4 ms·

Simple rule of thumb: * More pixels -> more characters on screen. * More characters on screen -> easier to glance between different parts of your code , open

Simple rule of thumb: * More pixels -> more characters on screen. * More characters on screen -> easier to glance between different parts of your code , open manuals, etc. A 4K screen has 3840x2160 pixels. You could see that as either fitting 4 regular 1080p screens in a rectangular pattern, or just over 3 regular screens in vertical orientation (which is what you were considering). Of course, if your current HD screen is only barely comfortable to you (likely), you will end up needing to buy a screen with larger dimensions (findable) to actually be able to utilize the screen to that extent. Alternately, you could still go for that higher pixel density; in which case you end up with more readable characters. This does alleviate eye-strain! Given enough pixels at your disposal (and a large enough screen), you can have the luxury of determining your own favorite trade-off between pixel density and amount-of-code-on-screen. You can do so on the fly, as tasks/whims/fatigue demand. This is why -at least for now- I'd say you can never have enough pixels. I'm sure there's a point of diminishing returns somewhere, but I think we have a long way to go before we reach it.

WoahNoun 7y ago
This assumes that your eyesight is good enough to view that much text density at once. In my experience, I just end up zooming in a lot and upping the font size. Now, an ultrawide. That was truly a game changer in productivity for me.
- tomnipotent 7y ago
  > Now, an ultrawide. That was truly a game changer in productivity for me. Ditto. At one point I had 2x34'' Ultrawide side-by-side, but recently replaced with a single 49'' UW w/QHD.
  - BoorishBears 7y ago
    For coding I've found the best ultrawide resolution is 3840 x 1600, the extra vertical space is much more impactful than adding more horizontal space (a 38" ultrawide can already do 3 columns very comfortably, adding more doesn't help in my experience)
    - fortran77 7y ago
      I had the same experience. Ultrawides don't have enough vertical resolution.
    - ProZsolt 7y ago
      This would be my dream setup 38" UW with 7680 x 3200 pixel resolution.
- Gatsky 7y ago
  Interested to know why the ultrawide made such a difference, compared to 2 side by side?
  - ProZsolt 7y ago
    With UW I can have 3 columns the main thing in the center. With 2 monitors you have a gap in the center or you have to put the thing on the side and turn your head (neck pain)
  - retrac 7y ago
    With a font size I'm comfortable reading, I can fit two 80-column sessions side-by-side on my 2560x1080 display.
    - diffeomorphism 7y ago
      > Compared to two side by side? With two 1920x1080 displays you can fit even more (or better 1920x1200). Also, what is the benefit of an ultrawide 2560x1440 compared to 2560x1440 or 2560x1600?
  - WoahNoun 7y ago
    I like to work with two columns of windows and the shortcuts to move and tab windows around are easier/more convenient with one monitor versus two. I can easily swap between all of my open windows and snap the two I need side to side. I also find myself moving my head around less and everything just seems a bit more at hand.
  - necovek 7y ago
    Moving windows around on GNU/Linux is not very smooth between different screens, at least in my experience. I am sure with enough time spent on a configurable WM, it would be great, but no need to do that with an ultrawide.
    - Fnoord 7y ago
      > Moving windows around on GNU/Linux is not very smooth between different screens, at least in my experience. Depends on the UI you use. Gnome and tiling window managers should do it just fine. I prefer the macOS keybinds (including where full screen becomes a new desktop, combined with the "Magic Touchpad" gestures).
- necovek 7y ago
  I always found this argument weird: I've used myopic correction since I was 16, and I can tell you that even 4k at 24" is too low for me: actually, if you turn off subpixel rendering (font smoothing), the fonts still looked jagged. Now, perhaps people are unwilling to wear glasses or contacts for very small vision distortions (understandable), but I do have poor vision, and I want even higher pixel density, because my glasses/contacts get me great vision (I get headaches if I don't correct to 40/20 or something). We are reading paper books printed at 600 or 1200 dpi (though that often uses similar tricks to subpixel rendering), and nobody complains. As a matter of fact, people can tell a difference between 300 and 600 dpi, yet books are kept at, at most, an arms distance, so usually closer than most big displays today.

WoahNoun 7y ago

This assumes that your eyesight is good enough to view that much text density at once. In my experience, I just end up zooming in a lot and upping the font size. Now, an ultrawide. That was truly a game changer in productivity for me.

tomnipotent 7y ago
> Now, an ultrawide. That was truly a game changer in productivity for me. Ditto. At one point I had 2x34'' Ultrawide side-by-side, but recently replaced with a single 49'' UW w/QHD.
- BoorishBears 7y ago
  For coding I've found the best ultrawide resolution is 3840 x 1600, the extra vertical space is much more impactful than adding more horizontal space (a 38" ultrawide can already do 3 columns very comfortably, adding more doesn't help in my experience)
  - fortran77 7y ago
    I had the same experience. Ultrawides don't have enough vertical resolution.
  - ProZsolt 7y ago
    This would be my dream setup 38" UW with 7680 x 3200 pixel resolution.
Gatsky 7y ago
Interested to know why the ultrawide made such a difference, compared to 2 side by side?
- ProZsolt 7y ago
  With UW I can have 3 columns the main thing in the center. With 2 monitors you have a gap in the center or you have to put the thing on the side and turn your head (neck pain)
- retrac 7y ago
  With a font size I'm comfortable reading, I can fit two 80-column sessions side-by-side on my 2560x1080 display.
  - diffeomorphism 7y ago
    > Compared to two side by side? With two 1920x1080 displays you can fit even more (or better 1920x1200). Also, what is the benefit of an ultrawide 2560x1440 compared to 2560x1440 or 2560x1600?
- WoahNoun 7y ago
  I like to work with two columns of windows and the shortcuts to move and tab windows around are easier/more convenient with one monitor versus two. I can easily swap between all of my open windows and snap the two I need side to side. I also find myself moving my head around less and everything just seems a bit more at hand.
- necovek 7y ago
  Moving windows around on GNU/Linux is not very smooth between different screens, at least in my experience. I am sure with enough time spent on a configurable WM, it would be great, but no need to do that with an ultrawide.
  - Fnoord 7y ago
    > Moving windows around on GNU/Linux is not very smooth between different screens, at least in my experience. Depends on the UI you use. Gnome and tiling window managers should do it just fine. I prefer the macOS keybinds (including where full screen becomes a new desktop, combined with the "Magic Touchpad" gestures).
necovek 7y ago
I always found this argument weird: I've used myopic correction since I was 16, and I can tell you that even 4k at 24" is too low for me: actually, if you turn off subpixel rendering (font smoothing), the fonts still looked jagged. Now, perhaps people are unwilling to wear glasses or contacts for very small vision distortions (understandable), but I do have poor vision, and I want even higher pixel density, because my glasses/contacts get me great vision (I get headaches if I don't correct to 40/20 or something). We are reading paper books printed at 600 or 1200 dpi (though that often uses similar tricks to subpixel rendering), and nobody complains. As a matter of fact, people can tell a difference between 300 and 600 dpi, yet books are kept at, at most, an arms distance, so usually closer than most big displays today.