I have three workstations, each with a pair of computers.
I use multiple monitors on each (display real estate is
always an issue).

My main workstation is configured as ~5700x2400 with a
chord of ~60" across, 29" tall.

The other two workstations are ~5100x1600 at 55" across
and 18" tall.

I have an opportunity to pick up some 55" monitors
3800x2100 at 48" wide and 28" tall.

So, a step down in terms of total pixel count. And,
roughly the same in terms of physical size. In other words,
for a net *gain*, I'd need to use them two (or more) at
a time. E.g., 7600x2100 for a pair.

But, this leads to an insanely large physical display; and
requires a "swivel neck" just to take it all in -- ~90 in
from side to side!

It seems the more compact/practical approach would be to
redeploy for ~7600x1600 in a (slightly) narrower chord width
(maybe 72"?). I.e., it's better to build up a display out of
smaller monitors than be stuck with a monolithic "oversized"
units.

The other annoyance is the amount of head lift to take in the
tops of the screens -- the 55" monitors are a bit of a stretch
at 28" (esp if you leave a gap beneath them).

How do folks with larger displays deal with this? Note that moving
the displays back farther likely (for me) means wearing glasses to
perceive the fine detail!

On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 8:34:14 PM UTC-8, Don Y wrote:
> I have three workstations, each with a pair of computers.
> I use multiple monitors on each (display real estate is
> always an issue).
....
> I have an opportunity to pick up some 55" monitors
> 3800x2100 at 48" wide and 28" tall.
>
> So, a step down in terms of total pixel count. And,
> roughly the same in terms of physical size. In other words,
> for a net *gain*, I'd need to use them two (or more) at
> a time. E.g., 7600x2100 for a pair.
>
> But, this leads to an insanely large physical display; and
> requires a "swivel neck" just to take it all in -- ~90 in
> from side to side!

Yeah; for a 55" monitor, good viewing distance would be about... 55".
I'm most comfortable with a 2-3 foot viewing distance, and a 27" monitor does just fine.
Mainly, though, I've cluttered up all my screens with my view-and-leave-open habits
for years. Bigger is good for a comfy viewing distance (and I can always select lower
resolution if I have trouble with fine print), but one can never clearly see EVERYTHING
that's on screen.

The use case for 55" screens mainly involves a conference room, IMHO, not something
for a desk.

On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 12:34:14 AM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
> I have three workstations, each with a pair of computers.
> I use multiple monitors on each (display real estate is
> always an issue).
>
> My main workstation is configured as ~5700x2400 with a
> chord of ~60" across, 29" tall.
>
> The other two workstations are ~5100x1600 at 55" across
> and 18" tall.
>
> I have an opportunity to pick up some 55" monitors
> 3800x2100 at 48" wide and 28" tall.
>
> So, a step down in terms of total pixel count. And,
> roughly the same in terms of physical size. In other words,
> for a net *gain*, I'd need to use them two (or more) at
> a time. E.g., 7600x2100 for a pair.
>
> But, this leads to an insanely large physical display; and
> requires a "swivel neck" just to take it all in -- ~90 in
> from side to side!
>
> It seems the more compact/practical approach would be to
> redeploy for ~7600x1600 in a (slightly) narrower chord width
> (maybe 72"?). I.e., it's better to build up a display out of
> smaller monitors than be stuck with a monolithic "oversized"
> units.
>
> The other annoyance is the amount of head lift to take in the
> tops of the screens -- the 55" monitors are a bit of a stretch
> at 28" (esp if you leave a gap beneath them).
>
> How do folks with larger displays deal with this? Note that moving
> the displays back farther likely (for me) means wearing glasses to
> perceive the fine detail!

You don't say how far away these rather large displays are. BTW, are you saying "chord" where the rest of us would say "diagonal"?

A 60 in diagonal display is rather large to be looking at from any distance less than four or five foot away. Once you get to 8 feet, the display is about the same as my 17" laptop screen... in my lap, about 27 inches.

I would love to have a better display, meaning larger, with larger everything on it. Heck, my 17" display would be fine, if I could get everything to have the same size text.

