3 ms·

I can't argue about a 39" monitor, but having more screen estate boosts productivity for me to the extend that I'm sure that I could use 3 27" over my current 2

I can't argue about a 39" monitor, but having more screen estate boosts productivity for me to the extend that I'm sure that I could use 3 27" over my current 2 24". Avoiding alt+tab means I get my information quicker when I need it from another window, and I get back to the previous context faster. Sometimes I need both but does not have space and is tabbing back and forth.

r0h1n 13y ago
Sure, but if one were to plot (a) the number of alt-tabs you do in a day, versus (b) screen size in inches...don't you think at some point the delta benefits would start leveling off?
- Retric 13y ago
  Sure, diminishing returns kick in but monitors are cheap and programmers are expensive. It's the same reason that 16+GB of ram and SSD's are worth it. Not because most people need it but the cost is low enough that the productivity gains need to be minuscule to be worth it. aka Assuming monitors last ~3 years and cost below 2,000$ it takes a tiny difference to be worth it because your not just comparing productivity delta's but also cost delta's. In other words a 2,000$ monitor that improves productivity by 1/20th of 1% than a 1,000$ monitor is clearly worth it over 3 years even if the difference is simply eye strain. 3x (salary + benefits + overhead) * .0005 > 1000$. PS: Another way to look at it is spending an extra 1-2k per year on salary over industry standard rarely tempts programmers but an extra 1-2k per year on hardware might.
  - hvidgaard 13y ago
    That wasn't the best thought out example. The total yearly cost for a programmer would have to exceed 666.666 $ to justify a 1000 $ purchase, if the improvement is only 0.05%. That said, I agree. The benefit doesn't have to be big to justify it.
    - Retric 13y ago
      Ops. Yea 1/2 not 1/20th of 1%. The .0005 number is correct, but I messed up changing that to a fraction of a %.
      - pedrosorio 13y ago
        1/2 of 1% is 0.005
sundvor 13y ago
Yep. At my home office I have 3x Dell U2412Ms (1920x1200 i.e. 16:10) on an Ergotech stand and I'm absolutely loving this physical setup for programming. The side monitors float over my desk (an Ikea Galant, corner version), and having a central monitor with two surrounds is just ideal for me. I much prefer this to a dual screen setup. I think that ideally the same 24s would deliver a 2560x1600 resolution, however I'm still quite happy with the setup as it is. 3x 27"s might be nice, but I fear it could become too much. Well, at least for my wallet, that is! An issue with the 4k displays is that if you're going to have 3x of them, you're going to hit GPU walls very, very quickly.

r0h1n 13y ago

Sure, but if one were to plot (a) the number of alt-tabs you do in a day, versus (b) screen size in inches...don't you think at some point the delta benefits would start leveling off?

Retric 13y ago
Sure, diminishing returns kick in but monitors are cheap and programmers are expensive. It's the same reason that 16+GB of ram and SSD's are worth it. Not because most people need it but the cost is low enough that the productivity gains need to be minuscule to be worth it. aka Assuming monitors last ~3 years and cost below 2,000$ it takes a tiny difference to be worth it because your not just comparing productivity delta's but also cost delta's. In other words a 2,000$ monitor that improves productivity by 1/20th of 1% than a 1,000$ monitor is clearly worth it over 3 years even if the difference is simply eye strain. 3x (salary + benefits + overhead) * .0005 > 1000$. PS: Another way to look at it is spending an extra 1-2k per year on salary over industry standard rarely tempts programmers but an extra 1-2k per year on hardware might.
- hvidgaard 13y ago
  That wasn't the best thought out example. The total yearly cost for a programmer would have to exceed 666.666 $ to justify a 1000 $ purchase, if the improvement is only 0.05%. That said, I agree. The benefit doesn't have to be big to justify it.
  - Retric 13y ago
    Ops. Yea 1/2 not 1/20th of 1%. The .0005 number is correct, but I messed up changing that to a fraction of a %.
    - pedrosorio 13y ago
      1/2 of 1% is 0.005

sundvor 13y ago

Yep. At my home office I have 3x Dell U2412Ms (1920x1200 i.e. 16:10) on an Ergotech stand and I'm absolutely loving this physical setup for programming. The side monitors float over my desk (an Ikea Galant, corner version), and having a central monitor with two surrounds is just ideal for me. I much prefer this to a dual screen setup. I think that ideally the same 24s would deliver a 2560x1600 resolution, however I'm still quite happy with the setup as it is. 3x 27"s might be nice, but I fear it could become too much. Well, at least for my wallet, that is! An issue with the 4k displays is that if you're going to have 3x of them, you're going to hit GPU walls very, very quickly.