Multiple monitors

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 22:40:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 20:15:18 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
>
>>The bigger
>>issue is the 4:3 orientation seems more "appropriate" to most
>>of the (program) user interfaces with which I regularly interact.
>>I.e., forcing one of these UI's to fit in the narrower "space
>>between bezels" would make it ~25% smaller.
>
>In my never humble opinion, switching from 4:3 to 16:9 was one of the
>dumbest decisions (from the user standpoint) ever made by the
>electronics industry.  Do they expect everyone to only watch wide
>screen movies on their computahs?

I disagree, sorta.  While I don't like 16:9, much, 16:10 works out
quite well for things like schematics.  The additional 100 lines
matters.  Unfortunately, movies tend to be 16:9, so anything else
commands a premium.

>>I have a couple of:
>><http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/products/graphics_cards/m_series/m9140lppciex16/> 
>>that I figure would be acceptable.  
>
>Yep.  It will work, but won't be particularly speedy if you're doing
>video.  With 4 DVI outputs, only 512KB of DDR2 RAM, and sign of any
>kind of acceleration features in firmware, it's going to be rather
>slow.  I couldn't find the card in the benchmark results at:
><http://www.3dmark.com>
>I'll look some more later.

Matrox' history leans more to business graphics than gaming.

>>But, probably
>>would still only run the monitors at 1600x1200 (text starts to get
>>too fine when you move to higher resolutions on SMALLER screens)
>
>Maybe a good idea.  1920x1200 on a 24" screen is the best I can do
>before my eyes give out.  However, I had an interesting experience on
>a Lenovo Yoga 2 Pro laptop with 3200x1800 resolution on an 13.3"
>display.  
><http://shop.lenovo.com/us/en/laptops/lenovo/yoga-laptop-series/yoga-laptop-2-pro/>
>Because the dots were smaller and denser, I could read incredibly tiny
>print on the small screen that would be completely unreadable on my
>larger, but fuzzier display.  It wasn't the size that was important,
>but rather the ability to separate detail (i.e. resolution).  If you
>happen to visit a Best Buy store, take a look at the Lenovo Yoga 2
>Pro, and you'll see what is possible with a much higher resolution
>display.

Yes, I also think the better formed characters matter.  There ain't no
substitution for resolution.  ;-)

>>> When that much display real estate
>>> moves at the same time, motion sickness can be a problem.  The owner
>>> had no problems (he claims) but it sure made me sea sick.
>>
>>No provisions to fine tune the video output?
>
>The video output could be tweaked to any resolution possible, but the
>junk TV monitors that the customer bought would only do 1366x768
>maximum.  

This laptop will only do 1366x768.  I bought it because of the touch
screen but the low resolution is a PITA.  It's OK, literally, on the
lap top but it's just too small and low resolution for any serious
work.  Most web sites are larger so I'm always scrolling around.  The
touch screen makes up for a lot of that (particularly on the lap) but
it doesn't work on every site.

>>I need the screen real estate to view a schematic while routing a PCB;
>>or, looking at a 3D CAD model of the enclosure into which it fits; or,
>>writing some code while consulting some documentation (about what the
>>code is supposed to *do*!), etc.
>
>Ok, 3 monitors.  One each for the various EDA windows.  I vaguely
>recall one of the EDA vendors advertising or web site literature
>showing a smiling engineer with three LCD displays on his ultra-clean
>desk, with each display showing one aspect of the design process.  I
>also like to read science fiction.

Sounds good.  Except you're missing the fourth display, for the
datasheet.  ;-)  Actually, I tried one of the USB(2) graphics
interfaces but it slowed my work computer down so much that schematic
rendering was absolutely painful, even on the directly attached
screens.


>>That's exactly the problem of which I am wary!  At 3200x1200 (current
>>dual displays), an application can nicely "hog" an entire display.
>>OTOH, moving to 4x(1200x1600) means you can't go quite as far (1200)
>>before encountering a bezel.
>
>Yep.  What that taught me was to ignore the horizontal dot pitch and
>concentrate on getting the largest number of vertical pixels possible.
>For 24" that's about 1200 pixels.  For 27", I can go to 2560x1440.  I
>guess when I run out of space for more icons on my desktop, I can
>justify a bigger monitor:
><http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/desktop.jpg>

Good grief!  I could never work that way.  I get pissed when my icons
move because each has a place and if it isn't there, searching for
them takes too much time.  YOY can't there be separate desktop setups
for each display setup?
<...>

On 8/24/2014 2:09 AM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
> In control room applications, 1x3 arrangements are quite common. You
> adjust the left and right monitor so that they are at the same
> distance from your sitting position as the center monitor. Put those
> display that are needed constantly on the left and right monitor and
> use the center monitor for user activated "pop up" windows.
>
> 1x2 and 1x4 arrangements are nasty, since at least in Windows, a new
> program starts in the middle, shared between the left and right
> monitor and the first thing you have to do is to move it into the left
> or right monitor.

