The Case For Flipping Your Monitor From Landscape to Portrait 567
Molly McHugh writes The vast majority of computer-related tasks see no benefit from a screen that is longer than it is tall. Sure, video playback and gaming are some key exceptions, but if you watch Netflix on your TV instead of your computer monitor and you're not into PC gaming, that long, wide display is doing nothing but hampering your experience. Let's flip it. No, seriously. Let's flip it sideways.
Have Both (Score:5, Interesting)
I have two monitors: one landscape, one next to it flipped into portrait mode. It's not fucking rocket science.
Re:Have Both (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
A general ergonomic rule-of-thumb is to adjust your monitor's vertical position so that the top edge is level with your eyes and you don't need to look upwards. A portrait-orientation of your monitor makes that objective difficult to achieve.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really...
Re: Have Both (Score:4)
Yes, Henry Dreyfuss figured that out. A lot of aircraft cockpits and control panels look like his templates.
http://www.learneasy.info/MDME... [learneasy.info]
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5Hl9... [blogspot.com]
His recommendation was that the optimum viewing range went from the horizon to 30 degrees below the horizon. Your eyes can move comfortably from about 25 degrees above the horizon to 35 degrees below the horizon.
I used to use them back in the days of India ink and T squares.
Re:Have Both (Score:5, Funny)
I use my monitor rotated in portrait mode and rotated 270 degrees.
Re:Have Both (Score:5, Insightful)
I use my monitor rotated in portrait mode and rotated 270 degrees.
I've rotated my screen 360 degrees :-)
"The vast majority of computer-related tasks see no benefit from a screen that is longer than it is tall."
Seriously, most of todays screens are so big that you can fit 2 pages side-by-side, which is a lot more convenient than one page at a time in portrait mode. Ditto for individual windows. Rotating them into portrait mode will cause neck strain as you have to tilt your head back to properly see the top.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
[...]one of the '4k' resolutions once the necessary displayport and HDMI revisions to run them above 30Hz settle down
You should be OK with DisplayPort for 4K, it has been around for a while. HDMI is more recent and therefore more marginal.
And I totally agree about waiting for 60Hz, 30Hz feels very sluggish for interactive work. I just got a 120Hz monitor and that feels pretty slick for desktops (as well as games, of course!)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not convenient at all for most users who read one website at a time.
Re:Read one, write other (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess you've never seen a regular web user. They don't write documents at the same time they're reading a website.
They just read websites.
Re:Read one, write other (Score:4)
but I use Windows 8 you insensitive clod!
Re:Have Both (Score:5, Funny)
Does it improve the picture now that you have twisted cables?
Re:Have Both (Score:5, Funny)
Does it improve the picture now that you have twisted cables?
Make sure you rotate by -360 degress in the Southern Hemisphere or the electrons will get tangled.
Re: (Score:3)
Rotating them into portrait mode will cause neck strain as you have to tilt your head back to properly see the top.
You're sitting WAY too close.
Re: (Score:3)
I have two monitors: one landscape, one next to it flipped into portrait mode. It's not fucking rocket science.
Drop zones + 30" or bigger screen at a minimum of 2560x1960 res + up to 9 programs open side by side. You have space for up to 9x 853x533res windows or my preferred setup: 3x1x3 - 6 resources open for reference or drop swapping to the main middle panel which looks/acts more like a portrait screen. None of this affects the ability to full screen video or play games and keeps it all on a single monitor. 3200x1800 works well for that
Re: (Score:3)
The Radius Pivot [youtube.com] let you switch on the fly, in the early 1990's.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would you want to limit yourself to only one screen? It has been repeatedly shown that the single biggest and most consistent productivity enhancing upgrade you can give to almost anyone working on a computer is a second monitor.
Do you have a citation for a few of these studies?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.corecommunication.ca/4-studies-which-show-that-using-a-second-monitor-can-boost-productivity/
There's 4 for you. Generally I believe it's more monitor space is what's more productive, not just having two.
Re: (Score:3)
I've never had any issue, on any of the many PCs I've used - except for gaming, and that's kind of the pinnacle of anti-productivity. Well, not entirely true - some Linux distros required a little tweaking for certain monitor alignments, and had some issues with performance in portrait mode.
Resolution though is largely irrelevant to most usages - it's the physical size of the screen real estate that matters. It won't make much difference to your productivity whether that 1/4" tall 'a' is represented by 6
Re: (Score:3)
>" It has been repeatedly shown that the single biggest and most consistent productivity enhancing upgrade you can give to almost anyone working on a computer is a second monitor."
Bullshit. It's a private office with no distractions.
More screen is nice, but what goes on inside skulls is more important for productivity.
Re: (Score:3)
You need more gaffer tape.
