Multiple monitors

On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 18:54:54 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

>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.

I prefer *not* to have it on my primary screen (and that 40 pixels is
more than 10% of my laptop screen).  It might be something worth
putting on an "upper".  Though, thinking about it for a minute, it
might not be possible to put it at the bottom of an "upper".

Hi Rick,

On 8/24/2014 3:49 PM, rickman wrote:

>>> 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.

Yes.  I have to be seated where I can type in order to write code,
etc.  I *don't* have to be seated in a typing position to watch a
movie!  Indeed, if I have to read a lengthy datasheet, I will print
a copy just so I can take it into the living room (etc) and read
it in a more comfortable setting.  Then, toss the paper in the recycle
bin later (clutter) knowing where I can find individual items in the
electronic copy at a later date.

>> 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?

I don't need eyeglasses for short "computer monitor" distances
(though now need them for very close work).  However, beyond
about 36 inches, things get blurry (astigmatism) pretty quickly.
With my eyeglasses (for distance and astigmatism) on, I can't use
the computer -- ANY computer.  (i.e., I would need bifocals... the
"near" Rx of which set to "clear glass")

A laptop is tolerable only for short periods of time *or* for
things that I don't need to be observant of detail -- like a
movie (I don't need to be able to count the freckles on an
actor's face to appreciate that it's an actor and which "role"
is being played).  E.g., I recently discarded a couple of
portable DVD players opting, instead, to just use a laptop in
that role when/if needed (little 10" screens on DVD players
being inferior to a larger laptop screen -- and, the expectation
that the battery in the laptop will probably *BE* charged whereas
the DVD player, seeing little use, will probably be *dead*!)

> 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.

The pair of 24" monitors at ~28-30 inches works well for me when
it comes to fine detail -- positioning cursor between two glyphs
in a document, etc.  Wider means either lots of head motion *or*
moving the monitors farther away.

For TV/movie viewing, I typically sit on the floor (recline:  head
propped up against the front of the sofa) about 5 ft from the 46"
set (primarily if I am watching something with subtitles).  At
the dinner table, I'm equally comfortable 6 ft from a little 17" set.
(again, I'm not looking for detail in the images, just the "story
line")  Many times, the screen may not even be visible to me.  I've
found that lots of content doesn't really require visuals for much
of the entertainment value -- esp. if it's something I have seen before
(e.g., I can "watch" Coupling/SOAP/etc. with my eyes closed and still
appreciate all of the humor!)

On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 16:12:50 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

>Hi Rick,
>
>On 8/24/2014 3:49 PM, rickman wrote:
>
>>>> 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.
>
>Yes.  I have to be seated where I can type in order to write code,
>etc.  I *don't* have to be seated in a typing position to watch a
>movie!  Indeed, if I have to read a lengthy datasheet, I will print
>a copy just so I can take it into the living room (etc) and read
>it in a more comfortable setting.  Then, toss the paper in the recycle
>bin later (clutter) knowing where I can find individual items in the
>electronic copy at a later date.

I do the same, but don't recycle them.  I make notes in them and put
them in binders with other datasheets for that project.  I find that
if I make notes in the datasheets, I'll remember more information.
I'll also mark up the PDFs so the information stays with them, too.  I
tend to use both when studying a new part.  The PDFs allow searching,
while the dead trees are easier to digest.
<...>

On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 09:43:44 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

>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.


16x10 is much better for a computer display.  Much more than you'd
think from the 11% increase in height.  Fortunately there are a few
manufacturers out there who make them without hideous price premiums
(FSVO hideous - a Samsung 24" 850 is "only" 50% more expensive than a
comparable 16x9 monitor, although you can certainly spend far less
than $280 on a 24" 16x9).  They also make some nice higher resolution
monitors (the new 28" UHD monitor is pretty attractive, even though
it's 16x9 - it's tall enough that you almost don't care* - it's also
cheaper than, say, the 27" version of the 850 - which is 2560x1440 vs.
3840x2160 for the UHD monitor).

One thing that has puzzled me is the lack of 16x10 options for TVs.  A
ton of existing programming remains 4x3, and a 16x10 is vastly better
for watching 4x3 content.


The 28" UHD monitor is about 3/8ths of an inch shorter than the 27"
16x10, although with 50% higher vertical resolution.

