4 ms·
I'm saying two things: - A 4K monitor has less DPI than a "retina" monitor, so you still see the pixels, thus it's not like someone took a 27" cinema display a
by mcav 13y ago
I'm saying two things:
- A 4K monitor has less DPI than a "retina" monitor, so you still see the pixels, thus it's not like someone took a 27" cinema display and doubled the pixels.
- Two 27" displays feel 'worse' to me: While it seems like dual 27" displays would be able to display more, I can't use them both horizontally because my head has to pan too much. And if I switch them to portrait, it's hard to fit two editing windows side-by-side in 1400 pixels comfortably.
So I like the 4K better than the 27" (or dual 27") setup I used before.
- gknoy 13y agoYou could put one in landscape (code), and one in portrait (browser, email, etc). that solves some of the width issues, though it might offend one's aesthetic sensibilities. I got over that very quickly when I decided to try it.
- Kiro 13y agoDon't you mean portrait for code and landscape for browsing? That's how I thought people with mixed setup were using it.
- mixmastamyk 13y agoNot here, web pages are virtually always a lot taller than wide. Putting them on a portrait monitor means much less scrolling.
- Kiro 13y agoFair point but you also miss out on features because of responsive design. For example the sidebar on Facebook disappears when I browse it on a monitor in portrait mode.
- bombtrack 13y agoI always imagined using dual 27" screens like that too. However, I have found that I prefer to stack a tall-ish browser window and terminal on the portrait monitor and keep 2+ panes of code on the landscape monitor.