27" iMac (2560x1440, owned by me) at my office. My lab's computer room has 17" monitors at 1280x1024. We're planning on replacing them with 24" monitors at 1920x1080 since having more screen space makes our paper writing a lot more efficient. I much prefer one huge monitor over two smaller ones. One can be much more flexible in arranging windows when working with a single piece of screen real estate.
Originally Posted by Tober1
I think people use more monitors than they need. I have ONE 20" and it's plenty.
I do graphic design. Maybe if I did more web work it would be beneficial, but for the most part I think it's just so you can post about having 3 monitors. Ever heard of Cmd+tab?
Depends on what you're doing. Cmd-Tab is great, but sometimes, you really want multiple windows fully available at the same time. For example, if you need to work in one window (say, typing a manuscript) while referencing something else (say, a scientific figure), it's hugely helpful to be able to see both at full size. Sure, I could cram my text window into the vertical space above or below my figure, having to scan my head up or down to get to it, and not being able to see the rest of the paragraph. Or, I can make my text window nice and big so that I can refer to text just above and below what I'm typing while still being able to reference the figure at a size where I can fully understand what's going on. My 27" monitor allows me to do that. It's good enough for three page-sized documents side by side. More than that, and I'll accept some overlap and bring windows to the forefront as necessary. (I rarely need to deal with more than three pages simultaneously anyways. "Simultaneously" in this context meaning referring to all of them repeatedly within a 20 second period.)
I bought the bigger iMac since my older iMac died on me. But in retrospect, it's so much more efficient working this way that I should have bought the 27" iMac the second it came out. Actually, I should have bought a 30" monitor setup at the beginning of my book writing, as I had seriously considered doing. (The extra 160 pixels of height isn't important, but it was available long before the high-resolution 27" monitors came along.)
Originally Posted by x136
Vertical resolution is handy on a computer. Operating systems tend to have their taskbars and docks horizontally, and the software has a title bar along the top, menus under that, then toolbars, maybe tab bars, then content, then maybe a toolbar along the bottom and a status bar.
I'd take a 1920x1440 monitor over 1920x1080 any day. Or a netbook with 1024x768 instead of 1024x600.
Agreed on smaller monitors. But when monitors get big enough to show a full sheet of paper in portrait mode with plenty of room for toolbars, then I'd rather extra width. In other words, I'd take my 2560x1440 monitor over a hypothetical 2221x1660 monitor (4:3 ratio, same number of pixels). Beyond ~1200 pixels height (at a pixel density comparable to that on my iMac), I'd rather get extra width. I suppose beyond ~4000 pixels height, I might again prefer more height.