Multiple monitors

On 27 Aug 2014 11:49:22 +0100 (BST), Theo Markettos
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>In comp.arch.embedded Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
>> You'll be thrilled to know that the industry is (as usual) going in
>> the wrong direction.  Instead of adding more vertical dots, it's
>> adding more of them horizontally.  
>> <http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-29UM65-P-ultrawide-monitor>
>> <http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005624>
>> <http://www.bestbuy.com/site/lg-29-ips-led-hd-219-ultrawide-monitor/3831023.p>
>> 29" diagonal, 2560x1080 dots.  21:9  $380 at Best Buy.
>> I guess for long and thin schematics, it might make some sense.  If
>> you have limited desk space, it's not a great idea.  

>One of my colleagues has one of those.  He says it's great for coding - just
>has it rotated so it runs vertically.  He has a second 4:3 monitor next door
>for email, web browsing, etc.
>Theo

Yikes.  The 21:9 monitors are available from LG in 25, 29, and 34 inch
diagonal sizes, all with 2560x1080 resolution.  A 3ft high monitor on
my desk would probably give me a stiff neck looking up at the top
line.  Where does he put it?  On a chair or on the floor?

One of the metrics I use to determine the "value" of high resolution
monitors is cost per megapixel.  For the LG 25" model, it's:
   $380 / 2.76 mpix = $141/mpix 

An ordinary commodity 21.5" 1920x1080 monitor 
<http://www.bestbuy.com/site/samsung-21-5-led-hd-monitor-red/8682086.p>
would be:
   $130 / 2.07 mpix = $62.90/mpix

A larger 27" 1920x1080 model:
<http://www.bestbuy.com/site/samsung-27-led-hd-monitor-black/3924024.p>
   $243 / 2.07 mpix = $117/mpix

In other words, the LG 21:9 monitor isn't much of a bargain if you're
trying to get as many dots on the screen(s) as possible, which was the
original problem.  For applications where the dividing line between
monitors is critical, such as graphics and video, an array of monitors
is probably not a great idea (depending on the users abilities to
adjust to the situation).  However, for character based applications,
which include programming, the dividing line is not as much of a
problem.  Well, maybe for those that like to write the entire program
on one long line.

Also, I became suspicious when the I noticed that the demo video on
the LG 21:9 monitor was effectively in slow motion.  I later looked up
the specs and found that it has a 14 msec response time, instead of
the usual 5 msec.  That probably has no effect on most applications,
but will cause some smear on video:
<http://lcdtvbuyingguide.com/lcdtv/lcdtv-responsetime.shtml>
I was with a customer looking at the monitor.  He's somewhat of a
gamer, and the slow response killed the sale.


-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 20:38:15 -0700, josephkk
<joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Seriously consider super-resolution monitors e.g. 2560 by 1440 pixels and
>higher.  I am experimenting with one and i like it.

The cheapest 2560x1440 I could find on the Best Buy web pile is:
<http://www.bestbuy.com/site/dell-ultrasharp-27-widescreen-flat-panel-ips-led-hd-monitor/6814961.p>
The cost per megapixel is:
   $616 / 3.69 mpix = $167/mpix

In a previous rant, I worked out the costs for other monitors at:

LG 29UM65-P 29" 2560x1080
<http://www.bestbuy.com/site/lg-29-ips-led-hd-219-ultrawide-monitor/3831023.p>
   $380 / 2.76 mpix = $141/mpix 

An ordinary commodity 21.5" 1920x1080 monitor 
<http://www.bestbuy.com/site/samsung-21-5-led-hd-monitor-red/8682086.p>
would be:
   $130 / 2.07 mpix = $62.90/mpix

A larger 27" 1920x1080 model:
<http://www.bestbuy.com/site/samsung-27-led-hd-monitor-black/3924024.p>
   $243 / 2.07 mpix = $117/mpix

Looks like the super-resolution monitor is the most expensive if
you're counting pixels.  Of course, there's a benefit to having all
your pixels on one screen.  I just don't like paying for it.



