Mike Monett VE3BTI wrote:
> 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?
>
>
>
Why? I just use the Trackpoint.

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

Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>> Hard to wire a LTspice circuit?

Too far away to get a wire to join a node.

> Why? I just use the Trackpoint.

What's a Trackpoint?
> Cheers
>
> Phil Hobbs

--
MRM

Mike Monett VE3BTI wrote:
> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>
>>> Hard to wire a LTspice circuit?
>
> Too far away to get a wire to join a node.
>
>> Why? I just use the Trackpoint.
>
> What's a Trackpoint?

It's the little pointing-stick thingy in the middle of the keyboard.
Sort of like a trackpad, except it does what it's told. ;)
(it was invented by a pal of mine at IBM.)

I haven't used an actual mouse in yonks.

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

fredag den 9. december 2022 kl. 23.12.43 UTC+1 skrev Phil Hobbs:
> Mike Monett VE3BTI wrote:
> > Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> Hard to wire a LTspice circuit?
> >
> > Too far away to get a wire to join a node.
> >
> >> Why? I just use the Trackpoint.
> >
> > What's a Trackpoint?
> It's the little pointing-stick thingy in the middle of the keyboard.

I've never heard it a called anything but a clit ...

On 12/7/2022 9:33 PM, 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!

I opted for the 7600x1600 (actually, more like 7700) layout.
The 2100 height (for the monster displays) means too much
"looking up" (eyes seem to have a greater side-to-side
range than up-down -- esp when down puts your gaze into the
tabletop!) so the 1600 is an improvement (arrange the displays
so most vertical eye movement is downward)

Taking that in mind, I shuffled around monitors so I could
adjust the secondary workstations to 5700x1200, elevating the
monitors, a bit, to keep the majority of the content at
"eye level" (and giving me room for other accessible kit
*under* the monitors, instead of wasting that benchtop space).

This leaves the secondary workstations developing a 60" chord
while the primary is now closer to 70". The old 55" secondary
was the limit of my "shift-gaze-left/right-without-moving-head"
so the new configuration means twisting my neck or my seat
to take in the content at the fringes of the displays. OTOH,
an odd number of monitors ensures there will always be a
"primary" monitor, centered.

Thankfully, I don't suffer from "old-geezer neck" (ever notice
how "seniors" don't seem to be able to easily spin their heads
around -- like when backing out of parking spaces? I wonder
if there's some calcification of the cervical vertebrae at work,
there... or, if they've just become so accustomed to NOT twisting
their heads that it's now a learned behavior?)

Of course, if I'm looking at a full-monitor application,
then I likely will swivel my chair in that direction and not
just casually *glance* over there!

[A big advantage of building up a larger display from
smaller monitors is that it makes it easy to "maximize"
an application to occupy a full *monitor* WITHOUT forcing
it to span the entire *display* -- leaving "stiles"
embedded within the image!]

Now, if I could just convince my other half to let me add
another monitor to *this* 24" AiO machine. Or, better yet,
turn this one into a TV for the kitchen (I'm not fond of the
rear-facing speakers on the TV that's out there, now) and
put a pair of identical monitors in its place, here. (and
maybe add another to *her* machine, as well?)

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!

Well, most people aren't retards in search of problems when none exist.
If I'm happy with my monitors, I leave them alone. If I want different
ones, I get the ones I need. I don't jibber jabber 23 paragraphs about
weirdly rounded off LCD resolutions.

You seek complexity at all costs. Ge the big monitors, I hope it makes
your neck hurt.