4 ms·

I wonder if the 39" makes you crane your neck too much. It's a lot of pixels, but a lot of physical space and movement required as well. The Dell 28" 4k monito

I wonder if the 39" makes you crane your neck too much. It's a lot of pixels, but a lot of physical space and movement required as well. The Dell 28" 4k monitor (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&sku=210-ACHO http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&c...) seems like a better option to me. Has anyone tried one out?

bratsche 13y ago
I haven't, but I just read some of the reviews on that link and it does not sound good.
ciupicri 13y ago
This doesn't seem very good: Panel Type, Surface: TN Viewing Angle: (160° vertical / 170° horizontal)
dhoulb 13y ago
I think 39" is an awesome size for a monitor. First up, I'll say I'm really not bothered about pixel density on a desktop machine. I love Retina on my laptop, but I never notice it's not there on my iMac - it's too far away from my face. 39" lets you do the wonderful thing I do with my secondary monitor right now - push secondary applications off to the side. I imagine what I'd do with this amount of space is have my text editor and a browser window roughly in the middle, and have terminal, Git, chat, etc peppered all around the outside. Even with a 27" I'm constantly hitting the sides right now. My main monitor can't do more than text editor + browser effectively. You get loads more productivity from additional space, I think for two reasons: less app switching, and being able to see EVERYTHING you're working on. Like taking over a fresh desk when you need to knuckle down on a task. In action films, when it gets serious, they go to a clean desk and unroll a giant map. Having a huge screen is the same thing. I imagine in a few years programmers and geek types will have, maybe, a 60" curved display that takes up most of the desk.
darrenkopp 13y ago
I haven't tried the 28" monitor because it suffers from the 30hz problem as well, so instead I got the 24" Ultrasharp (~$200 more on amazon) and it's amazing. It supports DisplayPort 1.2 so it can do 60hz. It supports HDMI as well, but not the newer version so you are limited to 30hz if you want to use HDMI. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HALPPM0/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00HALPPM0&linkCode=as2&tag=diaryofamadma-20 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HALPPM0/ref=as_li_ss_tl?...
- selmnoo 13y ago
  Question for folks who have 4k resolution on a smaller screen (like 28"). Isn't most text (like text on websites) IMPOSSIBLY SMALL to read? My laptop has 1080p res and is 15 inches, and my goodness I can't read anything without Ctrl +'ing in Chrome until things are at least scaled at 125% (I generally use the web at 150% though). 15 * 4 = 60... (as 1080p * 4 ~= 4k), that means I'd need easily 80+ inch screen to be using 4k screens. How in the heck would you deal with things with 4k on a 28" screen?
  - darrenkopp 13y ago
    I actually run mine at 1920 x 1080 @ 2x so that everything is super crisp. I have a retina macbook and it was just painful looking at my other monitors.
    - wmf 13y ago
      But now you have less content on screen than a 27" monitor.
    - userbinator 13y ago
      Wouldn't a 1920 x 1080 display of the same size be more suitable then?
      - jrockway 13y ago
        He can still individually address all the pixels, but targets each "pixel" to be 4 physical pixels. If the software can deal with that, like web browsers can, then you get twice as much clarity. (Try turning Chrome up to 200% default zoom. You'll notice that most websites ship assets that individually address every pixel in this new configuration. Things are the same physical size as they would be on a panel with half the resolution, but with twice the clarity. It's quite nice, even for programming.)
  - digisign 13y ago
    You don't need to increase the screen size, but the font size/dpi setting.
SwellJoe 13y ago
I suspect that's probably the sweet spot for me, as well. I'm on 24" at the moment...it's an awful ViewSonic 1080P thing. I'm hesitant to buy another cheap monitor (it replaced a much more expensive Dell which got broken from falling while driving in my motorhome)...so this is probably more my style. I have limited table real estate (alongside my quite large audio monitors), and 39" would probably not even fit, even if I did want a monitor that big.
jrockway 13y ago
I'm liking 32" as a monitor size. I think 35" would be fine. 30" feels too small now, though.
grogenaut 13y ago
Don't know if you noticed but the pictures from the articles are for standing desks. You naturally are a bit further back from screens when standing.