Software allows you to preconfigure where a particular application
"instantiates".

I've found two monitors to be relatively easy to deal with -- my gaze
is either "just left of center" or "just right of center".  Larger
monitors would necessitate moving them further away to keep the
same limits on head/neck motion.  E.g., it is inconvenient when I
have to swivel my chair (rotate my *body* 90 degrees) to take in
something on one of the dual displays to the left (or right) of my
primary workstation.  But, usually those shifts of attention are
accompanied by a change in activities.  E.g., watching the boot
process of the DUT and/or interacting with the device directly
(vs. writing code or examining schematics/artwork to identify a
possible problem).

> Putting monitors above each other is a bad idea, since sooner or
> later, you are going to have neck problems.

Yes.  And, it seems like there is more motion required to raise
and lower my gaze than there is to shift it left/right.

> I do not understand the complaints about 16:9 or 16:10 monitors, these
> will nicely fit two A4 documents side by side, with some space left
> over.

My objection is that they don't give you enough to justify the
added space *consumed*.  Read *a* typewritten page and look at
the schematic/layout that it is describing.  Or, read a page
out of a specification while writing (in a different application!)
the code that the spec dictates.

I do a *lot* of formal writing.  Yet, seldom view "facing pages"
at the same time -- it just doesn't show me anything that I can't
also see in single page view (i.e., I don't create "two page
spreads" in my documents so no *need* to view two pages at one...
unlike "centerfolds"  :> )

> With 4:3 displays, the portrait mode would make sense especially in
> the 1x7 configuration (21:4=5.25), but due to the huge TV market
> (1920:1080) of 16:9 panels, the 1x3 landscape arrangement would be
> 48:9 or 16:3=5.33, practically the same width would be available with
> only 3 panels instead of 7  panels.

Portrait mode is great WHEN WRITING (documents for print publication).
But, seldom otherwise.  At one point, I had configured displays to
allow for physical rotation of the display as needed.  This was *way*
too much work for the reward!

I think trying to piece together a large *monolithic* display is
bound to be disappointing.  Rather, you (i.e., "I") want a display
*surface* on which you can manipulate objects (without having to
"transfer" a client application to another "display server" as in X)

Hi Richard,

On 8/24/2014 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> (i.e., even four 21" monitors represents ~120 degrees of arc at
>> that short distance -- approaching the limits of *any* sort of
>> peripheral vision... let alone central/focused vision!)
>>
>> (sigh) The solution is "younger eyes"! :<
>
> The biggest issue is that your eye will have a given resolving power in
> angular space. To show a given number of pixels will take a given
> angular space. If you push the monitors back to make them take less
> angular space, then you can't resolve the details as they are "too small".

Yes.  Conversely, any gains in SIZE of display are canceled by the
losses introduced by the "need" to move the display further away.
The "solution" is to get the same amount of display *area* in a
shorter chord.

> Going Portrait mode will help (maybe), as you end up with less pixels
> horizontally, so less angle, and more pixels vertically, so more data in
> your field of view. The one issue is that some programs aren't going to
> like the fact that your horizontal resolution on a single monitor will
> be smaller than normal, and may cause some issue.

If I ran the monitors 1200x1600, then they just seem to be "taller than
normal" (i.e., many folks use 1080 line displays).  But, I still have to
scale the application to fit (effectively) a 1200x900 display (in terms
of the single-monitor-width).

> One issue that you are running into is that a 4:1 display is very far
> off the shape of the human field of view. Monitors are wide because the
> human field of view is wider than it is tall. The original 4:3 aspect
> ratio displays worked well for matching the "active" field of view. The
> wide screens came about mostly because movies went wide to fill your
> peripheral field of view, which actually makes a lot more sense for a
> movie than for a data display. When fitting to the field of view, the
> 2x2 arrangement should actually be better, the issue become that the
> break point is in the worse possible position (the center of your field
> of view), and by the time you shift your active spot to the center of
> one of the displays, the up shift becomes excessive since we aren't used
> to a lot of up-down to our field of view, we are much more used to
> expanding it horizontally to get to a 360 degree view. (Perhaps if we
> had to deal with more avian predators in the past we could look up better).