-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 21:23:11 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> >
> >krw@attt.bizz wrote:
> >>
> >> Usually printing the PDF to PDF will unlock them enough to print. Some
> >> will print protect theirs (usually those under NDA), so that doesn't
> >> work.  The ones where printing them doesn't work, can't be searched or
> >> copy-n-pasted to, either so they really are pretty useless. I let the
> >> suppliers know in pretty nasty terms when they lock them down that far
> >> (watermarks are understandable).  The customer facing people are try
> >> to get this fixed.  But like corporate Internet systems, functionality
> >> is way down on the list of priorities.
> >
> >
> >   Print screen, and save the image is better than nothing.  If you do
> >it at high magnification you can use a scan to text tool to extract the
> >text to make it searchable.
> 
> That's quite a lot of work on a large (some datasheets are 8K pages
> and 1K isn't at all unusual) document. Large documents need to be
> searchable far more than those a few pages long.


I've done it to scans of old equipment manuals that are several hundred
pages.  In some cases you can try to save a PDF as a text file and
extract a lot of information. You will lose all formatting, especially
when you have multiple columns but it still saves a lot of work.


-- 
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 22:47:12 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

>That's quite a lot of work on a large (some datasheets are 8K pages
>and 1K isn't at all unusual) document. Large documents need to be
>searchable far more than those a few pages long.

Hint:  I've abandoned Adobe Acrobat Reader and switched to PDF-Xchange
Viewer (free):
<http://www.tracker-software.com/product/pdf-xchange-viewer>
One of the features of this viewer is a built in OCR reader, that
converts a scanned PDF into a searchable PDF.  From the feature list:
    New -  OCR options included -  OCR your image based/scanned 
    PDF's to make fully text searchable PDF files


-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

On 8/27/2014 12:02 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 20:38:15 -0700, josephkk
> <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Seriously consider super-resolution monitors e.g. 2560 by 1440 pixels and
>> higher.  I am experimenting with one and i like it.
>
> The cheapest 2560x1440 I could find on the Best Buy web pile is:
> <http://www.bestbuy.com/site/dell-ultrasharp-27-widescreen-flat-panel-ips-led-hd-monitor/6814961.p>
> The cost per megapixel is:
>     $616 / 3.69 mpix = $167/mpix
>
> In a previous rant, I worked out the costs for other monitors at:
>
> LG 29UM65-P 29" 2560x1080
> <http://www.bestbuy.com/site/lg-29-ips-led-hd-219-ultrawide-monitor/3831023.p>
>     $380 / 2.76 mpix = $141/mpix
>
> An ordinary commodity 21.5" 1920x1080 monitor
> <http://www.bestbuy.com/site/samsung-21-5-led-hd-monitor-red/8682086.p>
> would be:
>     $130 / 2.07 mpix = $62.90/mpix
>
> A larger 27" 1920x1080 model:
> <http://www.bestbuy.com/site/samsung-27-led-hd-monitor-black/3924024.p>
>     $243 / 2.07 mpix = $117/mpix
>
> Looks like the super-resolution monitor is the most expensive if
> you're counting pixels.  Of course, there's a benefit to having all
> your pixels on one screen.  I just don't like paying for it.

I am perpetually tight, but when it comes to ergonomic factors I have 
learned it is no place to pinch pennies and these days a $600 monitor is 
nearly a no-thought expense.  When I was in college I once tried 
"Eat-Well" tuna because it was $0.10 cheaper.  Now I eat $20 a pound 
smoked salmon.  I have no reason to sweat buying a $600 monitor if it 
helps me use my computer any better.

