The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
I posted a week or so about a fiasco when I tried to buy a BBB and was deferred until mid February at which point I just cancelled the order and thought I'd just wait until later time.
So we went to the mall in Savannah today and instead of going girly shopping with my son and his wife I went visited the Radio Shack. Well they had a BBB kit which is basically a BBB with about $10 worth of other hardware packaged with it at 2ce the price of the bare BBB. Well I picked it up and put it down, walked around the mall a bit found them and they were still girly shopping so went back to RS and picked up the BBB two more time trying to mentally justify buying it but just couldn't. So when I got home just for sh*t's and giggles went online and did a search for BBB and a site I've ordered from before had them in stock so I now have one on the way, AGAIN and hopefully here sometime end of next week.
That means I'll have to get busy and finish what I'm working on now to make time for the new arrival.
So I'm riding to Savannah and I'm working on an article on my new/old laptop, I just traded for it recently and forgot to set automatic update to ask me when updates are available instead of just doing it. Well I typing away and all of a sudden the machine says it's shutting down and not to cut the power as it's updating the computer, without any kind of indication.
So at first I thought I had lost an hours worth of work but thanks god for the VS recovery schema.
So needless to say first thing I did when I got home and charged up was to set the auto update to ask me and not auto update.
On top of everything else there's still updates available? WTF?
On my Win7 machines it asks you if you want to shut down now, or you can postpone it up to 4 hours.
The bad part is that when this window pops up it takes focus (doesn't come up in the background), so if you are typing and hit the space bar, it will dismiss the window with the default selection, which is to restart now. Not sure if that's what happened to you. Its annoying.
What is even worse is that I can hibernate my computer and if it has pending updates, it will wake itself up, apply the updates, and restart. Of course when it comes back up it opens everything I had open, but it certainly doesn't save any work. So not only does it forcibly close everything, but it doesn't put itself back to sleep. In the middle of the night I sometimes hear "Your virus definitions have been updated"...
I can't find a way to shut that off while leaving automatic updates on (I like them on so my dev machine is fully updated, and I have a Win7 VM that has a vanilla install with no updates for testing).
Even when you have set the option to never restart automatically, the not so new behavior can still be a pita. Have you ever needed to pack up the laptop at the last minute only to find that updates will be installed when you shut down...no opting out or putting it off for a more convenient time. This has caught me on more than a few occasions where I had to wait up to 10 minutes for it to shut down. I refuse to put it in the case running. I suppose proper planning on my part is the quickest remedy.
I develop automation software for big equipment, which requires outdoor testing. One day I was testing a huge hydraulic system and it was all being controlled with my laptop. It was the middle of August in Houston, outside temp was around 100F. I had set my computer up to not go to sleep when the cover is closed so it wouldn't lose connection.
Well long story short, I had the computer in a shaded place where it was relatively cool, and I left for lunch while it ran some tests. Somebody had picked up my computer, put it in my backpack (black mind you) and set it in the sun. When I got there my computer was so hot I had to find a freezer to put it in just so I could touch it. The mouse/speakers never worked again but didn't completely fry it
A 32" monitor would be sweet with 2840x2160 (4x HD) resolution, but I would still want a second monitor to put secondary or status programs on. Also it helps when debugging fullscreen programs. If money were not an issue, because the 32" monitors run ~$3500 US, the 32" and a 24" on the side.
I currently run a 30" and a 24", I tried adding a third monitor, a 24" monitor, but its just too much. I didn't use it, and ironically my real desktop workspace was more valuable to me than the value the extra monitor provided.
I don't know what you are running now, but with the 30" 2560x1600, I can maximize Visual Studio, display the solution explorer, and 3 columns of code, leaving plenty of room at the top or bottom for debug and status info panes. Any more than that and it seems to become distracting.
I saw a nice setup with a cheap 39" TV that supported 4K resolution (3840x2160). It went for well under $1K. The user normally had lots of windows opened at once and didn't like looking around at various monitors to find what he wanted. Of course, going this route is not for everyone, and does require getting a video card that supports 4K. Still, it looked great. But it's not useful if one does 3-wide gaming.
