Boston Linux & Unix (BLU) Home | Calendar | Mail Lists | List Archives | Desktop SIG | Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings
Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Blog | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU

BLU Discuss list archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Discuss] 4K monitors

Actually, they did the transition from 1600x1200 to 1920x1080 in two 
steps.  I went from a 1600x1200 (UXGA) screen to a 1920x1200 (WUXGA) 
screen on 15" laptops, and I agree that the increase in width wasn't a 
really big deal for me.  Then they dropped from 1920x1200 (WUXGA) to 
1920x1080 (FHD), and I held off for years on buying a new laptop because 
I really wanted the ability to see more lines of code vertically without 
having to scroll.  Everyone I talked to about my desire to have more 
screen real estate available for seeing more code at once treated me 
like a weird eccentric. Salespeople were the absolute worst.  Of course, 
their job is to sell what they have available, so if what you want isn't 
available, they'll go out of their way to try to convince you you don't 
need it.  Then, when it later becomes available, they'll take the 
arguments they heard from you and use them to convince other customers 
that they really can't live without the newly available feature.

Anyway, it's nice to hear that I'm not the only programmer in the world 
that thinks it's valuable to have higher resolution to allow you to see 
more code on the screen.

    Mark Rosenthal

On 1/11/2014 8:22 AM, John Abreau wrote:
> Personally, I find the vertical resolution more important than the
> horizontal. When the industry abandoned 1600x1200 in favor of 1920x1080,
> the increase from 1600 to 1920 wasn't that big a deal, but the decrease
> from 1200 to 1080 was extremely painful.  Truthfully, even the 1200 was a
> bit cramped when working with high-resolution images.
> If a 50-inch or larger 4K display increases my vertical resolution from
> 1080 (or even 1200) to 2160, that's enough to sell me on the idea.
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Dan Ritter <dsr at> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 11:37:06PM -0500, Tom Metro wrote:
>>> The author said that the ideal size for a computer monitor was 50" in
>>> his opinion. Do you feel that a screen that big actually gains you
>>> something? Beyond a certain size, when you are sitting only a few feet
>>> from the display, large portions of the display end up only being in
>>> your peripheral view.
>> 50" is an excellent size for a monitor. It will need to be about
>> 200 dpi, and have an extremely tough front pane. Waterproof, and
>> easily cleanable, from all the coffee spills. Multitouch, with
>> an innovative rejection scheme for anything larger than a finger
>> or unmoving for more than a few seconds.
>> I expect it to be tiltable a few degrees from completely
>> horizontal, but not close to vertical, because it will form a
>> large portion of the desktop. Not a metaphorical desktop, but
>> the furniture kind.
>> This will take another few years, but it is clearly within our
>> foreseeable capabilities.
>> -dsr-
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at

BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!

Boston Linux & Unix /