4 ms·

I have an OLED television, but I don't own an OLED computer monitor or laptop. My desktops use several IPS LCDs and my laptop is a Surface Book. That said, my

by bhauer 10y ago

I have an OLED television, but I don't own an OLED computer monitor or laptop. My desktops use several IPS LCDs and my laptop is a Surface Book. That said, my understanding from credible technology reviewers (e.g., [1]) is that OLED displays are quite good considering they are still "first generation" in this space. I suspect that most programmers would be happy with an OLED display, but it won't seem notably superior for programming than a high-quality LCD such as a Dell Ultrasharp or Professional series desktop display (e.g., UP3017 [2]) or the LCDs used on a Surface, Dell XPS, or Apple Macbook. In other words, I think OLED is nice, but it is not yet a deciding factor. Second generation OLED displays may create a bit more distance between OLED and LCD. For the time being, for programming, my personal preference favors usable real estate (large desktop displays) before color accuracy and pixel density. Given all three (real estate, color accuracy, and pixel density), I would be thrilled. But if I had to pick one before the others, as a programmer, I want real estate. [1] https://youtu.be/Dtjllca-AaQ?t=2m23s https://youtu.be/Dtjllca-AaQ?t=2m23s [2] This is a 2560x1600 30-inch display which, thanks to the cult of widescreen, enjoys an annoying price premium versus the more commonplace 2560x1440 27-inch form factor. Again, as a programmer, screen height is useful since it allows you to fit more lines of code in view. (Width is also useful for displaying source of multiple files side-by-side, but that utility is probably a bit lower than the utility of height.) This is why 3:2 displays as seen on Surface Book are great for programming.

hackuser 10y ago
> screen height is useful since it allows you to fit more lines of code in view. Many external monitors can be rotated 90 degrees into portrait orientation.
- bhauer 10y ago
  Yes, and if your environment can be configured with two or three monitors, a portrait orientation can be great. With just a single monitor, 1440x2560 would probably seem too narrow. Obviously individual tastes will vary. If your environment is limited to a single monitor, 3:2 is very nice and 16:10 is also quite good.
- Nition 10y ago
  If anything I think screen height is even more important if you're going to portrait mode. 16:9 is horribly thin, 16:10 is better, 4:3 is possibly the best portrait aspect ratio.
  - tscs37 10y ago
    Can confirm that 4:3 is the best ratio for portrait. I'm using one of those old SyncMaster monitors from Samsung for displaying Code. Make sure your IDE can hide unnecessary parts of it, like directory view or something, otherwise it gets a bit crunched.
    - Nition 10y ago
      Same! 20.1" SyncMaster 204B, 1200x1600!
seanp2k2 10y ago
I recently got a Benq bl3201pt (32" 4K IPS) and I've been very happy with it. It's great for having a browser w/dev tools open on half the screen and Atom on the other half. The MiniDP, DP, and multiple HDMI connections work well between my desktop and MBP. It works like a professional monitor should, with no fuss. I particularly like the detachable hockey puck remote. At work I have 2 Asus PA328Qs. It's hit-and-miss plugging them in over MiniDP into my rMBP. They are slow to power up, and I once set the DisplayPort version to 1.1 instead of 1.2 via the menus. The buttons on the back aren't super responsive, and the OSD software seems very undercooked. It took me a good 10 minutes to get the DisplayPort version back to 1.2 because it kept saying "no input" and would turn off. There's a tiny joystick to navigate the menus and the way to toggle between menus isn't obvious (click the joystick to the right when it looks like you can only move up and down, which completely changes the menu options). Overall this monitor is incredibly frustrating for me, and when I get home and plug into the Benq, I'm saddened that $WORK spent a similar amount on the inferior Asus. It's actually massively lowered my opinion of Asus in general, and raised my opinion of Benq, which I had previously thought of as a kind of budget brand, comparable to maybe AOC. I'm now looking for a gaming monitor, and while Asus has some compelling g-sync options, Benq is used in actual e-sports competitions and gets great reviews for that use-case. TL;DR try a monitor in a store first and try to make sure it doesn't annoy you before making a significant investment in one. I also looked at OLED laptops (mostly the Alienware 13 r3) and ended up getting a used XPS 15 9550 with a maxed out CPU and the 4K IGZO display. Edit: make sure you understand the issues with OLED burn-in and fading before buying. Especially a laptop. That's why I didn't ultimately get one.

by bhauer 10y ago

hackuser 10y ago

> screen height is useful since it allows you to fit more lines of code in view. Many external monitors can be rotated 90 degrees into portrait orientation.

bhauer 10y ago
Yes, and if your environment can be configured with two or three monitors, a portrait orientation can be great. With just a single monitor, 1440x2560 would probably seem too narrow. Obviously individual tastes will vary. If your environment is limited to a single monitor, 3:2 is very nice and 16:10 is also quite good.
Nition 10y ago
If anything I think screen height is even more important if you're going to portrait mode. 16:9 is horribly thin, 16:10 is better, 4:3 is possibly the best portrait aspect ratio.
- tscs37 10y ago
  Can confirm that 4:3 is the best ratio for portrait. I'm using one of those old SyncMaster monitors from Samsung for displaying Code. Make sure your IDE can hide unnecessary parts of it, like directory view or something, otherwise it gets a bit crunched.
  - Nition 10y ago
    Same! 20.1" SyncMaster 204B, 1200x1600!

seanp2k2 10y ago

I recently got a Benq bl3201pt (32" 4K IPS) and I've been very happy with it. It's great for having a browser w/dev tools open on half the screen and Atom on the other half. The MiniDP, DP, and multiple HDMI connections work well between my desktop and MBP. It works like a professional monitor should, with no fuss. I particularly like the detachable hockey puck remote. At work I have 2 Asus PA328Qs. It's hit-and-miss plugging them in over MiniDP into my rMBP. They are slow to power up, and I once set the DisplayPort version to 1.1 instead of 1.2 via the menus. The buttons on the back aren't super responsive, and the OSD software seems very undercooked. It took me a good 10 minutes to get the DisplayPort version back to 1.2 because it kept saying "no input" and would turn off. There's a tiny joystick to navigate the menus and the way to toggle between menus isn't obvious (click the joystick to the right when it looks like you can only move up and down, which completely changes the menu options). Overall this monitor is incredibly frustrating for me, and when I get home and plug into the Benq, I'm saddened that $WORK spent a similar amount on the inferior Asus. It's actually massively lowered my opinion of Asus in general, and raised my opinion of Benq, which I had previously thought of as a kind of budget brand, comparable to maybe AOC. I'm now looking for a gaming monitor, and while Asus has some compelling g-sync options, Benq is used in actual e-sports competitions and gets great reviews for that use-case. TL;DR try a monitor in a store first and try to make sure it doesn't annoy you before making a significant investment in one. I also looked at OLED laptops (mostly the Alienware 13 r3) and ended up getting a used XPS 15 9550 with a maxed out CPU and the 4K IGZO display. Edit: make sure you understand the issues with OLED burn-in and fading before buying. Especially a laptop. That's why I didn't ultimately get one.