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.
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?"
Last Visit: 31-Dec-99 19:00 Last Update: 8-Dec-16 2:37