Exactly.  I think "top" (or bottom) displays really only make sense
for things that are seldom observed.  E.g., put your clock up there
so you can easily find it when you want to check the time... without
wasting "prime real estate" on it down below.

If, OTOH, you are actively moving your focus between different objects
(apps, etc.), I think it is more natural to shift your gaze left/right.
And, ideally, just by moving your eyes, not your *neck*!

On 8/24/2014 1:32 PM, Don Y wrote:
>
> Exactly.  I think "top" (or bottom) displays really only make sense
> for things that are seldom observed.  E.g., put your clock up there
> so you can easily find it when you want to check the time... without
> wasting "prime real estate" on it down below.

Lol, adding a monitor to your computer so you can see a clock instead of 
putting a $5 clock on the wall?

Have we reached the point of diminishing returns of display number? 
What about three displays instead of 4?  Is that a happy medium?

I wanted to add a TV to use as a monitor.  I did a little estimation and 
realized that if I mount it on the wall about 10 feet away it is 
actually smaller in my view than my laptop at about two feet.  Due to 
limitations of arm length my laptop screen is usually a bit closer than 
that actually.  I'd have to get a TV some 70 inches diagonal to improve 
on the size of the display.

-- 

Rick

Hi Rick,

On 8/24/2014 10:51 AM, rickman wrote:
> On 8/24/2014 1:32 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>
>> Exactly. I think "top" (or bottom) displays really only make sense
>> for things that are seldom observed. E.g., put your clock up there
>> so you can easily find it when you want to check the time... without
>> wasting "prime real estate" on it down below.
>
> Lol, adding a monitor to your computer so you can see a clock instead of
> putting a $5 clock on the wall?

Um, that's not what I said.  "Things that are seldom observed" yet
"so you can easily find it".  E.g., I don't want to have to open my
email every time I want to "check it".  Or, open a "clock" application
every time I want to know what time it is.  Or, a "(appointment)
calendar" to know what has been added to my schedule (by third
parties).  Or, call up a calculator when I need to do some quick math.

My point was the things you put "up there" want to be things that
you *don't* interact with regularly.  Just like the clock on your
WALL -- instead of in the middle of your SCREEN!  (you wouldn't
put the clock there and move your text editor to the "wall"!)

> Have we reached the point of diminishing returns of display number? What
> about three displays instead of 4? Is that a happy medium?
>
> I wanted to add a TV to use as a monitor. I did a little estimation and
> realized that if I mount it on the wall about 10 feet away it is
> actually smaller in my view than my laptop at about two feet. Due to
> limitations of arm length my laptop screen is usually a bit closer than
> that actually. I'd have to get a TV some 70 inches diagonal to improve
> on the size of the display.

Perceived size is only one issue.  The idea of watching a movie sitting
in a chair -- especially one where I would likely interact with a
computer -- is not my idea of fun/comfort.  In addition to body
position, it's too "imposing"... too "in your face".

I have some "smart glasses" that have built in monitors -- "The
equivalent of a 55 inch screen at 10 ft!".  Yet, it is far more
comfortable to watch the 46" plasma -- or even a 19" LCD TV (at a
comfortable viewing distance).  The smart glasses only see use on
air/rail trips (which I have been religiously avoiding!)

I've a 17" laptop that I have used to watch DVDs when I've been
"bedridden" -- but that's because no TVs in bedrooms.  I'd much
prefer to sit up in bed and watch a smaller (effective) screen
across the room than the laptop's up close!

Don Y:
> "so you can easily find it".  E.g., I don't want to have to open my
> email every time I want to "check it".  Or, open a "clock" application
> every time I want to know what time it is.  Or, a "(appointment)
> calendar" to know what has been added to my schedule (by third
> parties).  Or, call up a calculator when I need to do some quick math.

Virtual desktops (workspaces, whatever) solve almost all of these
issues (for me, anyway).  I have 10 virtual desktops at work: One for
each major project (each containing multiple windows with editor(s),
etc.), one for administrivia, one with a monthly calendar, etc.  I can
move to any of them with a single keystroke.  Each desktop has access
to the two monitors I have attached.  I *prefer* this to lots of
monitors.

Most of the rest is solved by a single taskbar with notification
capability that is present on all desktops.  Well... I keep a real
calculator on my real desk.  I just hope HP keeps making some
reasonable kind of RPN calculator, for awhile there it looked pretty
grim.