-- 

Rick

Hi Jeff,

On 8/27/2014 8:45 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2014 11:49:22 +0100 (BST), Theo Markettos
> <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk>  wrote:
>
>> In comp.arch.embedded Jeff Liebermann<jeffl@cruzio.com>  wrote:
>>> You'll be thrilled to know that the industry is (as usual) going in
>>> the wrong direction.  Instead of adding more vertical dots, it's
>>> adding more of them horizontally.
>>> <http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-29UM65-P-ultrawide-monitor>
>>> <http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005624>
>>> <http://www.bestbuy.com/site/lg-29-ips-led-hd-219-ultrawide-monitor/3831023.p>
>>> 29" diagonal, 2560x1080 dots.  21:9  $380 at Best Buy.
>>> I guess for long and thin schematics, it might make some sense.  If
>>> you have limited desk space, it's not a great idea.
>
>> One of my colleagues has one of those.  He says it's great for coding - just
>> has it rotated so it runs vertically.  He has a second 4:3 monitor next door
>> for email, web browsing, etc.
>> Theo
>
> Yikes.  The 21:9 monitors are available from LG in 25, 29, and 34 inch
> diagonal sizes, all with 2560x1080 resolution.  A 3ft high monitor on
> my desk would probably give me a stiff neck looking up at the top
> line.  Where does he put it?  On a chair or on the floor?

+42   I *really* don't like "looking up" when it comes to working
on a computer.  I prefer my gaze "at eye level" and lower.  As such,
a 24" 4:3 monitor is about the "tallest" I am comfortable with (in
landscape orientation).  If I move to 21" portrait mode displays,
that's *almost* a wash (in terms of height).  It's REALLY easy to
end up with a "stiff neck" if your workstation layout has you
regularly stressing your neck in that way hours at a time, day after
day.

Like sitting in the first row of a movie theatre... and that's just
a TWO HOUR show!

> One of the metrics I use to determine the "value" of high resolution
> monitors is cost per megapixel.
>
> In other words, the LG 21:9 monitor isn't much of a bargain if you're
> trying to get as many dots on the screen(s) as possible, which was the
> original problem.  For applications where the dividing line between
> monitors is critical, such as graphics and video, an array of monitors
> is probably not a great idea (depending on the users abilities to
> adjust to the situation).  However, for character based applications,
> which include programming, the dividing line is not as much of a
> problem.  Well, maybe for those that like to write the entire program
> on one long line.

Very few applications (IME) really benefit from a "large" monolithic
workspace.  The problem (*my* problem) is that I need several apps
to be active (i.e., "engaged", not just "running") at any given time
in order to be effective in my efforts.

Think about how often you are concerned *solely* with a single
application:
- reviewing a schematic (but not consulting any datasheets)
- checking a PCB (without regard for the associated schematic)
- writing code (without concern for the hardware on which it runs)
- preparing documentation (without having to reference anything!)
etc.

In each of those cases, a traditional 4:3 monitor is "about the
right shape" and 24" is typically "more than large enough"
(17 would be too small; 19 may *feel* tight; 21 is probably
"acceptable").  A wider/bigger (dots) screen may show you more
of the schematic (at a given level of detail) but that's not
usually "necessary".  Ditto for a PCB (you're seldom focused on
"fine details" while looking at the entire board, etc.)

Any "writing" activities usually leave much of the display area
"wasted" (OK, a debugger can exploit extra real estate for
status displays, etc.)

The only folks I've seen use a large/wide desktop for a single
(non-multimedia) application are folks who deal with spreadsheets.
The "I-need-to-see-all-the-data-on-the-screen-at-the-same-time"
mentality.  And, if you gave them an "extra" monitor, they
wouldn't want it for email, web browser, etc. -- instead, they
would want to view even MORE rows or columns!!  :-/

> Also, I became suspicious when the I noticed that the demo video on
> the LG 21:9 monitor was effectively in slow motion.  I later looked up
> the specs and found that it has a 14 msec response time, instead of
> the usual 5 msec.  That probably has no effect on most applications,
> but will cause some smear on video:
> <http://lcdtvbuyingguide.com/lcdtv/lcdtv-responsetime.shtml>
> I was with a customer looking at the monitor.  He's somewhat of a
> gamer, and the slow response killed the sale.