I've used the Windows zoom settings to make most things larger, but there are some things that don't get magnified, like dialog boxes, menu text, installation screens. Some things seem to be keyed to the pixel count rather than working through the proper channels.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 12/8/2022 12:54 AM, whit3rd wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 8:34:14 PM UTC-8, Don Y wrote:
>> I have three workstations, each with a pair of computers.
>> I use multiple monitors on each (display real estate is
>> always an issue).
> ...
>> I have an opportunity to pick up some 55" monitors
>> 3800x2100 at 48" wide and 28" tall.
>>
>> So, a step down in terms of total pixel count. And,
>> roughly the same in terms of physical size. In other words,
>> for a net *gain*, I'd need to use them two (or more) at
>> a time. E.g., 7600x2100 for a pair.
>>
>> But, this leads to an insanely large physical display; and
>> requires a "swivel neck" just to take it all in -- ~90 in
>> from side to side!
>
> Yeah; for a 55" monitor, good viewing distance would be about... 55".

Hmmm... note that my current configurations are effectively 55" *wide*
(not diagonal). One difference is (being composed of smaller displays)
that they can be arranged in an arc so the distance from my eyes (focus
of arc) is more consistent than it would be with a flat monitor of
equivalent width.

You don't (necessarily) have to take in the entire "display" from a single
gaze. You can target different areas with your eyes (I don't need to see
the clock in the upper right corner while I'm focused on adjusting a
musical score; I can let my eyes dart over to it, momentarily, if I want
to know the current time!)

> I'm most comfortable with a 2-3 foot viewing distance, and a 27" monitor does just fine.

I'm in a comparable viewing range -- perhaps pushing the higher side
than the low. The text on my screens is about 9pt -- 1/8inch (real)
tall. I can view this without much effort. Moving back another foot,
though, would require me to kick up the size of features on the screens.
(I suspect part of the viewability is due to having a high number of
dots per physical inch -- at least 100)

At that ~3 ft distance, I can take in most of the display real-estate
without moving my head; just casting my gaze in the required direction.

The *taller* displays are more problematic; it's harder to look *up*
without "lifting my jaw" (the vertical plane doesn't benefit from angling
the displays like the horizontal plane does; perhaps there is a solution
for that). So, I use the top portions of the displays for things like
reference materials that I may need to consult, from time to time
(datasheets, source code, schematic, etc.) that I can concede the need
to make an effort to view. But, not the primary focus of my work.

> Mainly, though, I've cluttered up all my screens with my view-and-leave-open habits

I like being able to see lots of "windows" without having to dick with
Z levels. And, like to look at "things" in their native sizes. E.g.,
I want to see a B-size schematic as 11" tall and 17" wide. Or, a
/verso-recto/ pair side-by-side. I want to see a whole page of code,
not just a few stanzas. "Pan-and-scan" just doesn't cut it, for me!
A 21" monitor fails these tests. A 24" monitor just barely meets them.

Likewise, being able to start an X server and give it some usable space.
Or, VNC client. Or, virtual machine. All, WHILE doing something else
(e.g., open an X session and copy/paste portions of the display into
a document you're authoring)

> for years. Bigger is good for a comfy viewing distance (and I can always select lower
> resolution if I have trouble with fine print), but one can never clearly see EVERYTHING
> that's on screen.

That's why shifting your gaze (assuming the distance to the targeted portion of
the screen remains reasonably unchanged) is a win. If you have to start
swiveling your neck (tennis spectator style), then it is counterproductive.

I use a second set of "virtual" displays for generic/ongoing workloads -- like
opening a browser window or email client or a utility like Mathematica.
Something that I can remember "exists elsewhere else" without having to expend
"primary" display space on it. (i.e., I likely don't need to read an email
*while* I'm doing CAD; or, check on a 'make world' while documenting
the code just written)

> The use case for 55" screens mainly involves a conference room, IMHO, not something
> for a desk.

I suspect that's where these are intended to live. But, dispute your
notion that 55" is too large for a desktop -- given that my workstations
currently have comparable *effective* sizes. (once you start indulging
in larger desktops, it's *really* hard to turn back! using a 17" laptop,
now, feels like using an ASR-33!)

