Screen Display Monitor? How big is enough?

[PrincessB]

Personally, I think there is some kind of ratio running in my world.

My car getting is smaller everytime I upgrade while my desktop screen is getting larger.

With a bit of working at home and #1 Daughter parked up in my office we've got:

The dining room - 34" display @ 2560x1440
The one in my office - 27" at HD
The one in my spare office (otherwise known as the TV room) which I've had to shove a desk and chair in with
2 x 24" units at HD.

Just wondering.

B.

[mc2fool]

Personally I reckon that increased screen real estate is one of the biggest productivity cum convenience improvement available. I've had two 4:3 19" monitors on my main system for, well, decades ... and nowadays you no longer need a massive (and reinforced!) desk to accommodate them, as in CRT days.

And I've recently got a 10m HDMI cable so I can use my 39" TV as a second monitor for my laptop ... although that's mostly so I can watch Zoom presentations on the bigger screen (with the lecturer on the smaller one) while slouched on the sofa.

[GrandOiseau]

We only have one - attached to the main PC in the largish study/spare bedroom. It's a 27" LED. It's a few years old but touch wood still working and looking great. Don't feel the need to go bigger TBH. I think with TV''s monitors, smartphones things have plateaued for standard/home use. The biggest thing is the quality these days.

[Dod101]

Presumably those, what I regard as enormous monitors, need to be someway back to be read properly because I guess they hold the same picture as my 22'' monitor for my desktop. Where is the advantage? Only asking...........

I typically sit around 25/30'' from my desktop monitor and it is very comfortable.

I might not mind one say of 26'' but not any bigger.

Speaking of which, has anyone over the age of 75 yet bought a TV licence?

Dod

[GeoffF100]

I have got a 21" FHD Samsung TN panel monitor on my Windows machine. I did not think that there was any point in getting a larger monitor at that resolution four years ago, but my eyesight is not as good as it was. Nonetheless, it is good if I have lots of documents open.

I have got a 19" 1440 x 900 AOC IPS monitor on my Linux machine. It has a much nicer display with larger text. I mostly use that one. It cost me £49.97 brand new.

In short, it depends on how good your eyesight is and what you are doing.

[Arborbridge]

I'm typing this at my PC with a 17 inch - yes seventeen - screen. It's perfectly OK for me, and if I have anything bigger it would take up too much space without giving me anything in return.

I was a bit flummoxed recently when trying to replace a laptop with a tower PC for Mrs Arb - there seem to be very few monitors of under 21 inches, and they just wouldn't fit in the space which is conveniently available.

As far as small cars go, I think it's like monitor screens:- even the smallest cars are getting bigger when they bring out new models. The new Mini is a monster, even those convenient Smart cars are much bigger than they were, when they change the Scenic, it got bigger - and so on. It seems odd to produce a mini-sized vehicle driven by the inherent advantage in towns and for parking - then make them bigger.

Anyhow, I'm hoping there will be more screen size choice when the Chinese get going again.

Arb.

[JohnB]

I just bought a 32" monitor. I'm finding that as my short-sightedness battles with long-sightness, my focal range for any pair of glasses narrows, and I wanted to sit further away from the screen and use my distance glasses. Indeed I'm typing from a comfy chair across the room, and its big enough to be a substitute TV, as I never watch broadcast anymore.

[mc2fool]

Presumably those, what I regard as enormous monitors, need to be someway back to be read properly because I guess they hold the same picture as my 22'' monitor for my desktop. Where is the advantage? Only asking...........

That's a matter of resolution and while TVs tend to all be the same, e.g. 1920 x 1080 pixels for full HD, irrespective of size, the idea being exactly that you can sit further away the bigger they are, computer monitors tend to have more pixels the bigger they are, so you still sit at the same distance but you can get more onto them.

Take for example my monitors and PrincessB's dining room one. I have two 19" 1280x1024 monitors and she has a single 34" 2560x1440. My two monitors are side-by-side (actually at a small angle to each other), giving me an effective 2560x1024 and measure 33" diagonally across the two. So, pixel width wise they're the same, with hers giving some more vertical real estate, and the two setups are pretty similar physical size wise.

Now, of course, hers is one screen and mine is two, and there are advantages and disadvantages either way. While I occasionally (rarely) stretch a window across both monitors it does, of course, have an inch or so of monitor cases in the middle, so really not great for, say, sitting back and watching a video full (double) screen .

But I never use it for that but rather for things like putting up two websites side by side, one window on each monitor, and PrincessB can do the same by opening the two windows on her single monitor and tiling them, side by side. And that's the point I'm getting to, that 'cos larger monitors usually have more pixels they don't just "hold the same picture" but are akin to adding another monitor next to your existing one.