Yes, there are occasionally times when I need to move a window from
one desktop to another.  Nothing's perfect.

Do virtual desktops of some kind not work for your workflow?

-- 
Charles Allen

Hi Charles,

On 8/24/2014 12:36 PM, Charles Allen wrote:
> Don Y:
>> "so you can easily find it".  E.g., I don't want to have to open my
>> email every time I want to "check it".  Or, open a "clock" application
>> every time I want to know what time it is.  Or, a "(appointment)
>> calendar" to know what has been added to my schedule (by third
>> parties).  Or, call up a calculator when I need to do some quick math.
>
> Virtual desktops (workspaces, whatever) solve almost all of these
> issues (for me, anyway).  I have 10 virtual desktops at work: One for
> each major project (each containing multiple windows with editor(s),
> etc.), one for administrivia, one with a monthly calendar, etc.  I can
> move to any of them with a single keystroke.  Each desktop has access
> to the two monitors I have attached.  I *prefer* this to lots of
> monitors.

Yes, I can have multiple desktops on each of my hosts.  But, that
really only works for separating different *types* of activities.
When I have to deal with activities that span "disciplines", then
they fall down -- and the only real solution is "more real estate".

> Most of the rest is solved by a single taskbar with notification
> capability that is present on all desktops.  Well... I keep a real
> calculator on my real desk.  I just hope HP keeps making some
> reasonable kind of RPN calculator, for awhile there it looked pretty
> grim.
>
> Yes, there are occasionally times when I need to move a window from
> one desktop to another.  Nothing's perfect.
>
> Do virtual desktops of some kind not work for your workflow?

IF, for example, I am writing a driver for a board I've designed,
then it's primarily a "software writing" task.  So, an editor,
compiler/linage editor and debugger?

But, I'll need to reference the schematic to see what the actual
hardware interface looks like ("what's connected to bit 3?").  And,
the specification to see it's design requirements/responsibilities.

When the code is loaded into the target, I'll need to look at
the target's "I/O" (e.g., display) to see if it is behaving as
I intended.  If something doesn't appear to be working, I may
have to look at a PCB layout to figure out where to probe with
a 'scope/analyzer.

When all is well, I may need to capture waveforms or "traces"
from the scope or analyzer to include them in the documentation
("Troubleshoots").

[I've not mentioned a wall clock, email, appointment book, etc.!]

Doing this on multiple workspaces is tedious.  As is maximizing and
minimizing windows (or, shuffling Z order).  It's just *so* much
easier to have everything spread across *one* virtual desktop...
much like you would work with physical documents and a test bench.

In the past, I've relied on having different monitors on different
workstations to give me additional "desktop".  E.g., when I want
to interact with the target, swivel my desk to use a different
workstation for that.

But, I am trying to get rid of workstations -- yet, electing to save
the bits that seem most useful to me going forward (e.g., monitors).

On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 13:51:16 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 8/24/2014 1:32 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>
>> Exactly.  I think "top" (or bottom) displays really only make sense
>> for things that are seldom observed.  E.g., put your clock up there
>> so you can easily find it when you want to check the time... without
>> wasting "prime real estate" on it down below.
>
>Lol, adding a monitor to your computer so you can see a clock instead of 
>putting a $5 clock on the wall?

Sure.  Moving your eyes to find the clock and refocusing takes longer
than just glancing at the display clock, in the same plane.  I don't
think he was specifically talking about only a clock, though.  The
task bar takes space, it might be good to get it off the main monitor.
My laptop screen space is at enough of a premium that I keep it
hidden, which just changes the problem.

>
>Have we reached the point of diminishing returns of display number? 
>What about three displays instead of 4?  Is that a happy medium?

That's kinda where I am, with one directly in front.  Again, one on
top might be useful for static things but haven't actually tried it.

>I wanted to add a TV to use as a monitor.  I did a little estimation and 
>realized that if I mount it on the wall about 10 feet away it is 
>actually smaller in my view than my laptop at about two feet.  Due to 
>limitations of arm length my laptop screen is usually a bit closer than 
>that actually.  I'd have to get a TV some 70 inches diagonal to improve 
>on the size of the display.