[Having multiple workstations means I don't have to worry about
vastly different activities coexisting on a single display; the
applications aren't available "locally"!]

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> The use case for 55" screens mainly involves a conference room, IMHO,
> not something for a desk.

I agree. I have a large screen monitor, but I found it impossible to use. You
simply cannot see what is happening on one side when you are looking at the
other side. I use a 19" monitor and find it is very useful for text, but it
is still a problem on Youtube videos. You still cannot focus on things that
are one one side and still see details on the other side.
We humans simply do not have the capacity to absorb the vast amount of
information that is now available.

This may be part of the reason for the proliferation of various hate groups
such as QAnon and other conspiracy groups, such as Fox News. They can only
see part of reality, and twist it to fit their limited view of the world and
their current agenda.

This is a human limitation. There is little we can do about it. It will go on
forever.

--
MRM

On 12/8/2022 4:48 AM, Mike Monett VE3BTI wrote:
> whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The use case for 55" screens mainly involves a conference room, IMHO,
>> not something for a desk.
>
> I agree. I have a large screen monitor, but I found it impossible to use. You
> simply cannot see what is happening on one side when you are looking at the
> other side. I use a 19" monitor and find it is very useful for text, but it
> is still a problem on Youtube videos. You still cannot focus on things that
> are one one side and still see details on the other side.

ROTFLMAO! Yeah, and we should stop using 8.5x11 sheets of paper
cuz you can't "focus" on things that are at one end of the page
while still seeing the "details" on the other. It's amazing that
they even bother to *print* stuff, given this limitation!

When you watch a movie, do you expect to CLEARLY see everything that
is "happening" on the page? Even the static parts of the background?
Or, do you *focus* on some activity (like the person speaking)
and concentrate your attention there, only PERIPHERALLY aware that
other things might be happening that aren't in clear focus?

Wow, must be tough to be born without a neck or extraocular muscles!

The macula only makes ~10-15 degrees of central vision "crisp";
the fovea only *~3* degrees for the finest detail.

A 19" (dia) monitor presents a field ~14.5" wide (ignore height). To
have it completely visible in a 3 degree field of central vision, you'd
need to be 20 ft from the monitor (check the math!) And I suspect you
wouldn't be able to see any of the fine detail at that range!) When
reading this message, you can likely only "see* the handful (4 or 5)
letters at which you are directly staring. Yet, you can tell
there are more letters off to the left, right, above and below,
no doubt! (you wouldn't find "discovering" them to be a
surprise)

To have all of it fall into the ~10-15 degree region covered by
the macula, you'd need to be at least 3 ft away. Sad for folks
with short arms who'd have to hold their books at such distances!
(yet, you can't READ everything even if available in that field!)

OTOH, you can use the lateral and medial recti to shift the
direction of your gaze left or right to easily bring your "focus" to
the left or right edges of the display -- WITHOUT MOVING YOUR HEAD!

If the area targeted for focus lies beyond the range of the recti,
then we resort to moving our head to force our gaze in a different
direction. That's the purpose of the top cervical vertebrae.

[Try watching for "shooting stars" some evening. You *surely* can't
take in a comprehensive view of the heavens "in focus"! Yet, you
can "notice" activity outside of your central field and respond
to it before these fleeting events (typ < 1 second) vanish.]

It's why we have "windows" on our screens instead of overlapping
FULL-SCREEN presentations (like the old MacOS). You don't focus
on the clock in the upper right corner of the screen while typing
(or reading) an email. But, likely want it exposed so all you
need to do is flick your gaze in that direction (without moving or
restacking windows) to check the time!

> We humans simply do not have the capacity to absorb the vast amount of
> information that is now available.

That's why there are LINES of text in books and PAGES, as well!
We have the ability to scan THROUGH material instead of hoping
to take it in as a single gestalt. We *organize* the presentation
of material to suit our abilities of comprehension. If you
"saw" the entire engine each time you looked under the hood,
you'd likely find it hard to change the oil filter (lacking
specific detail in that part of your field)

On 08/12/2022 11:48, Mike Monett VE3BTI wrote:
> whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The use case for 55" screens mainly involves a conference room, IMHO,
>> not something for a desk.
>
> I agree. I have a large screen monitor, but I found it impossible to use. You
> simply cannot see what is happening on one side when you are looking at the
> other side. I use a 19" monitor and find it is very useful for text, but it
> is still a problem on Youtube videos. You still cannot focus on things that
> are one one side and still see details on the other side.