Re: Have Both (Score:4, Insightful)
I would do this at work for writing code, but alas, I currently work on Windows, and its support for portrait monitors, let alone landscape+portrait, is broken enough that the path of least pain is just to use landscape alone.
Specifically, there seems to be no way to get proper antialiased fonts in portrait mode. While ClearType makes Windows fonts quite tolerable, it doesn't (and arguably can't) work in portrait mode. Traditional antialiasing could work, but for some inexplicable reason Windows disables it for a large range of font sizes (something like 7..13).
Even worse, you can either use ClearType on all of your monitors or none of them. On portrait monitors Windows, when using ClearType, still renders the fonts as if it was landscape; the result is an incredibly blurry, colored mess. So if you have one portrait monitor, you have to tolerate aliased fonts on all of your displays.
Re: (Score:3)
I've noticed the problem myself and turned off Cleartype - I find the vertical aspect ratio more than makes up for the loss in smoothness, though that can vary from font to font - try some of the programming-specific fonts, there are some very good free ones out there - Adobe's Source Code Pro is a decent starting point, can't remember the name of the one I finally settled on.
As for subpixel rendering "arguably not being able to work in portrait mode", what would be your reasoning? Certainly any subpixel h
Re: Have Both (Score:5, Informative)
It didn't work for some reason when I had a fairly old ATI/AMD graphics card (It didn't take into account the rotation of the portrait monitor), But when I replaced the card with a mid-range nVidia card the problem went away. My guess is the ATI graphics driver wasn't properly reporting the orientation and pixel layout information received from the monitor.
I have seen some (usually cheap) monitors that don't appear to have an option in their menu to set their orientation. My guess is ClearType probably wouldn't work properly on them since the DDC information would be incorrect when rotated, but that is more of a problem with the monitor than Windows.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh yeah? I have one in landscape, one in portrait AND one at 45 degrees.
- Topper
Re: (Score:3)
The software I use most often actually works best on a system thats 1600x1200 or some similar aspect. The prevalence of 1080p has been a real pain. But rotating to portrait mode would be worse.
That particular product, incidentally, already allows putting controls in any of the 4 borders and I do have some of them running down the side.
Websites often are either slideshows, in which case orientation isn't really an issue or they are long, narrow things that run down like a papyrus scroll. For that sort of thi
Depends (Score:4, Interesting)
I manage Unix systems so having it be wide screen helps with longer lines.
But I also write code so having a portrait screen helps when I'm reading documentation (PDFs for example).
So I have a four monitor setup. Two Landscape (one reversed above my number 1 landscape monitor) and Two Portrait; one to the left and one to the right of the two center monitors. Works well for web browsing and coding where I want more side to side screen space and gaming and works well when coding and I need directories to the left and pdfs to the right. The top screen has my debugger or Firebug if I'm working on a web page.
[John]
Re: (Score:2)
And I custom built my own wooden stand using TV wall mounts for the monitors.
[John]
Re: (Score:2)
Reversed?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Depends (Score:5, Funny)
I just got turned on by this.
Re: (Score:2)
I tired this as well. The issue is that most IDEs are designed to work with wide monitors.
Also 1080 across is just not enough. Now if I had 1920x1400 that would rock.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it also come with an Aloe strip?
Re: (Score:2)
Four "heads" on a single PC? Or if you have multiple PCs, how do you arrange keyboards and mice?
Re: (Score:2)
Two video cards that support two monitors each.
But at work I have a laptop with an attached monitor and two Linux systems using Synergy to let me use the laptop mouse and keyboard on all three. It's a bit wonky though as the Mac version of Synergy isn't bug free yet.
[John]
You're Doing It Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
The examples show lots of web sites in a maximized browser window. I use my widescreen monitor in landscape mode so I can have multiple windows simultaneously visible side-by-side. The examples are doing it poorly!
Re: (Score:3)
Normal users only read one website at a time. Only programmers, professionals, etc need to access lots of information simultaneously.
Re:You're Doing It Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
If normal users could watch multiple pr0n side-by-side they totally would.
Serving Slashdotters lacks economies of scale (Score:3)
Since when is /. for normal users?
Since when do Slashdot users make up enough of the market to justify economies of scale, especially with the opportunity cost of not using the same capital to offer a mass-market product?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Normal users read a single website at a time just fine on smartphones, tablets, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes.
That's why TV's had screen in screen for thirty years.
Re:You're Doing It Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
The examples show lots of web sites in a maximized browser window. I use my widescreen monitor in landscape mode so I can have multiple windows simultaneously visible side-by-side. The examples are doing it poorly!
Yep. The biggest use I get out of wide monitors is working on two things at once on a single display. This way I can get everything done on one display while I watch TV or movies on my second monitor. It would be nice to have a 3rd display that's in portrait mode.