Personally, I use two 1920x1200 monitors, both in portrait mode, and have a connection to a 1080p 39" TV for watching movies, etc. It all depends on what one wants to do.
I think my current main monitor at work is 27" (2560x1440 iMac) and my secondary screen is 15" (2880x1800 MacBook).
I suppose it'd be nice to instead have two 27" thunderbolt displays, but what I have right now works very well for me.
I typically have a Windows VM taking over the main screen, with Visual Studio on half of the screen and a browser open on the other half. The secondary screen usually has a browser open with some essential tabs (email, tasks list) and depending on what I'm doing an IM window or document.
I have two 22" monitors, one portrait and the other landscape.
Wouldn't go back to one monitor, no matter what size, because two is just more flexible: you can "maximise" an app on each, so VS on the landscape for lines and tools and properties; with chrome open on the portrait for lots of lines.
Possibly one more 22 would be better, but then I'd have to move my head a fair amount to see what's going on...
Never underestimate the power of stupid things in large numbers --- Serious Sam
I must be cursed when it comes to multiple monitors. I tried it a couple of years ago. Every time the workstation restarted, the monitor configuration, settings, and icons would get hosed. It was probably just my video card, as others seem to have no problems.
I have one 21" Dell monitor and one 22" Dell monitor that are hooked to my main station, one is 1680x1050 and the bigger one is 1920x1080. I think the combination works out well, even though I got the monitors at different times.
I've been toying with the idea of replacing them with 2 24" monitors, and at one point I was thinking about 3 30" monitors, but I couldn't bring myself to drop $1500 on the monitors and video card necessary.
I have four, one really small on my left and three across. It's too many, I never use them. I think three is optimal, one big one in the middle and one either side. That leaves one for chat, one for docs or side tasks, and one for your main IDE.
*grin* I use CP in my main window. I also read mail in my main window. That way, I do it when I feel like I have a moment and it's not an always present distraction. Esp when I'm helping in forums and people ask questions, if I could see those while coding, it might make me stop to help.
What do you guys have, and what would you want to have?
I have a big screen in the middle and two smaller screens, one on each side, sometimes a laptop in front of the monitor on the left, sometimes a cat wanting attention in front of the monitor in the middle.
Ideally, I'd like three big screens, all side by side. No wait. Ideally, I want something like this[^]
For my department, I choose 2 x 4:3 screens, default 1280x1024 resolution. It works fantastic for development, and a second screen is a must.
Whenever I work with a 'widescreen' I curse it, the space just seems to big use effiently: too much eye movement horizontally, too little space vertically. It is great for movies, but not for working. It is also too small to split into two.
I have a pair of 24" (1920x1200) monitors in front of me, with two satellite 19" monitors (1440x900). All are mounted on monitor arms so I can positioning them flexibly - the 19" monitors are stacked on top of each other to the right of the main two.
I tend to use the satellite monitors mostly for RDP sessions while I work in VS or whatever on the main two. It works pretty well - I find the layout pretty much ideal, quite honestly.
"Why would anyone prefer to wield a weapon that takes both hands at once, when they could use a lighter (and obviously superior) weapon that allows you to wield multiple ones at a time, and thus supports multi-paradigm carnage?"
I run 3 additional screens from my laptop, 2 are on USB -> DVI extenders.
The original Laptop screen has unimportant stuff on it like emails etc. Then I have two 23" 1920 x 1080 screens for development, and finally I have a 19" 1280 x 1024 touch screen for testing the application on.
Most of my time is spent working withg the two 23" screens
I recommend three always. Not so much for work, but because flight and racing sim's are SO much better with the extra FOV.
If it wasn't for them, I like to work with two 22" screens, one rotatable set mainly to portrait and one landscape. Portrait mode is surprisingly good for code work, and is much, much better for doc reading.
When not simming, the portrait monitor is precariously blanaced above the landscape monitor as I rarely use them both at once in work mode, so moving my head to focus on the other monitor acts like a trigger that my focus is shifting.
