6 ms·
I have two 27" Apple monitors, one in portrait and one in landscape orientation. The portrait orientation monitor I use for code. They look identical, there is
by wlll 9y ago
I have two 27" Apple monitors, one in portrait and one in landscape orientation. The portrait orientation monitor I use for code. They look identical, there is no degradation (that I can see) from looking at the monitor rotated 90°.
If anyone is interested, I use the VESA mount conversion kit from Apple and have the monitors mounted on the Amazon Basics monitor arms, which I highly recommend.
- tom_ 9y agoI like portrait mode too, so much in fact that I've got 2 x Dell 27" U2715H monitors (2560x1440 eIPS) set up that way. I've been using this setup for about 18 months now, and I really rate it. 1440x2560 is a very usable resolution. Very few problems with websites (I had regular minor issues when I had a 1200x1920 screen); tons of lines of code on screen; plenty wide enough for 2 side-by-side columns; I don't find it a problem to use 3 side-by-side columns (77 columns apiece) in Emacs with a small font; small desk footprint. Full-height windows are sometimes a bit much, but for the main display I've found having one window or panel that's 2/3 the height and one that's 1/3 the height works very well. The 1/3 height area is still 1440x850 or so - plenty for a terminal, Emacs window, debugger output, that kind of thing. As a bonus, 1/3 of the screen is a bit taller than 16:9, so good for videos, and 2/3 of the screen is about the right proportions for A4 PDFs. Considering it's just the not-very-good 16:9 turned on its side, I've found 9:16 to work remarkably well... (With the proviso that the pixel count is almost certainly relevant, and I very likely would not feel as positive about 1080x1920...)
- mark-r 9y agoWhy are desktop screens seemingly locked at ~100 DPI? I recently got a Chromebook with 157 DPI and it looks so much better.