Re: You're Doing It Wrong (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Setting a system so that 'maximize' only expands a window to fill half of your giant wide screen, or dividing a single phy
Re: You're Doing It Wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: You're Doing It Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Actually as I recall that's an included behavior in Windows 7 at least - drag a window to one edge of the screen and it "semi-maximizes" to fill that half. Tweakable in whatever settings screen lets you drag a window to the top of the screen to maximize. (Not using Windows at the moment, so can't test)
Re: (Score:3)
Snap: Tiling window manager in Windows 7+ (Score:5, Informative)
Setting a system so that 'maximize' only expands a window to fill half of your giant wide screen
In Windows 7, Windows 8, and Windows 8.1, pressing Win+Left or Win+Right (or dragging a window's title bar to the left or right edge) will "Snap" it, which expands it to fill half the screen. In previous versions of Windows, you could do something similar by clicking one window's title in the taskbar, Ctrl+right-clicking another, and choosing Tile Vertically.
Re: (Score:3)
Also my eyes are side by side, so my field of view is "landscape" in nature. Even were I blind in one eye, my single eye field of view is wider than tall.
Back in the 90s is was popular for desktop publishing to use portrait monitors, until they found they could simply have as much vertical resolution with more space on the side...higher res landscape monitors.
How is this news? (Score:2)
My old ViewSonic VP171s has built-in rotation and I've had it for a long time.
Would love to do this (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
View angles (Score:5, Insightful)
Some monitors are make to be viewed landscape, and when rotated have horrible view angles.
I found some at work where the view angle was so bad, only one eye would get a good picture, while the other eye showed a faded & discolored image. Rubber-necking around would find a small sweet spot for viewing.
TLDR; doesn't work well on some monitors.
Re:View angles (Score:5, Informative)
Re:View angles (Score:5, Insightful)
And here's the comment I was looking for. Monitors aren't designed to be placed into portrait mode. They completely suck. Each eye sees different brightnesses and colours. It's truly awful unless you're one of those people that doesn't mind a distorted image. You probably have your widescreen TV in 4:3 to 16:9 stretch mode at home too.
Re: (Score:3)
That you say all monitors completely suck when used in Portrait mode when you should have said the monitors you've used completely suck in Portrait mode. My Acer monitors work just fine in Portrait and rotated 180* with no distortion.
[John]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the space towards the left and right of a monitor is not used -- the viewer does not pay much attention to those areas of the monitor.
Whaa? On my machines, the entirety of the space to the left and right are used.
Resolution is whacked (Score:2, Insightful)
Computer monitors nowadays are just Hi-def TV screens. I had better monitor resolutions in the 90s than I do today.
Re: (Score:3)
Computer monitors nowadays are just Hi-def TV screens. I had better monitor resolutions in the 90s than I do today.
Some of them are, and for a while things did go that way due to very inexpensive 1080p panels making higher-res displays look like a bad value, but that's changed recently. I just got a beautiful 2560x1440 display for only $300 from Monoprice. I'd post a link, but I'd feel too much like an advertiser, so you'll have to search yourselves if interested.
Everything old is new again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, people start working on mainframes again. Except now they call it "the cloud".
Ancient idea. Not news at all. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I see. (Score:4, Insightful)
console. (Score:2)
Yeah, I work in console mode... reading wrapped log file lines is bad, mkay?
100% Agree (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When I can writing code (maybe it is just me) but I like to see as many lines of code as possible on the screen as possible. That is why most coders reduce their type size to just above micro print. It sure would be nice to have some more vertical lines. I find that too much scrolling just breaks up being in the zone.
The extra one (Score:2)
Don't (Score:5, Interesting)
So because web designers fail to properly design the web and thus leave me with ridiculously narrow columns, I should rotate my monitor? That's rubbish. Scientific research has shown again and again that we can read longer lines much more efficiently than we can read short lines, even though our subjective experience is often to the contrary. Just fix those websites and keep your monitor in landscape. Thank you.
Line length and eye movement error (Score:5, Informative)
Scientific research has shown again and again that we can read longer lines much more efficiently than we can read short lines
Up to a point. True, 75 columns are better than 25. But the research I've read concludes that line lengths past 80 columns (roughly 36-40em) cause the reader to accidentally skip or repeat lines more often.
Umm, i dont run full screen windows (Score:2)
A decent wide screen monitor has large work place for main activity and a band on the side perfect for windows containing reference material, or make it more 50/50 split if references are heavy.
Help! (Score:4, Funny)
Okay, I've managed to get the monitor off my laptop (it must have been stuck; I had to pry it off). Can someone tell me how to re-attach it as portrait?
Re:Help! (Score:5, Funny)
JB Weld.
Alright For Limited Use Cases (Score:2)
nearly back to 4:3 with 2 side by side (Score:2)
I use two 24" 1920x1200 screens in portrait mode side by side. That gets me 1900x2400 viewable with a vertical bar down the center. They are IPS panels so the viewing angle is fine in that orientation.
