Does size matter?

I just finished setting up Windows XP and Windows 7 in VirtualBox virtual machines on iMac 27, and let me tell you, this is a real treat. So much space that no matter what and how you code I doubt you will need to break a line. 2560x1440 pixels, truly magnificent and pleasure to work in.

Now, I love big screens and lots of space. But I've met people who feel the opposite, who think 17" is the upper limit, and even that is on the edge of being too much for them.

What do you think, how do you prefer your coding environment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baja_yu

I just finished setting up Windows XP and Windows 7 in VirtualBox virtual machines on iMac 27, and let me tell you, this is a real treat. So much space that no matter what and how you code I doubt you will need to break a line. 2560x1440 pixels, truly magnificent and pleasure to work in.

Now, I love big screens and lots of space. But I've met people who feel the opposite, who think 17" is the upper limit, and even that is on the edge of being too much for them.

What do you think, how do you prefer your coding environment?

---

I agree. I've got XP, Vista, and 7, in Parallels. I do enjoy the coding space, although I often drop files between my VMs so I have them windowed at 1920x1080, I have trouble doing so when they are on full screen.

At home I've got a 24" in portrait at 1920x1200 and a 22" in landscape at 1680x1050. At work I've got two 23" (one portrait and one landscape) at 1920x1080 and two 20" at 1440x1050. There's no such thing as too much screen.

I've got 2 21" (1600x1200) screens both at home and at work, no complaints for me.

Most of my work is done on a laptop. No multiple screens. That limits me in some ways, but not in other ways. For insance, I am now sitting in a nice recliner with my feet up, which would never fit under my computer desk, yet I am working on a lap desk, and all is well. When I go to the office, I have a secondary monitor, but since I am so used to working on a single monitor, I haven't taken full advantage of the secondary, which, using VS2010, I could use by detaching code pages for the second monitor.

I never was much comfortable doing serious/lots of work on a laptop. Not just because of the screen size, I could make the 17" work, it's not one thing but a collection of little things. I don't like the small cramped keyboard, I'm not comfortable with the track pad, I don't like that I can't move the keyboard to a different position without moving the screen because they're attached. I'm also not comfortable working with the laptop, while it's in my lap (ironically). It would seem that they are really not for me. The only advantage (and reason why I have one) is its mobility.

22" @ 1680x1050 primary, and a 32" HDTV(maxes out at 1080i) as a secondary(don't code on it, but it's great for shows!).

I sometimes code in VMs, which I tend to run at 1024x768. I definitely wouldn't want anything less than 1024x768(for any purpose).

Bigger the screen the better I reckon! Easier too see what you are trying to do.

I'd love 3 27" displays, massive work space, massive price tag :p. I'm obsessive about having screens the same size, resolution, and model (I don't like having one screen that might be slightly higher than another, makes it look weird when the mouse goes across them).

I've actually been considering moving all VB6 development to an XP VM on the iMac... God help me!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baja_yu

I never was much comfortable doing serious/lots of work on a laptop. Not just because of the screen size, I could make the 17" work, it's not one thing but a collection of little things. I don't like the small cramped keyboard, I'm not comfortable with the track pad, I don't like that I can't move the keyboard to a different position without moving the screen because they're attached. I'm also not comfortable working with the laptop, while it's in my lap (ironically). It would seem that they are really not for me. The only advantage (and reason why I have one) is its mobility.

---

I agree about the trackpad. Hate those things, and have turned mine off. I use a mouse. I would generally agree about the keyboard, but mine has a pretty good one for the QWERTY part of it, and I don't use the number pad for coding, so it's no loss.

It is all relative. What I have found is that it is hard to go backwards. I never had the need for a big or multiple monitors until I had them. If I had to go back on the road traveling to many sites in a day I suspect I could get used to a NetBook.

When it comes to mice v. trackpad I'll take trackpad. To me it is like single malt scotch, and acquired taste. A lot of network equipment on the fringe is located in some small, cramped, and dirty places. I went through a mouse a week for a long time. The trackpad (how I hated it in the beginning) put an end to that.

When I saw the Subject of this thread I was 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999% certain it had nothing to do with what went through my mind first ;)

I'm currently using two TFT monitors, one 23'' and one 17'' and I couldn't dream of going back to a single monitor. As far as screen real estate is concerned, for me size does matter.

One thing though: I would not trade the two monitors for a larger one even if it was much larger one. I find the dual desktops convenient because I can perform maximize/minimize operations much more easily without resorting to a third-party desktop manager.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbasnett

When it comes to mice v. trackpad I'll take trackpad. To me it is like single malt scotch, and acquired taste. A lot of network equipment on the fringe is located in some small, cramped, and dirty places. I went through a mouse a week for a long time. The trackpad (how I hated it in the beginning) put an end to that.

---

Was that back in the day of ball mice?

Quote:

---

When I saw the Subject of this thread I was 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999% certain it had nothing to do with what went through my mind first ;)

---

I would bet that we ALL thought that, including baja_yu!

Thanks Shaggy for pointing out how old I am ;) Yes of course they were. (My first mouse was on a 128K Mac in the early 80's so I knew how to clean them.) The trackpad also meant one less piece of equipment. Once I got used to the trackpad I never missed the mouse.

If everyone had to use a trackpad for a month, more that you would suspect would not go back. It is nice to be able to sit your drink right where your mouse would need to be.

Are you suggesting that baja_yu cleverly selected a subject that was correct and would get a lot of views. This is the first time I have seen jmc reply in a non-specific forum.

The problem I have with the trackpad is that it is generally located right where the heel of my palm rests while typing...and I do LOTS of typing. Having the pad positioned there causes unwanted cut and paste operations to occur spontaneously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

The problem I have with the trackpad is that it is generally located right where the heel of my palm rests while typing...and I do LOTS of typing. Having the pad positioned there causes unwanted cut and paste operations to occur spontaneously.

---

The laptop I have today has a larger deck so when your fingers are at home they are not as close to the pad.

I have a 19 inch monitor at work and I think it is too small.

I have a 17" display on my laptop with a 21" monitor attached.