I spent a long while playing around though, and would say what's best for me is no good for other folks in the office or at home, so it's definitely down to personal preference.
A 2x2 grid of 24" screens at 1080p is great for software devs, especially if you are on multiple projects. Over time you do find ways to optimize using the real estate. Anyone who says 4 is too many didn't use them for long enough.
If I were to start over, I would replace the 4 with a single 50" 4K, like this 4K Seiki. Takes up the same space on your office desk, and you could use something like Gridy to define snappable desktop areas. Imagine expanding a single large excel sheet on that thing.
I've got 3 at home and at work. The 3rd is nice; but in both cases it was a lot less of a gain than the second. I briefly had 4 at work but found I never used the 4th once I got past wooting that I could. At home I've got a 2560x1600 screen flanked by a pair of 20" 1200x1600 screens (as a side note: unfortunately this is the only combination where you can get height and DPI to align in a PLP setup ). Games, outlook, and my main browser go on the middle screen. The left is for chat, the right holds a second browser and other miscellany. At work I have a 19" 1280x1024 on the left and 22" 1680x1050's in the center and right. Outlook/Ide in the center, a browser and the app being tested on the right, chat/code diffs/etc on the right.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
I think that rather depends on what you want to use the monitor for.
At work in 2010 I had a 21" for windows dev work with a 10" for email and messages only.
When I work now I'm constrained to a 17" 4:3 for compatibility with the robotic interfaces and embedded systems we build.
At home, I don't use multiple monitors, I use multiple PC's. Thus my media centre, which I use for television, music, video, blogging, writing novels and fb'ing, is piped through a lower cost 40" television with ample cross-room detail, such as four page simultaneous word processing, using a wifi keyboard and mouse from my easy chair.
On the table beside me I often also fire up a middling Laptop with a TB drive and Core 2 Duo, which I use for actual video processing and storage. I also use this for detail work such as Gimp, while I can do Monodevelop on either.
Also all my boxes are wireless, including my (exiled) Windows 7 machine in the kitchen, which I use with a 22" for MS-specific work tasks. The rest are Ubuntu, save for the Win 8.1 redundant desktop I'm prepping for sale. Incidentally, I've found VS2008 works well with 8.1, although SQL Server 2005 complains at installation.
Bottom line, to give your eyes a rest use a big, single monitor, and you don't necessarily have to shell out for a monitor when TV's come with 2 or 3 hdmi ports which you can connect to a reasonable video card and which cost £300 for 40".
The first 100,000 years were the worst; except for the second 100,000 years.
I have 3 monitors and I cannot imagine going back to 1 or even 2. They're especially useful for doing peer code reviews, since I have the code up on one screen, the requirements up on another and the window for entering review comments on the last one.
At work I always have between 10 and 20 applications running at once and spreading them out over multiple screens is a great way to stay sane
I heard that there was a study done that showed a 20% productivity improvement in going from 2 to 3 monitors. However, I think that very much depends on what work you do and how you personally work.
I don't think that 4 monitors would be much of a help to me but I haven't tried it out so maybe it would be even better than 3!
I use 2 monitors at least, one for development/debbuging and one for running whatever I'm developing. When in support mode, usually I have the questions in one monitor and the answers in another. I would like to add another monitor, but I doubt my laptop can handle it.
I have a boss with 2x 30" monitors, it's pretty impressive, but I don't know if it's optimal.
My personal best setup was 4 monitors in a 2x2 configuration. However, I don't feel like this is "optimal" either.
My personal ideal would be a large central screen with 4 "surrounding" screens that are a step smaller. The smaller screens would be useful for various production dashboards and build dashboards as well as pulling up docs.
I have two 19" 1440x900 LCDs, both landscape, and would like to add a third. Bigger monitors can be nice, but I'd rather have the physically segregated visual space.
As to whether that third monitor would be landscape or portrait, I'm agnostic. But if I had a FOURTH, I'd probably put portraits on the left and right (browser, Outlook, and Acrobat/Word) and two landscapes in the center.