Personally I find a 24" 16:10 wide monitor at HD and a 19" 4:3 one for
text editing about right on my desk, but I am prepared to have my open
windows shifted through Z-space overlapping. I do sometimes need to
compare two side by side but for most of those use cases I have tools to
do it.

I am contemplating going up to a 27" QD screen for photo work even
though there is really nothing wrong with either of my monitor pair.

Big question then is which pair do I keep on the desk?

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 15:31:48 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

>On 08/12/2022 11:48, Mike Monett VE3BTI wrote:
>> whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The use case for 55" screens mainly involves a conference room, IMHO,
>>> not something for a desk.
>>
>> I agree. I have a large screen monitor, but I found it impossible to use. You
>> simply cannot see what is happening on one side when you are looking at the
>> other side. I use a 19" monitor and find it is very useful for text, but it
>> is still a problem on Youtube videos. You still cannot focus on things that
>> are one one side and still see details on the other side.
>
>Personally I find a 24" 16:10 wide monitor at HD and a 19" 4:3 one for
>text editing about right on my desk, but I am prepared to have my open
>windows shifted through Z-space overlapping. I do sometimes need to
>compare two side by side but for most of those use cases I have tools to
>do it.
>
>I am contemplating going up to a 27" QD screen for photo work even
>though there is really nothing wrong with either of my monitor pair.
>
>Big question then is which pair do I keep on the desk?

I use a 27" iMac as my desktop computer. It works for me, but I do
need dedicated computer eyeglasses (eyes too old to change focus
distance all that well).

The big problem with such displays is the many applications that are
not well adapted to such displays, and so their default display is too
small to read. Most apps allow their windows to be magnified, but
some do not.

Joe Gwinn

On 12/8/2022 8:31 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 08/12/2022 11:48, Mike Monett VE3BTI wrote:
>> whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The use case for 55" screens mainly involves a conference room, IMHO,
>>> not something for a desk.
>>
>> I agree. I have a large screen monitor, but I found it impossible to use. You
>> simply cannot see what is happening on one side when you are looking at the
>> other side. I use a 19" monitor and find it is very useful for text, but it
>> is still a problem on Youtube videos. You still cannot focus on things that
>> are one one side and still see details on the other side.
>
> Personally I find a 24" 16:10 wide monitor at HD and a 19" 4:3 one for text
> editing about right on my desk, but I am prepared to have my open windows
> shifted through Z-space overlapping. I do sometimes need to compare two side by
> side but for most of those use cases I have tools to do it.

A lot depends on the types of things you do. SWMBO is content to live with
a single 24" monitor on her computer. But, she's a "mono-tasker"; she does
one type of activity before moving on to the next (e.g., copy photos off
camera before moving on to update financial database)

I, OTOH, usually need multiple tools/apps to complete a task. E.g., I want
to see the schematic for the board I'm laying out *while* I am working on the
artwork. And, the bill of materials in case I want to make some changes
on-the-fly (based on how things fit on the board).

If writing a driver, I want to see the schematic, at least one datasheet,
the debugger/editor "windows" (even if docked) and a session to the logic
analyzer or DSO (so I don't have to clutter my benchtop with those pieces
of kit).

When I designed the templates for my gesture recognizer, I had Illustrator
open as a "convenience application" to let me visually "draw" the templates.
Then, a text editor looking into the .AI file so I could locate and
extract the pertinent PostScript commands for the "gesture path" (most of
the file is superfluous). Then, an SQL window to let me copy the individual
Bezier paths that constituted the gesture template. And, finally, a Frame
window so I could cut and paste a visual of the gesture's path into the
User Manual while I annotated it for "conflicting gestures" (e.g., O vs 0)
and the like. Then, move on to the next gesture.