Putting the two monitors side-by-side in landscape or mixed was not going to happen at my desk so this was just sort of a happy discovery. With the nearly square aspect, it fits into the corner where the old CRT used to put it's backside and I still get lots-o-dots to look at.
I usually end up working with 4 wi
Re: (Score:2)
(edit) that's 2400x1920 in portrait mode, or 4h x 3.2 w
I wish more websites were designed for wide screen (Score:2)
Lots of websites limit their width to, say, 1024 pixels. Other websites, like this one, extend across the entire page, but don't wrap text which makes them hard to read.
I wish more websites would allow their contents to wrap into two or more columns, like magazines do. Here, for instance, is a user style to wrap Slashdot comments into two columns. [userstyles.org]
Xerox Alto (Score:2)
Xerox Alto, one of the first PC (1973) had it!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Alto/ [wikipedia.org]
Spreadsheets? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
My eyes are aligned horizontally, not vertically.
Sure, I can make the case for more vertical space. But not at the expense of horizontal.
The only thing we use vertically is paper, and that's because we rarely consider the whole page in one go - only caring about one half at a time. And that makes it two pieces of landscape A5.
Books are portrait, I'll give you that. But you unfold them into a landscape A5-ish or large book with multiple columns (because of the difficulty of printing very near the gutter in the middle).
Children's picture books? Almost all landscape.
Movies? Landscape.
Photographs? Mostly landscape and certainly specified in landscape size and cameras are mostly designed for landscape operation (except when making portraits - for which we shockingly use them portrait!)
You have two eyes, one left, one right. Together they focus on the object of interest.
If you want a BIGGER landscape monitor so you can put a full A4 piece of paper on it - do that. Get it in landscape format and it will be wide enough to visualise two pieces at the same time at full height. That's not true if you flip the portrait/landscapes in those sentences.
Portrait displays have specific and specialised uses. And almost all of them leave horizontal space in everyone's visions (sometimes for a purpose, e.g. portraits without lots of side-art on them, sometimes because of cost - airport displays not being wider than necessary). If you fill that horizontal space, you get a landscape display of the same height that is suited for all purposes.
I can't see the case for portrait monitors for ordinary desktops at all except to "be different" or in very specialised applications where a landscape monitor of the same height will do twice as much.
Stop putting toolbars at the top (Score:2)
How hard is it to make toolbars dockable on the side? My monitors are just about tall enough to display 8.5x11" sheet in 1:1 (not quite, with about 10.75" of vertical display area). But using Word means giving up nearly 1.75" at the top and nearly 0.5" at the bottom. I know I can make the ribbon hideable.
Chrome, Adobe Reader eat up top & bottom space too.
Let me move all that stuff off to one side!
Stop using windows full screen (Score:4, Insightful)
If the author of this piece was smart enough to stop using windows full-screen, he'd realise that it's very useful to be able to view (at least partially) multiple windows at the same time.
The only people I've seen (Score:2)
One major bad assupmtion of the article... (Score:2)
.
Indeed, I do take heart to what the article says, as the individual windows on my desktop are taller than they are wide. But If I were to flip my monitor to portrait mode, I'd get less usable screen real estate, not more.
The author of the article seems to use the desktop monitor the way a tablet is used, i.e., a full-screen window for each app. I do not do that on my desktop, I do not want to do that on my desktop.
The author of the art
All maximized all the time, even on tablets (Score:3)
The author of the article seems to use the desktop monitor the way a tablet is used, i.e., a full-screen window for each app.
Why are tablets even used that way when a 7" screen is as big as two 4-5" phone screens and a 10" tablet is as big as four? I want to be able to read a page in half the screen and write comments in the other half.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, that's one of my peeves. Full-screen makes sense on my small iPhone, but my 10" iPad is more than big enough for 2 windows.
My Boss Did This (Score:2)
I hated it because I could scarcely read what he was doing when I sat next to him due to the viewing angle.
Best of both worlds (Score:2)
I have rotated both my monitors 45 degrees. So they're half landscape, half portrait: I see (some) long lines, and I see (bits of) a lot of lines.
The case for not: (Score:5, Informative)
VVS (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, with all the tards with VVS, I suppose even video is not always an exception either.
Vertical Video Syndrome - A PSA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
You're not shooting that right dummy!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I had an unlimited budget then and an unlimited budget now I'd probably be bemoaning the industry; but without an unlimited budget I find it hard to deny that, while I don't much like this 16:9 nonsense, I've never owned more pixels in my life.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it has plenty point to it, it makes everything much crisper looking.
Look at the screen of any person with a 4K Mac, they're not using a microscopic font. Their font sizes are the same size as on the older hardware, but they get more pixels per character.