Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Foo (http://www.bikeforums.net/foo/)
-   -   What size monitor do you run at work? (http://www.bikeforums.net/foo/652067-what-size-monitor-do-you-run-work.html)

phantomcow2 06-07-10 07:31 AM

What size monitor do you run at work?
 
One of the first things I noticed about my office is how crappy the computers are. They're some Dell from what looks like 2002 or 2003, with that is either a 17 or 19" 4:3 monitor. Pardon my ignorance, but is this normal in corporate America? Coming from a 24" widescreen setup at home, I find it painful to have to work between spreadsheets for hours a day on such a dinosaur.

cuda2k 06-07-10 07:42 AM

I have a pair of (I think they are 19" or 20") LCD's, 4:3 ratio. I write code, so the vertical real estate on the screen is actually more valuable to me than width. Also having the same size on both screens is helpful as I move things from one side to the other frequently.

At home I have a 19" 4:3 and a 22" wide, both have approx the same vertical resolution so the benefit is much the same as I move programs from screen to screen.

phoenixliston 06-07-10 08:07 AM

ive got a 22" widescreen w/ decent res <3

SonataInFSharp 06-07-10 08:26 AM

Dual 19" 4:3 at work. Wouldn't want widescreen at work because of what I do, and two monitors is a must. Heck, I could use four...

cuda2k 06-07-10 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SonataInFSharp (Post 10924245)
Dual 19" 4:3 at work. Wouldn't want widescreen at work because of what I do, and two monitors is a must. Heck, I could use four...

Think 1 more would be ideal for me, though even at that point I may start giving myself neck strain from turning my head all day from one side to the other. Visual Studio in one, the Database manager in another, and one more for the browser when running in debug. For now though, I can usually throw the browser up over my database window as I rarely need to see both of them at the same time.

Tober1 06-07-10 09:11 AM

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?

avmanansala 06-07-10 09:47 AM

Currently using dual 21" Samsung CRTs - should be transitioning to dual 22" wide screen LCDs when my agency gets a spending allowance to upgrade old components. I use it for CADD.

Got a 19" wide LCD (or is it a 21"???) at home and it works for surfing the net and image editing.

HardyWeinberg 06-07-10 09:49 AM

No monitor, just a 12" laptop screen (or is it 13). It is 16:9

scorpio516 06-07-10 09:55 AM

Dual NEC 19" 4:3.

CAD drawings running on one (with 7:5 ratio sheets, with is 1.4, almost 4:3)
CAD properties, file management, email, browser, itunes running on the other screen

About 2/3 of the office run like this, the rest have a single 22" 16:9.

apricissimus 06-07-10 10:45 AM

I have a gigantic 27-inch iMac at work. The size is one of the few things I like about it

meatlikeproduct 06-07-10 12:03 PM

19" for email and etc. and a 27" when I'm doing video editing.

superdex 06-07-10 12:11 PM

two flat screen monitors, 17" and 20" widescreen

sickmtbnutcase 06-07-10 12:13 PM

Dual Dell 24" (1920x1200). Could use one more.

apricissimus 06-07-10 12:13 PM

It's funny how quick 27-in. starts to seem normal.

bigbenaugust 06-07-10 12:15 PM

Dual 20"s. One full of xterms and RDP windows, the other for the browser (email, etc.).

SingingSabre 06-07-10 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apricissimus (Post 10925387)
It's funny how quick 27-in. starts to seem normal.

That's what she said.

mikeybikes 06-07-10 12:47 PM

Dual 19" widescreen at work. Somewhere along the line, I managed to be the only tech support staff with two monitors. I think my boss knows to keep me happy.

black_box 06-07-10 12:53 PM

dual 17" 4:3 at work. Lots of reading and word documents, so widescreen doesn't make sense. 2 is usually enough, sometimes 3 might be nice.

phantomcow2 06-07-10 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tober1 (Post 10924447)
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?

I think having more screen available is one of those things where you don't realize how awesome and beneficial it is until you've experienced it. I was very skeptical before buying my first widescreen 22" LCD 3 or 4 years ago, but that skepticism was quickly eroded when I had two documents -- full size -- side by side. Then I upped the ante and got a 24" :D.

It's extraordinarily convenient being able to have two documents side by side. I can type a paper on the left and have the PDF of the article I'm citing data from on the right. Or have the original copy and a version I am editing of that very same paper side by side. Or I can have an excel spreadsheet with umpteen columns open at the same time and not have to scroll over 1/2 a mile to see them all.

phantomcow2 06-07-10 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apricissimus (Post 10924909)
I have a gigantic 27-inch iMac at work. The size is one of the few things I like about it

27"?! That's fantastic. I have only heard of such a beast.

LesterOfPuppets 06-07-10 01:47 PM

22" widescreen at work
22" wide LCD + 19" not-so-wide CRT at home

mikeybikes 06-07-10 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tober1 (Post 10924447)
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?

At any one time, I have six windows I need to monitor.
Two windows for phone line SLAs, the softphone, the live chat window, agent adherence window and the ticket queue.

I started with a regular 17" screen and got extremely frustrated having to constantly alt-tab between applications. Dual screens make it so much easier to keep all six of the necessary windows open and visible at the same time.

monogodo 06-07-10 03:53 PM

I'm running dual monitors at work, a 19" & a 15", both 4:3.

Lotus Notes, gtalk window w/ the wife, and whatever folder I'm working from open on the 15", and Firefox, Command WorkStation & whatever app I happen to be using at the time open on the 19"

shouldberiding 06-07-10 04:35 PM

14.5" screen, 1024x768 resolution.

I'm almost a little surprised we're not running Windows 95.

jschen 06-07-10 06:48 PM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tober1 (Post 10924447)
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.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by x136 (Post 10925501)
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.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:49 PM.