This lets me quickly sketch a set of paths that resemble the intended
nominal gesture. And, "edit" the corresponding Beziers (e.g., if a control
point happens to be located at (X, 4.993), I may want to relocate it to
(X, 5.0) and verify that this hasn't altered the path perceptibly.
The DBMS is part of my implementation so fold that step in at the
same time. And, catalog the gesture visually for sighted users as well as
describing it in a way that would allow an unsighted person to understand
the path he must trace (without being able to view the imagery).

[Yes, these tasks can all be serialized and could use stacked windows.
But, at some amount of inconvenience!]

> I am contemplating going up to a 27" QD screen for photo work even though there
> is really nothing wrong with either of my monitor pair.

If you can drive them all, why not leave all of them in place?
You can buy monitor arms that let you stack horizontally and
vertically (I "passed" on one that had *15* 24" monitors just
because it was a damn *wall* of glass!).

I locate my monitors between a pair of hosts so I can use the A/B
switches on the monitors as a sort of KVM instead of having to
have another set of monitors for the other machine, etc.

> Big question then is which pair do I keep on the desk?

I've lately been seeing desks with glass inlays to allow the monitor
(*a* monitor) to sit below the writing surface. Wouldn't work for
me as I have too many devices on the benchtop to leave a clear
space to view a monitor!

On Wed, 7 Dec 2022 21:33:47 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:

>I have three workstations, each with a pair of computers.
>I use multiple monitors on each (display real estate is
>always an issue).
>
>My main workstation is configured as ~5700x2400 with a
>chord of ~60" across, 29" tall.
>
>The other two workstations are ~5100x1600 at 55" across
>and 18" tall.
>
>I have an opportunity to pick up some 55" monitors
>3800x2100 at 48" wide and 28" tall.
>
>So, a step down in terms of total pixel count. And,
>roughly the same in terms of physical size. In other words,
>for a net *gain*, I'd need to use them two (or more) at
>a time. E.g., 7600x2100 for a pair.
>
>But, this leads to an insanely large physical display; and
>requires a "swivel neck" just to take it all in -- ~90 in
>from side to side!
>
>It seems the more compact/practical approach would be to
>redeploy for ~7600x1600 in a (slightly) narrower chord width
>(maybe 72"?). I.e., it's better to build up a display out of
>smaller monitors than be stuck with a monolithic "oversized"
>units.
>
>The other annoyance is the amount of head lift to take in the
>tops of the screens -- the 55" monitors are a bit of a stretch
>at 28" (esp if you leave a gap beneath them).
>
>How do folks with larger displays deal with this? Note that moving
>the displays back farther likely (for me) means wearing glasses to
>perceive the fine detail!

Here's my electronic design automation:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kb2wjsbzspgcw0c/Drafting_Dec_2022.jpg?raw=1

Resolution is excellent. I can move my head to pan and zoom as needed.

There's lots of space to stare off into, too. That's good for
thinking.

torsdag den 8. december 2022 kl. 12.49.00 UTC+1 skrev Mike Monett VE3BTI:
> whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The use case for 55" screens mainly involves a conference room, IMHO,
> > not something for a desk.
> I agree. I have a large screen monitor, but I found it impossible to use. You
> simply cannot see what is happening on one side when you are looking at the
> other side.

you don't need to see what is happening on one side when you are looking at the other side.

it is no different than a desk where you might have books, notes, what ever you are working, etc.
on the desk at the same time, you don't look at it all at the same time, but it is right there when
you need it, just move your head

Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

> torsdag den 8. december 2022 kl. 12.49.00 UTC+1 skrev Mike Monett
> VE3BTI:
>> whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The use case for 55" screens mainly involves a conference room, IMHO,
>> > not something for a desk.
>> I agree. I have a large screen monitor, but I found it impossible to
>> use. You simply cannot see what is happening on one side when you are
>> looking at the other side.
>
> you don't need to see what is happening on one side when you are looking
> at the other side.

Youtube videos often have activity on both sides of the screen, for
example, aircraft crashes where the pilots do not notice indications that
led to the crash.
> it is no different than a desk where you might have books, notes, what
> ever you are working, etc. on the desk at the same time, you don't look
> at it all at the same time, but it is right there when you need it, just
> move your head
That is exactly the problem. With a large screen, you are constantly moving
your head. This causes tension and fatigue in the neck muscles.