bratsche 13y ago

I haven't, but I just read some of the reviews on that link and it does not sound good.

ciupicri 13y ago

This doesn't seem very good: Panel Type, Surface: TN Viewing Angle: (160° vertical / 170° horizontal)

dhoulb 13y ago

I think 39" is an awesome size for a monitor. First up, I'll say I'm really not bothered about pixel density on a desktop machine. I love Retina on my laptop, but I never notice it's not there on my iMac - it's too far away from my face. 39" lets you do the wonderful thing I do with my secondary monitor right now - push secondary applications off to the side. I imagine what I'd do with this amount of space is have my text editor and a browser window roughly in the middle, and have terminal, Git, chat, etc peppered all around the outside. Even with a 27" I'm constantly hitting the sides right now. My main monitor can't do more than text editor + browser effectively. You get loads more productivity from additional space, I think for two reasons: less app switching, and being able to see EVERYTHING you're working on. Like taking over a fresh desk when you need to knuckle down on a task. In action films, when it gets serious, they go to a clean desk and unroll a giant map. Having a huge screen is the same thing. I imagine in a few years programmers and geek types will have, maybe, a 60" curved display that takes up most of the desk.

darrenkopp 13y ago

I haven't tried the 28" monitor because it suffers from the 30hz problem as well, so instead I got the 24" Ultrasharp (~$200 more on amazon) and it's amazing. It supports DisplayPort 1.2 so it can do 60hz. It supports HDMI as well, but not the newer version so you are limited to 30hz if you want to use HDMI. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HALPPM0/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00HALPPM0&linkCode=as2&tag=diaryofamadma-20 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HALPPM0/ref=as_li_ss_tl?...

selmnoo 13y ago
Question for folks who have 4k resolution on a smaller screen (like 28"). Isn't most text (like text on websites) IMPOSSIBLY SMALL to read? My laptop has 1080p res and is 15 inches, and my goodness I can't read anything without Ctrl +'ing in Chrome until things are at least scaled at 125% (I generally use the web at 150% though). 15 * 4 = 60... (as 1080p * 4 ~= 4k), that means I'd need easily 80+ inch screen to be using 4k screens. How in the heck would you deal with things with 4k on a 28" screen?
- darrenkopp 13y ago
  I actually run mine at 1920 x 1080 @ 2x so that everything is super crisp. I have a retina macbook and it was just painful looking at my other monitors.
  - wmf 13y ago
    But now you have less content on screen than a 27" monitor.
  - userbinator 13y ago
    Wouldn't a 1920 x 1080 display of the same size be more suitable then?
    - jrockway 13y ago
      He can still individually address all the pixels, but targets each "pixel" to be 4 physical pixels. If the software can deal with that, like web browsers can, then you get twice as much clarity. (Try turning Chrome up to 200% default zoom. You'll notice that most websites ship assets that individually address every pixel in this new configuration. Things are the same physical size as they would be on a panel with half the resolution, but with twice the clarity. It's quite nice, even for programming.)
- digisign 13y ago
  You don't need to increase the screen size, but the font size/dpi setting.

SwellJoe 13y ago

I suspect that's probably the sweet spot for me, as well. I'm on 24" at the moment...it's an awful ViewSonic 1080P thing. I'm hesitant to buy another cheap monitor (it replaced a much more expensive Dell which got broken from falling while driving in my motorhome)...so this is probably more my style. I have limited table real estate (alongside my quite large audio monitors), and 39" would probably not even fit, even if I did want a monitor that big.

jrockway 13y ago

I'm liking 32" as a monitor size. I think 35" would be fine. 30" feels too small now, though.

grogenaut 13y ago

Don't know if you noticed but the pictures from the articles are for standing desks. You naturally are a bit further back from screens when standing.