On 8/24/2014 2:28 PM, Don Y wrote:
> Hi Rick,
>
> On 8/24/2014 10:51 AM, rickman wrote:
>> On 8/24/2014 1:32 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>>
>>> Exactly. I think "top" (or bottom) displays really only make sense
>>> for things that are seldom observed. E.g., put your clock up there
>>> so you can easily find it when you want to check the time... without
>>> wasting "prime real estate" on it down below.
>>
>> Lol, adding a monitor to your computer so you can see a clock instead of
>> putting a $5 clock on the wall?
>
> Um, that's not what I said.  "Things that are seldom observed" yet
> "so you can easily find it".  E.g., I don't want to have to open my
> email every time I want to "check it".  Or, open a "clock" application
> every time I want to know what time it is.  Or, a "(appointment)
> calendar" to know what has been added to my schedule (by third
> parties).  Or, call up a calculator when I need to do some quick math.

You can want what you want of course.  I don't have a problem minimizing 
windows I'm not using or even just laying on window over another.  I use 
Alt-Tab to quickly switch between the top several apps in use and I have 
little trouble with that... until Windows 8 which has apps like a tablet 
that take over the screen and don't share with the other children.  Damn 
you Bill Gates... give me what I say I want, not what *you* think I 
*should* want.

As to the clock example, I use the windows clock in the lower left 
corner of my screen along with the day of the week and date... always 
there and very unobtrusive.  :)


> My point was the things you put "up there" want to be things that
> you *don't* interact with regularly.  Just like the clock on your
> WALL -- instead of in the middle of your SCREEN!  (you wouldn't
> put the clock there and move your text editor to the "wall"!)

Ok.

>> Have we reached the point of diminishing returns of display number? What
>> about three displays instead of 4? Is that a happy medium?
>>
>> I wanted to add a TV to use as a monitor. I did a little estimation and
>> realized that if I mount it on the wall about 10 feet away it is
>> actually smaller in my view than my laptop at about two feet. Due to
>> limitations of arm length my laptop screen is usually a bit closer than
>> that actually. I'd have to get a TV some 70 inches diagonal to improve
>> on the size of the display.
>
> Perceived size is only one issue.  The idea of watching a movie sitting
> in a chair -- especially one where I would likely interact with a
> computer -- is not my idea of fun/comfort.  In addition to body
> position, it's too "imposing"... too "in your face".

Lol... so you are in an uncomfortable position for computing but want a 
more comfortable position for watching movies?  Ok.


> I have some "smart glasses" that have built in monitors -- "The
> equivalent of a 55 inch screen at 10 ft!".  Yet, it is far more
> comfortable to watch the 46" plasma -- or even a 19" LCD TV (at a
> comfortable viewing distance).  The smart glasses only see use on
> air/rail trips (which I have been religiously avoiding!)
>
> I've a 17" laptop that I have used to watch DVDs when I've been
> "bedridden" -- but that's because no TVs in bedrooms.  I'd much
> prefer to sit up in bed and watch a smaller (effective) screen
> across the room than the laptop's up close!

Why?  Do you have trouble with your glasses for short distances?

My ideal would be a 47"-55" display 6-8 feet from my eyes.  But I can't 
find a good mount for the middle of the room.  One that would let the 
monitor swing up and out of the way.

-- 

Rick

On 8/24/2014 6:07 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 13:51:16 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/24/2014 1:32 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>>
>>> Exactly.  I think "top" (or bottom) displays really only make sense
>>> for things that are seldom observed.  E.g., put your clock up there
>>> so you can easily find it when you want to check the time... without
>>> wasting "prime real estate" on it down below.
>>
>> Lol, adding a monitor to your computer so you can see a clock instead of
>> putting a $5 clock on the wall?
>
> Sure.  Moving your eyes to find the clock and refocusing takes longer
> than just glancing at the display clock, in the same plane.  I don't
> think he was specifically talking about only a clock, though.  The
> task bar takes space, it might be good to get it off the main monitor.
> My laptop screen space is at enough of a premium that I keep it
> hidden, which just changes the problem.

I tried hiding the task bar, but it keeps coming up accidentally and I 
got tired of the movement.  It's easier to just live with 40 or so fewer 
pixels out of the 1920 on my screen.


>> Have we reached the point of diminishing returns of display number?
>> What about three displays instead of 4?  Is that a happy medium?
>
> That's kinda where I am, with one directly in front.  Again, one on
> top might be useful for static things but haven't actually tried it.

I'm an old guy and I found some time ago that moving my head up and down 
is a pain in the... neck, literally.  It would be hard to look at a 
monitor above the main one without bending the neck and ending up with 
sore muscles.  That's also why I rejected progressive lenses.  They only 
have a tiny focus region and I had to move my head constantly to view 
the screen.  Now I just wear a pair of glasses just for the computer, 
not even bifocal.

-- 

Rick