With a small screen, you only need to move your eyes.

--
MRM

fredag den 9. december 2022 kl. 00.56.22 UTC+1 skrev Mike Monett VE3BTI:
> Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
>
> > torsdag den 8. december 2022 kl. 12.49.00 UTC+1 skrev Mike Monett
> > VE3BTI:
> >> whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > The use case for 55" screens mainly involves a conference room, IMHO,
> >> > not something for a desk.
> >> I agree. I have a large screen monitor, but I found it impossible to
> >> use. You simply cannot see what is happening on one side when you are
> >> looking at the other side.
> >
> > you don't need to see what is happening on one side when you are looking
> > at the other side.
> Youtube videos often have activity on both sides of the screen, for
> example, aircraft crashes where the pilots do not notice indications that
> led to the crash.
> > it is no different than a desk where you might have books, notes, what
> > ever you are working, etc. on the desk at the same time, you don't look
> > at it all at the same time, but it is right there when you need it, just
> > move your head
> That is exactly the problem. With a large screen, you are constantly moving
> your head. This causes tension and fatigue in the neck muscles.
>
> With a small screen, you only need to move your eyes.

and constantly switch between programs because only half of what you need
will fit at one time.

you'll of course need to have the resolution to make use of a larger screen

On 12/8/2022 5:17 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
> fredag den 9. december 2022 kl. 00.56.22 UTC+1 skrev Mike Monett VE3BTI:
>> Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
>>
>>> torsdag den 8. december 2022 kl. 12.49.00 UTC+1 skrev Mike Monett
>>> VE3BTI:
>>>> whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The use case for 55" screens mainly involves a conference room, IMHO,
>>>>> not something for a desk.
>>>> I agree. I have a large screen monitor, but I found it impossible to
>>>> use. You simply cannot see what is happening on one side when you are
>>>> looking at the other side.
>>>
>>> you don't need to see what is happening on one side when you are looking
>>> at the other side.
>> Youtube videos often have activity on both sides of the screen, for
>> example, aircraft crashes where the pilots do not notice indications that
>> led to the crash.
>>> it is no different than a desk where you might have books, notes, what
>>> ever you are working, etc. on the desk at the same time, you don't look
>>> at it all at the same time, but it is right there when you need it, just
>>> move your head
>> That is exactly the problem. With a large screen, you are constantly moving
>> your head. This causes tension and fatigue in the neck muscles.
>>
>> With a small screen, you only need to move your eyes.
>
> and constantly switch between programs because only half of what you need
> will fit at one time.
>
> you'll of course need to have the resolution to make use of a larger screen

I guess it never occurred to him that you could just shrink the WINDOW
that the video is running in! *Magic*!

Hint: you only need to move your eyes on large screens, too. Do the math.
(unless you've got shitty vision) This was the objection I had to using
two 55" monitors -- even arranged to approximate an arc (so your eyes
can be at the focus of that arc), the chord across the arc is too wide
to navigate without moving your head.

But, the 55" wide 5100x1600 setup I have -- and the 60" wide
5700x2400 don't have that problem. At least for *my* eyes and
viewing habits.

On 12/8/2022 5:17 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
> you'll of course need to have the resolution to make use of a larger screen

A lot of big monitors have shitty resolutions. I
can have a pair of 42 inch monitors "for free" -- but,
they're only 1024x768. WTF??! That's not even good enough
for use as a TV!

Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

>> That is exactly the problem. With a large screen, you are constantly
>> moving your head. This causes tension and fatigue in the neck muscles.
>>
>> With a small screen, you only need to move your eyes.
>
> and constantly switch between programs because only half of what you
> need will fit at one time.
>
> you'll of course need to have the resolution to make use of a larger
> screen

I prefer to have the text editor directly in front of the keyboard. It is
difficult to type when the screen is off center.

Similarly, I prefer to have my browser directly in front of me so I can
view the pages properly.

Yes, I do have to click on the tab to switch screens, but you also have to
click on the screen to switch the focus. I can have a dozen tabs active to
compare between products in Amazon. You can also have many tabs active on a
wide screen, and you have to click on the tabs to switch between screens.

