5 ms·

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

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).
    - serverQuestion 7y ago
      you mention using macOS keybinds with linux. have you found a way to set everything to macOS keybindings? it's super frustrating to relearn every keyboard shortcut and terminals not supporting it fully
      - Fnoord 7y ago
        What I meant to say is that UI-wise I prefer macOS with macOS keybindings over anything I tried on Linux. That being said, Gnome is pretty good. I can't get used to KDE, but if I were new to this whole thing (or were coming from Windows), I'd try it, too. Tiling window manager is powerful, but not very necessary on macOS IMO. With regards to keybindings, one thing you can do is get ctrl/meta/alt in the same order as your Mac. Personally, I've swapped ctrl and meta on my MBP while I am using VirtualBox (with Kali) because that way when I'm in the VM I get local consistency. I usually SSH into the Kali machine from the MBP anyway.
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.

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).
  - serverQuestion 7y ago
    you mention using macOS keybinds with linux. have you found a way to set everything to macOS keybindings? it's super frustrating to relearn every keyboard shortcut and terminals not supporting it fully
    - Fnoord 7y ago
      What I meant to say is that UI-wise I prefer macOS with macOS keybindings over anything I tried on Linux. That being said, Gnome is pretty good. I can't get used to KDE, but if I were new to this whole thing (or were coming from Windows), I'd try it, too. Tiling window manager is powerful, but not very necessary on macOS IMO. With regards to keybindings, one thing you can do is get ctrl/meta/alt in the same order as your Mac. Personally, I've swapped ctrl and meta on my MBP while I am using VirtualBox (with Kali) because that way when I'm in the VM I get local consistency. I usually SSH into the Kali machine from the MBP anyway.

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.