Two things,
About three years ago, I finally broke down and got some reading 
glasses.  They are my regular prescription, but with a +2 addition.  
This has much improved my working on the computer with a lot less eye 
strain.

If you still wanted to go to the 2x2 arrangement, then you probably need 
to lower the bottom screens so that your eye shifts downward for them, 
and tilt them back, and then tilt the top screens slightly forward.  
Think spherical surface...

I have a friend that has a 4x1 arrangement, in a custom arc'd mounting 
system, but I realized that, while watching him use it, that the far 
left display is only used for 'holding' stuff, not actively used, and 
this is for a single workstation.

On my system, I have two non-identical monitors.  Right one is dedicated 
to my desktop, left one can switch between the decktop and my laptop.  
Even with two 22" monitors, I usually find that the left one is primary, 
and the right one is secondary.  I literally shift my chair when working 
for any length of time on the right one...

Charlie

I haven't had a problem with any applications trying to come up in the 
'middle' of my two displays.  They basically just take up one, or the 
other.  I have to physically reduce and move an application to have it 
cross that center barrier.

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:08:14 -0700, Charles Edmondson
<edmondson.nospam@ieee.nospam.org> wrote:

>Two things,
>About three years ago, I finally broke down and got some reading 
>glasses.  They are my regular prescription, but with a +2 addition.  
>This has much improved my working on the computer with a lot less eye 
>strain.
>
>If you still wanted to go to the 2x2 arrangement, then you probably need 
>to lower the bottom screens so that your eye shifts downward for them, 
>and tilt them back, and then tilt the top screens slightly forward.  
>Think spherical surface...

Ohh.  That points out the flaw (for me, anyway) in the upper monitor.
It would play hell with my progressives.  I have progressives for both
distance and computer/reading.

>I have a friend that has a 4x1 arrangement, in a custom arc'd mounting 
>system, but I realized that, while watching him use it, that the far 
>left display is only used for 'holding' stuff, not actively used, and 
>this is for a single workstation.

Yep.  But that's what I'd use it for.  Essentially, the proposed upper
would perform much the same function.

>On my system, I have two non-identical monitors.  Right one is dedicated 
>to my desktop, left one can switch between the decktop and my laptop.  
>Even with two 22" monitors, I usually find that the left one is primary, 
>and the right one is secondary.  I literally shift my chair when working 
>for any length of time on the right one...

At work, I have two identical 22" 1600x1200 monitors.  The right one
is directly in front of me and used for the primary task at hand.  The
left one is used for secondary tasks and reference (the third monitor
on the right is for another system and not the same as the others).  I
find that this works well but I'd prefer better monitors.

At home the monitors are different, one 24" 4:3 on the left and a 20"
16:10 on the right (which is shared with my netbook).  I generally use
the left monitor for the primary on that setup.
 

Hi Charlie,

On 8/25/2014 3:08 PM, Charles Edmondson wrote:
> Two things,
> About three years ago, I finally broke down and got some reading
> glasses.  They are my regular prescription, but with a +2 addition.
> This has much improved my working on the computer with a lot less eye
> strain.

The "monitor distance" is the "sweet spot" for my current vision.
Anything closer starts to make my eyes feel as if "crossed".
Farther and things get blurry.

I have an assortment of "reading glasses" that I use as "wearable
magnifying glasses" when working on PCB assembly, etc.  But, wearing
ANY of them and trying to look at the screen is just not possible
(I'd have to get much closer)

> If you still wanted to go to the 2x2 arrangement, then you probably need
> to lower the bottom screens so that your eye shifts downward for them,
> and tilt them back, and then tilt the top screens slightly forward.
> Think spherical surface...

Yes.  Problem is the work surface forms a lower limit to how low
you can go!  :<   SWMBO wears progressives.  I had to find a monitor
for her that sat *on* the desk (i.e., not ABOVE) so she could read
through the bottoms of her glasses.

> I have a friend that has a 4x1 arrangement, in a custom arc'd mounting
> system, but I realized that, while watching him use it, that the far
> left display is only used for 'holding' stuff, not actively used, and
> this is for a single workstation.

Of course, the farthest extremes tend to be the least used areas.
But, having to "make a lot of motion" to read them *forces* this
usage.  If, instead, they are just slight eye/head motions off of
center, then you can work them into your regular usage pattern.