So there is no advantage to a wide screen, and many disadvantages.

--
MRM

On 12/9/2022 4:50 AM, Mike Monett VE3BTI wrote:
> Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:
>
>>> That is exactly the problem. With a large screen, you are constantly
>>> moving your head. This causes tension and fatigue in the neck muscles.
>>>
>>> With a small screen, you only need to move your eyes.
>>
>> and constantly switch between programs because only half of what you
>> need will fit at one time.
>>
>> you'll of course need to have the resolution to make use of a larger
>> screen
>
> I prefer to have the text editor directly in front of the keyboard. It is

--^^^^^^ a preference is not a proof

> difficult to type when the screen is off center.
>
> Similarly, I prefer to have my browser directly in front of me so I can

---------------^^^^^^^

> view the pages properly.
>
> Yes, I do have to click on the tab to switch screens, but you also have to
> click on the screen to switch the focus. I can have a dozen tabs active to

Actually, no; you can set the focus to follow the (mouse) cursor.

> compare between products in Amazon. You can also have many tabs active on a
> wide screen, and you have to click on the tabs to switch between screens.
>
> So there is no advantage to a wide screen, and many disadvantages.

Some of us are ENGINEERS and do more with our computers than shop on Amazon...

But, if that was an argument to "prove" your case, I'm pretty sure you
don't qualify.

Mike Monett VE3BTI wrote:
> Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:
>
>>> That is exactly the problem. With a large screen, you are constantly
>>> moving your head. This causes tension and fatigue in the neck muscles.
>>>
>>> With a small screen, you only need to move your eyes.
>>
>> and constantly switch between programs because only half of what you
>> need will fit at one time.
>>
>> you'll of course need to have the resolution to make use of a larger
>> screen
>
> I prefer to have the text editor directly in front of the keyboard. It is
> difficult to type when the screen is off center.
>
> Similarly, I prefer to have my browser directly in front of me so I can
> view the pages properly.
>
> Yes, I do have to click on the tab to switch screens, but you also have to
> click on the screen to switch the focus. I can have a dozen tabs active to
> compare between products in Amazon. You can also have many tabs active on a
> wide screen, and you have to click on the tabs to switch between screens.
>
> So there is no advantage to a wide screen, and many disadvantages.
>
>
>

The big advantage to a wide screen is that you can lean back, put your
feet on the desk, hold the keyboard in your lap, and type away merrily.
(The type does seem to grow as I get older, of course.) :(

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

On Thursday, 8 December 2022 at 05:34:14 UTC+1, Don Y wrote:
> I have three workstations, each with a pair of computers.
> I use multiple monitors on each (display real estate is
> always an issue).
>
> My main workstation is configured as ~5700x2400 with a
> chord of ~60" across, 29" tall.
>
> The other two workstations are ~5100x1600 at 55" across
> and 18" tall.
>
> I have an opportunity to pick up some 55" monitors
> 3800x2100 at 48" wide and 28" tall.
>
> So, a step down in terms of total pixel count. And,
> roughly the same in terms of physical size. In other words,
> for a net *gain*, I'd need to use them two (or more) at
> a time. E.g., 7600x2100 for a pair.
>
> But, this leads to an insanely large physical display; and
> requires a "swivel neck" just to take it all in -- ~90 in
> from side to side!
>
> It seems the more compact/practical approach would be to
> redeploy for ~7600x1600 in a (slightly) narrower chord width
> (maybe 72"?). I.e., it's better to build up a display out of
> smaller monitors than be stuck with a monolithic "oversized"
> units.
>
> The other annoyance is the amount of head lift to take in the
> tops of the screens -- the 55" monitors are a bit of a stretch
> at 28" (esp if you leave a gap beneath them).
>
> How do folks with larger displays deal with this? Note that moving
> the displays back farther likely (for me) means wearing glasses to
> perceive the fine detail!
excellent
I need high-res monitors like yours
to watch sun disc, sunspots live at 16Mpix resolution and higher