Different set of rules for multimedia and, esp, gaming.  Money's
no object when it comes to fun!  :>

Hi Joseph,

On 8/26/2014 8:38 PM, josephkk wrote:

> Seriously consider super-resolution monitors e.g. 2560 by 1440 pixels and
> higher.  I am experimenting with one and i like it.

More *smaller* dots isn't going to really help me -- I'll just use
more of them to display the same material (fine curves will be
smoother but the same amount of information will still be present
on the display).

My problem is getting more "area" (assuming you can always get
sufficient resolution within that area) in which to display stuff.
And, still address the ergonomic issues so I can use that area
effectively without "a stiff neck" or "tennis match syndrome".

With better eyes, the ideal solution would be a curved display
that I could locate a bit farther away (perhaps 36-40" instead of
the ~28 that I now prefer) and, thus, not need to span as great
an arc.

In addition to being better able to see the detail present *at* that
distance, "better eyes" would be able to quickly make the adjustments
to "near viewing" when I have to consult a printed document on my
physical desktop (i.e., that is NOT 36" away from me) or a real
circuit board as I go in search of the corresponding area of interest
"on screen".

I mocked up Theo's 40 inch and it's definitely a non-starter, here.
Maybe if I was younger or born with different eyes...  :-/

Hi Rick,

On 8/27/2014 9:11 AM, rickman wrote:

> I am perpetually tight, but when it comes to ergonomic factors I have
> learned it is no place to pinch pennies and these days a $600 monitor is
> nearly a no-thought expense. When I was in college I once tried
> "Eat-Well" tuna because it was $0.10 cheaper. Now I eat $20 a pound
> smoked salmon. I have no reason to sweat buying a $600 monitor if it
> helps me use my computer any better.

Ditto.  You *don't* want to know what I've spent on kit over the
course of my career!  :(  (actually, *I* don't, either!)

But, throwing money at a problem doesn't always give you better
results.  Knowing what your *real* needs are (vs. the glitz appeal)
and what your real usage patterns are makes it easier to find the
"right fit" -- if there *is* a "right fit"!  :-/

I'm not keen on rearranging my workspace only to discover some
aspect of its plan that isn't practical 24/7/365 -- "Gee, it
looked good on paper...".  Too much "grunt work" involved for
anything less than a "sure thing"!  :>

Hi Michael,

On 8/27/2014 9:02 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

>> That's quite a lot of work on a large (some datasheets are 8K pages
>> and 1K isn't at all unusual) document. Large documents need to be
>> searchable far more than those a few pages long.
>
> I've done it to scans of old equipment manuals that are several hundred
> pages.  In some cases you can try to save a PDF as a text file and
> extract a lot of information. You will lose all formatting, especially
> when you have multiple columns but it still saves a lot of work.

<grin>  Wade through AEK's archive if you want to see what "obsessive
scanning" can yield!  Perhaps a few HUNDRED thousand pages??  :-O

[I'm personally dreading finishing the scans on my MULTICS archive...]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 10:57:16 -0700, Don Y wrote:

> Very few applications (IME) really benefit from a "large" monolithic
> workspace.  The problem (*my* problem) is that I need several apps to be
> active (i.e., "engaged", not just "running") at any given time in order
> to be effective in my efforts.
>[ ... ]
> In each of those cases, a traditional 4:3 monitor is "about the right
> shape" and 24" is typically "more than large enough"
> (17 would be too small; 19 may *feel* tight; 21 is probably
> "acceptable").  A wider/bigger (dots) screen may show you more of the
> schematic (at a given level of detail) but that's not usually
> "necessary".  Ditto for a PCB (you're seldom focused on "fine details"
> while looking at the entire board, etc.)

Working with classical organs a while ago, it occurred to us that we 
could replace the music rack with a 24" 16x9 monitor.  Then we could 
download organ scores on request from imslp.org as PDFs and display them 
2 pages across on the music rack.  Possibility of superimposing SVG for 
local markup.  The guy who signed the cheques wasn't as enthused as we 
were.

	Mel.