E.g., when I have to pivot my chair to access another workstation,
I have effectively *shed* the items that were (and still are!)
displayed on the original workstation.  This is OK if, for example,
I am now going to interact with the application I just compiled and
downloaded (to the target connected to that second workstation).
It *wouldn't* be OK if I was consulting a schematic that corresponded
to a PCB layout I was modifying on the first workstation (too much
"back and forth")

> On my system, I have two non-identical monitors.  Right one is dedicated
> to my desktop, left one can switch between the decktop and my laptop.
> Even with two 22" monitors, I usually find that the left one is primary,
> and the right one is secondary.  I literally shift my chair when working
> for any length of time on the right one...

I can see both of mine comfortably just by shifting my eyes.  If I
need to concentrate on one or the other, then I can twist my neck
a bit to more directly face the monitor in question -- my torso can
remain "in place".

E.g., I spent today revising a letter-to-sound algorithm.  I had
FrameMaker open to allow me to view (and revise) the document that
describes the algorithm as well as presents the various (~600) rules.
On the second monitor, an IDE into the code to parse the input and
apply the rules from the table (the FrameMaker document is far more
"user friendly" than the encoding that the software uses).

When I wanted to test (and profile) the algorithm, I would swivel
to a second workstation and compile the (portable!) sources that
were NFS exported from the first/Windows workstation.  Then, apply
the regression tests (a few hundred thousand words) and gather
statistics, etc.

Any unexpected errors in the test case I could examine there -- by
consulting a PDF version of the FrameMaker document (my FM license is
only for Windows so viewing the document elsewhere means resorting
to the more portable PDF form).

Then, swivel back to the debugger and figure out why some particular
rule wasn't being applied correctly in those failing cases.

I could do *all* of this with a single monitor -- if I wanted to keep
shuffling windows (or, shrink them so their contents were unreadable!)

Hi Charlie,

On 8/25/2014 3:19 PM, Charles Edmondson wrote:
> I haven't had a problem with any applications trying to come up in the
> 'middle' of my two displays.  They basically just take up one, or the
> other.  I have to physically reduce and move an application to have it
> cross that center barrier.

It depends on how windows views your monitors.  And, if there is
any "helper" software involved.

E.g., currently, my (identical) monitors are regarded as one seamless
monitor that just happens to be twice as wide as the single monitors
of which it is comprised.  So, my (Windows) taskbar *wants* to be
3200 dots wide, etc.

The driver/helper software allows me to have the taskbar confined to
a single monitor -- which is what I have done.  (allows me to operate
with one monitor powered off if not needed -- and still have the
system tray present/visible/accessible on the first monitor).

E.g., the logon screen spans both monitors.  And, apps that want to
instantiate "centered" would be annoying.  But, the helper software
lets me declare where I want each app to materialize, etc.

If windows wants, instead, to treat your monitors as two *independent*
monitors, then it inherently knows about the "seam".

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 17:52:35 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

>Hi Charlie,
>
>On 8/25/2014 3:08 PM, Charles Edmondson wrote:
>> Two things,
>> About three years ago, I finally broke down and got some reading
>> glasses.  They are my regular prescription, but with a +2 addition.
>> This has much improved my working on the computer with a lot less eye
>> strain.
>
>The "monitor distance" is the "sweet spot" for my current vision.
>Anything closer starts to make my eyes feel as if "crossed".
>Farther and things get blurry.
>
>I have an assortment of "reading glasses" that I use as "wearable
>magnifying glasses" when working on PCB assembly, etc.  But, wearing
>ANY of them and trying to look at the screen is just not possible
>(I'd have to get much closer)

Weaker glasses are the solution for that.  Either that, or perhaps you
have a mild astigmatism?

>> If you still wanted to go to the 2x2 arrangement, then you probably need
>> to lower the bottom screens so that your eye shifts downward for them,
>> and tilt them back, and then tilt the top screens slightly forward.
>> Think spherical surface...
>
>Yes.  Problem is the work surface forms a lower limit to how low
>you can go!  :<   SWMBO wears progressives.  I had to find a monitor
>for her that sat *on* the desk (i.e., not ABOVE) so she could read
>through the bottoms of her glasses.

I have that problem, so have a few pair of glasses (also progressives)
with the "tops" set for monitor use ("bottoms" for desk use).  It's
too painful (PITN ;-) to use the "distance" prescription for monitor
use.
 
<...>