fredag den 9. december 2022 kl. 12.51.02 UTC+1 skrev Mike Monett VE3BTI:
> Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
>
> >> That is exactly the problem. With a large screen, you are constantly
> >> moving your head. This causes tension and fatigue in the neck muscles.
> >>
> >> With a small screen, you only need to move your eyes.
> >
> > and constantly switch between programs because only half of what you
> > need will fit at one time.
> >
> > you'll of course need to have the resolution to make use of a larger
> > screen
> I prefer to have the text editor directly in front of the keyboard. It is
> difficult to type when the screen is off center.
>
> Similarly, I prefer to have my browser directly in front of me so I can
> view the pages properly.
>
> Yes, I do have to click on the tab to switch screens, but you also have to
> click on the screen to switch the focus. I can have a dozen tabs active to
> compare between products in Amazon. You can also have many tabs active on a
> wide screen, and you have to click on the tabs to switch between screens.
>
> So there is no advantage to a wide screen, and many disadvantages.
>
in your opinion ...

is your desk the size of a piece of paper?

Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
> fredag den 9. december 2022 kl. 12.51.02 UTC+1 skrev Mike Monett VE3BTI:
>> Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
>>
>>>> That is exactly the problem. With a large screen, you are constantly
>>>> moving your head. This causes tension and fatigue in the neck muscles.
>>>>
>>>> With a small screen, you only need to move your eyes.
>>>
>>> and constantly switch between programs because only half of what you
>>> need will fit at one time.
>>>
>>> you'll of course need to have the resolution to make use of a larger
>>> screen
>> I prefer to have the text editor directly in front of the keyboard. It is
>> difficult to type when the screen is off center.
>>
>> Similarly, I prefer to have my browser directly in front of me so I can
>> view the pages properly.
>>
>> Yes, I do have to click on the tab to switch screens, but you also have to
>> click on the screen to switch the focus. I can have a dozen tabs active to
>> compare between products in Amazon. You can also have many tabs active on a
>> wide screen, and you have to click on the tabs to switch between screens.
>>
>> So there is no advantage to a wide screen, and many disadvantages.
>>
> in your opinion ...
>
> is your desk the size of a piece of paper?
>

If there's something moving around on your desk that you don't notice,
you have other problems. ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

>> So there is no advantage to a wide screen, and many disadvantages.
>>
> in your opinion ...
>
> is your desk the size of a piece of paper?

62" X 38" (157.48 cm X 96.52 cm). Ex attorney's desk.

I have a lot of stuff on it.

Plenty of room for a wide screen. I tried it - put it back in storage and
went back to a 19" screen.

Much faster, less chance for errors, less strain on the neck.

--
MRM

Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

> The big advantage to a wide screen is that you can lean back, put your
> feet on the desk, hold the keyboard in your lap, and type away merrily.
> (The type does seem to grow as I get older, of course.) :(
>
> Cheers
>
> Phil Hobbs

Hard to wire a LTspice circuit?

--
MRM

fredag den 9. december 2022 kl. 18.51.49 UTC+1 skrev Mike Monett VE3BTI:
> Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
>
> >> So there is no advantage to a wide screen, and many disadvantages.
> >>
> > in your opinion ...
> >
> > is your desk the size of a piece of paper?
> 62" X 38" (157.48 cm X 96.52 cm). Ex attorney's desk.
>
> I have a lot of stuff on it.

so you can have lots of stuff on your desk, but not on your screen?

>
> Plenty of room for a wide screen. I tried it - put it back in storage and
> went back to a 19" screen.
>
> Much faster, less chance for errors, less strain on the neck.
_risk_ of errors, and I don't see how you make more errors with a big screen

Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

>> I have a lot of stuff on it.
>
> so you can have lots of stuff on your desk, but not on your screen?

I can find it, but I have to turn my head.

I don't spend all day looking at things on my desk. I do spend all day
looking at the monitor.
>> Plenty of room for a wide screen. I tried it - put it back in storage
>> and went back to a 19" screen.
>>
>> Much faster, less chance for errors, less strain on the neck.
>
> _risk_ of errors, and I don't see how you make more errors with a big
> screen

Putting editor on one side and browser on the other, with keyboard in the
middle.

- Having to look sideways at the editor increases typos.

- Having to look sideways at the browser increases strain and errors
selecting text to save for future reference.

--
MRM