proportions. I want more vertical space. It would also be nice to only have 2 cords to deal with vs 4 or 6. The other problem is desk space. That LG would be 1' narrower than my current 3 monitor setup. The height difference is less than 1 inch.

ETA: IF I could find 3 1600x1200 monitors, I would consider that as another option.
 
Last edited:

InfinitusEquitas

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
15,444
Points
113
Another option would be to have one larger monitor mounted above the other two. No way to get around the cabled issue. The space behind my monitors is practically a cobweb of cables.
 

Bionic-Badger

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2007
Messages
5,458
Points
83
The market for 16:10 isn't really gone though, major brands like dell, hp, eizo, iiyama and even samsung still carry them, over the whole 22 to 30 inch range. These are not the cheapest displays on the market, but then again, you'd probably want a proper IPS panel anyway making the really cheap stuff unusable.

I've seen a few rare 16:10 monitors, but I haven't found any laptops besides Apple's that have 16:10 aspect ratios. They all seem to use that inferior "FHD" aspect ratio. At least Apple hasn't fallen into disgrace using that resolution, but I wouldn't be surprised if they switch over because of costs.

Lenovo also seems hell-bent on ruining the design legacy IBM established for their Thinkpad line. I wish I could have just updated the CPU/motherboard/video card in my old Thinkpad rather than this one I have now (even though this new one is nice and light).

I'm not sure where companies thought it would be a great idea to remove vertical space on monitors. That's one reason I've stuck with my 3 1280x1024 monitors for so long.

Yeah, I was quite happy with the 1600x1200 screen on my old laptop. The 4:3 resolution was actually pretty nice. When I "upgraded" to this newer Lenovo I was pretty displeased about losing 120pixels of vertical space, especially since Microsoft keeps bulking up their damn OS GUI.

I remember "upgrading" from a 19" to a 22" 1920x1080, and thinking it must have been a mistake when I actually received the monitor. Sent it back to newegg the following day. The different aspect ratio is really annoying for smaller monitors.

It's would be intolerable on a desktop, and it's about all you can get on laptops, or just some higher res but same aspect ratio variant with higher DPI. I like the DPI scaling and all that, but holy shit I want my vertical pixels back!

I would like to upgrade but a 3440x1440 monitor is the only reasonable solution I've found. I despise 1920x1200/1080 because of the skewed proportions. I want more vertical space. It would also be nice to only have 2 cords to deal with vs 4 or 6. The other problem is desk space. That LG would be 1' narrower than my current 3 monitor setup. The height difference is less than 1 inch.

ETA: IF I could find 3 1600x1200 monitors, I would consider that as another option.

Though quite drastic, you can flip your screen to be vertically oriented. I know someone at my work who does that so he can see more source code. With two vertical 16:9 screen side-by-side it's pretty close to 5:4.
 

InfinitusEquitas

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
15,444
Points
113
4:3 resolution is also great on tablet. I find myself using the galaxy tab s2 all the time because it lets me see pages in full, without being too narrow. Most other tablets are all 16:10, which is ideal for movies, but not as good for general use.

Makes me wonder when we'll see screens stop getting higher and higher solutions. Past 8k, and definitely past 16k there would no longer be much if any discernible difference. Personally I hope by that point we'll see more of a breakthrough in augmented reality displays, so as to make traditional displays redundant.
 

Benm

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
8,113
Points
113
I've seen a few rare 16:10 monitors, but I haven't found any laptops besides Apple's that have 16:10 aspect ratios. They all seem to use that inferior "FHD" aspect ratio. At least Apple hasn't fallen into disgrace using that resolution, but I wouldn't be surprised if they switch over because of costs.

I mean actual external monitors. The 16:10 aspect ratio is still very much alive in those. In laptops 16:9 is almost universal, but that can be defended because it actually fits the laptop form factor pretty well (keyboards usually need more width than height on those).

For coding work having two vertical monitors can often make sense as you benefit very much from vertical resolution, and you can use one for code and the other for results.

It's too much of a niche market to build monitors for i guess, but having a square one would be most useful, something like a 27"-ish 1920x1920 display that would work well with both horizontal and vertical splitscreen work.
 

Eudaimonium

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
6,296
Points
83
As a coder, if I may chime in,

Multiple monitors are more important than vertical space for me, always. I used to do a lot of work on my old 1280x800 laptop with a secondary 1280x1024 display attached to it. My main PC is still 1680x1050 and secondary 1280x1024.

I do have my new Full HD laptop with me but I miss the secondary monitor (no VGA adapter, only HDMI here, I don't have the rest of the hardware new enough to match the laptop :p )

That said, I'd much rather go for 21:9 monitor instead of standard 16:9. When you think about it, your vertical space is exactly the same - 1080p in most prevalent models around. It's just more horizontal space with no real trade-offs, and not to mention full-screen coverage when watching movies. I was watching new Avatar re-release recently, and the fact it matches 16:9 aspect ratio of my laptop's monitor was just mindblowing.

THAT SAID, my dream machine would ultimately be 3x qHD monitors (that's 3x 2560x1440p), IPS panels, preferably Gsynced. Imagine never having to switch folder windows to front again because they're all there :D
 

Benm

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
8,113
Points
113
Yeah, but i guess price is always a factor.

Those 21:9 aspect screens are quite expensive. Retail for a dell 34", 3440x1440 model is 750 euros here. For that money you can buy TWO dell 25", 2560x1440 screens of similar quality.

That's 1680 extra vertical pixels if you put them side by side in landscape. I'm not sure if that's an ideal configuration though, it might work better to use different sizes, one main screen landscape and a side screen portrait such that they match height.
 




Top