[Dod101]

Interesting. I must say that I am probably the least knowledgeable of anyone on this site about stuff like that. Thanks. As and when I need to replace my monitor I will think about all of that.

Dod

[GeoffF100]

An ergonomics guide that I read suggested that the distance from the screen should be proportional to the screen size. In that case, the screen will subtend the same angle at the eye, irrespective of the screen size. Barring visual acuity issues, you would gain nothing from a bigger screen at the same resolution of you followed that advice. More pixels will, however, be an advantage if your eyesight is good enough.

[jackdaww]

if i get a monitor twice the size of my current one , wont the font - ie what i am looking at right now - be twice as big ??

[JohnB]

I adjusted up my system fonts when I went to my bigger screens, because I didn't want more detail there. And with web browsers I make extensive use of the rescaling functions depending on whether I am in my desk chair or armchair across the room

[GeoffF100]

if i get a monitor twice the size of my current one , wont the font - ie what i am looking at right now - be twice as big ??

Not if you follow the ergonomics advice to sit twice as far way from it. If you do that, the fonts will look the same size. Try holding 12 point text 0.5 metre from your eyes, and 24 point text 1 metre from your eyes.

[scrumpyjack]

An ergonomics guide that I read suggested that the distance from the screen should be proportional to the screen size. In that case, the screen will subtend the same angle at the eye, irrespective of the screen size. Barring visual acuity issues, you would gain nothing from a bigger screen at the same resolution of you followed that advice. More pixels will, however, be an advantage if your eyesight is good enough.

That assumes you are getting a screen with the same aspect ratio.

I'm getting an Iiyama Prolite 34" ultrawide screen, 21:9 ratio, because I want to be able to have 2 applications on screen at the same time, each of which fills half the screen fully. I want to have more screen 'real estate' rather than simply everything being bigger and sitting further back from it.

[GeoffF100]

An ergonomics guide that I read suggested that the distance from the screen should be proportional to the screen size. In that case, the screen will subtend the same angle at the eye, irrespective of the screen size. Barring visual acuity issues, you would gain nothing from a bigger screen at the same resolution of you followed that advice. More pixels will, however, be an advantage if your eyesight is good enough.

That assumes you are getting a screen with the same aspect ratio.

I'm getting an Iiyama Prolite 34" ultrawide screen, 21:9 ratio, because I want to be able to have 2 applications on screen at the same time, each of which fills half the screen fully. I want to have more screen 'real estate' rather than simply everything being bigger and sitting further back from it.

Yes, of course that is true. Nowadays you can get wide curved screens. The ergonomics articles that I found on the web all showed CRT monitors. Nonetheless, their advice is still applicable to using two separate monitors.

[mc2fool]

An ergonomics guide that I read suggested that the distance from the screen should be proportional to the screen size. In that case, the screen will subtend the same angle at the eye, irrespective of the screen size. Barring visual acuity issues, you would gain nothing from a bigger screen at the same resolution of you followed that advice.

That's only relevant if you're talking of uses where you want to take the whole screen in, e.g. like watching a film. It's not relevant if you are using the bigger screen as a bigger desk, allowing you to lay out two or more documents (windows) side by side.

[GeoffF100]

I have just a look for computer ergonomic articles. They all seem to assume a modestly sized monitor directly in front of you.

[mc2fool]

I have just a look for computer ergonomic articles. They all seem to assume a modestly sized monitor directly in front of you.

Not written by anybody in a heavily information focused sector then ...

[servodude]

The curved 37 inch ultra sharp monitors are really nice, but I went back to using two monitors after a week; if I was using it for media at all I would have kept it though, they are really pretty!

I couldn't get used to not being able to throw windows to the sides of the screens (or where they would have been if you know what I mean). I also never realised how often I full screen a window without thinking about it.

It's probably something that could be configured to get shortcuts working as my fingers expect
- but there's also something easier for my brain to work with when I have a VM, or RDP session on its own monitor (it's as though the monitor helps with mental context switching)

-sd

[GeoffF100]

The diagram in this article illustrates the ergonomics clearly:

https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/ergonom ... oning.html

The recommendation is that the top of the monitor should be level with the eyes (assuming that you are not reclining - which is not recommended), and the bottom of the monitor should be thirty degrees below that. (That is not a hard and fast rule. The experimental evidence is discussed in the article.) That is what is behind my assertion that the distance to the monitor should be proportional to the size (actually height in the present context) of the monitor. That keeps these angles constant.

Monitor width is not discussed in the article above, but other articles suggest that with two monitors you should swivel your chair rather than your head to switch between the monitors. For a single monitor, you are likely to have to swivel your chair to view the entire area of a screen much wider than FHD, such as this one:

https://www.ebuyer.com/859939-lg-29um59 ... n-29um59-p