Discussion about switching from square to widescreen monitors...

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WinstonTJ

I'm in the process of building out a **shared** home office/desk and hoping some of you guys can give me feedback. I've never once (ever) used a widescreen monitor so hopefully I can describe the situation, my needs and you all can set me straight. I have PILES of 19" monitors as well as Ergotron parts/stands/hardware. Probably 10-15 Dell 19" flat panels and at least 15 EIZO 19" flat panel displays. (Meaning I *think* I want to switch to widescreen but would need to hear good reason to switch and spend the money.)

I'm looking for comments like: "I loved it because....." or "I hated it/it sucked because..."

My main reason for liking the smaller square displays is because of how heavily I use RDP (Windows remote desktop). I usually have 3-4 RDP sessions open at a time.

My hope in switching over to a widescreen setup is that #1 this is a shared machine and widescreen is nice for everyone else in the world and #2 that two widescreens would be an overall smaller footprint than 3-4x 19" squares.

My fear is that my RDP sessions and maximized windows would become a royal PITA and I'd spend more time complaining about window resizing than I'd get work done.

Use:
I usually have Bloomberg or Thomson and E*Trade Pro running as well as 2-4 RDP sessions. It's not all trading related, a lot of it is development work. I usually have 10-15 browsers open in various sizes, not usually maximized, a few Notepad++ sessions and some other things like Word, Excel and OneNote. I use Skype or Google Hangouts and screen share quite frequently which is another reason why I worry about a smaller number of larger screens.

So for those of you who have switched over from square to widescreen, how was the adjustment? I'm looking at using two 27" monitors which has a slightly smaller footprint than 4x 19" monitors. Would probably do one on top of the other for the smallest footprint.

first choice:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA24G1E30811
close second:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824260111


Thanks for any thoughts/replies. Remember this is a shared computer so it needs to equally be dedicated to facebook, pintrist, kids, youtube, looking up recipes, online shopping and god only knows what else.
 
WinstonTJ said:
So for those of you who have switched over from square to widescreen, how was the adjustment? I'm looking at using two 27" monitors which has a slightly smaller footprint than 4x 19" monitors. Would probably do one on top of the other for the smallest footprint.
More...

Bottom line.... there is "no adjustment" at all. Windows OS will keep track of your sizing and window placements.

Your plan is exactly correct for the reason you state. Save desk space and eliminate(?) the need for monitor stands... run the 27s in portrait mode.

(I find the high res of 27" to be unnecessary for charts.... but I prefer fewer, big charts to a large number of smaller ones. I use 3x, 24", 1920x1200... but I run in portrait mode @ 1200x1600. It's much like having 2 rows of 3,19"ers. And even though not run in native resolution, display is sharp and clear at the reduced res. I also have a 27" for the primary monitor run in landscape mode. It's nice for the higher res, but I increase font size for easier viewing... which mostly defeats the notion of displaying "more" on the screen. IOW, I'm basically displaying the same as I did in a 24", but at the sharper image of the 27's higher res.)
 
At first youre going to hate it. Then you will start to like it. At least thats the case for me.

Although, widescreen doesnt have much height for its size, due to its new aspect ratio. To get the same height as it once were on 4:3 aspect ratio screens, you need to go super sized monitor than you'd prefer very often. So, instead, if a screen I need displayed needs more height for more data, then I simply position the screen standing portrait.

Also, I find I prefer many relatively smaller screens, than to have fewer of bigger ones. I can dedicate one screen for some specific thing. Budget works to be similar too. Depends on taste. If budget is no concern, then one might consider getting biggest screens and multiples of them. But then, you have workspace ergonomics issue. All of a sudden you can't look at all critical information in your workspace without moving your neck and body around. Thats why I prefer smaller screens too. I should be able to see everything with little bodily effort. A big screen will be like watching IMAX films right in the front seat. You'd have to look up and move your neck around to see whats going on.
 
I went form 4 - 19 squares to 3 - 27 wides. I wouldn't have been happy with just 2 - 27's.

My desk is a little wider than 72", so I can go 3 across, I built a raised open platform about 4 1/2" inches tall and about 11" deep to place the stands on and not lose space under stands.

I am about 44" away from the monitors, not sure if that is good or bad.

It sounds like you have a ton of windows open, if you have the room I would go with 3.
 
butterfacetrader said:
At first youre going to hate it. Then you will start to like it. ..
More...

My case as well. I use them pivoted 90 degrees in portrait mode. 2x24" replaced four 19". I also have 2x27". The 24" are easier on my eyes. None of mine are 1080 monitors, more or less "real" ones. The 1080s can serve the purpose as well, just more limitations and not so much gain for me. I am spoiled by good monitors as I do a lot of digital imaging/video post-processing professionally. Those are expensive and in a league of their own. My trading monitors are currently HP ZR2440w and HP ZR2740w. They are heavily discounted nowadays compared to what they were asking for even a few months ago.

The advantages are lower power consumption, no brackets and fewer video cards. I use one NVS currently for the four trading monitors.

I would not say I see any 'visual' improvement over 19" Ultrasharps otherwise. They are still excellent for trading.

You could also look at ultra-ultra-wide ones..
 
Tonkadad said:
It sounds like you have a ton of windows open, if you have the room I would go with 3.
More...

Yes. I usually have a TON of windows open which is why I like having 4-6 19" squares... I feel like the footprint of 3x 27" monitors would be bigger than 4x squares no???
 
apdxyk said:
My case as well. I use them pivoted 90 degrees in portrait mode. 2x24" replaced four 19". I also have 2x27". The 24" are easier on my eyes. None of mine are 1080 monitors, more or less "real" ones. The 1080s can serve the purpose as well, just more limitations and not so much gain for me. I am spoiled by good monitors as I do a lot of digital imaging/video post-processing professionally. Those are expensive and in a league of their own. My trading monitors are currently HP ZR2440w and HP ZR2740w. They are heavily discounted nowadays compared to what they were asking for even a few months ago.

The advantages are lower power consumption, no brackets and fewer video cards. I use one NVS currently for the four trading monitors.

I would not say I see any 'visual' improvement over 19" Ultrasharps otherwise. They are still excellent for trading.

You could also look at ultra-ultra-wide ones..
More...
I didn't like any of the change, from monitors, to laptops. Used to love the 4:3. Then switched over to 16:10. And just last year switched to even more widescreen 16:9. Didn't really like any of the changes initially but ok with it now.

Good thing with portrait screen orientation of a widescreen monitor is if you have an options chain on one window filling the entire screen, you can see prices for all the strikes down the options chain, often for multiple expiration dates too, without scrolling up & down. For super long chains like the options for ES, you can at least see all the strikes on one screen for one particular expiration date.
 
As I recall the 4 - 19's pretty much took up the same space, maybe a little less. I like being able to have 1 screen per window. So if I had a bunch of different things to look at I might stay with 19's.

Certain apps on 19's seem squished.

I bought my 27's at Costco, there return policy is very easy, something to think about.

The one thing that would drive me crazy is not having all of the screens on the same plane.
 
WinstonTJ said:
Yes. I usually have a TON of windows open which is why I like having 4-6 19" squares... I feel like the footprint of 3x 27" monitors would be bigger than 4x squares no???
More...


Probably smaller footprint if you ran the 27s in portrait mode. You could measure the width of 19" (x4) and the height of 27" (x3), and compare. The benefit of having 3x 27"... if you ran them in portrait mode and 2 big windows per monitor, it would be like having 6x 19" (over/under) in the space of 3x 27".

Seems a "no-brainer" for your applications.

The 3 monitors on the left are 24", 1920x1200 in portrait mode.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top