Hundreds of professions involve working with two (or even more monitors). One manager I know swears she's more productive with 2 monitors and most home users who spend too much time in front of a computer "multi-tasking" (i.e. porn, gaming, Skype, surfing and Facebook) love having multiple displays. I've certainly experienced the advantages of multiple computers/displays in some of the companies I've worked with. The display size or what geeks call "screen real estate" really helps when managing multiple windows - an advantage netbooks and even desktop replacement portables don't have. But if you're working on 3 different machines, do the different display sizes really matter? For the last couple of years, I've been working simultaneously with a 17" 1440x900 iMac display, a 19" WXGA monitor for Windows, and occasionally an 11" Linux-powered netbook. Recently, the IT department gave me a Windows 8 workstation with better hardware and a 24.1" 1920x1200 P-IPS monitor to add to my already overloaded worktable.
I have mixed feelings about the monitor size upgrade - I'm not sure I'm happy about spending 9-10 hours with the darn monster.
Now, I can hear the gamers and hardware enthusiasts comment "That's peanuts." I'm fully aware that in the gaming world, devotees have mutated up to a point that they need gigantic LED or plasma screens to get the full experience of shooting down their enemies or ogling at digitally designed breasts. I don't like the idea of having a huge IPS display staring back at me while I work because I'm worried about the damage it would do to my eyesight. When another editor got his display upgraded, she muttered that now it's easier for people to notice he's browsing non-work related sites.
Size matters?
When it comes to displays, is bigger any better? Apple is receiving some flak for not increasing the size of their iPhone display. Nokia is gearing up to release a huge Lumia while Samsung, LG and HTC have already changed the standard display size expected from smartphones and "phablets".
Dick Tracy's wrist communicator didn't need a display. Screenshot from Dick Tracy, 1951
Smart watches are coming and I can't help but feel that the display size will have a hand in its success or failure. When the iPod Nano with the miniature touchscreen was released, it underwhelmed and since then I've never seen anyone toting one. At the moment, though, I can't see myself buying another device with a display - I'm drowning in my 6", 9.2", 13.3", 24.1", 11" and 3.5" displays. I even left out my Nokia E63, which doesn't even deserve to be listed due to its conservative 2.3" LED screen. As I sit here and type this article on a desktop display that's wider than my chest, I recall the day I bought a Sharp scientific calculator in grade school and marveled at how many equations and functions could fit on that single line of seven-segment LCD display.
0 comments:
Post a Comment