@Dashrender said:
Does win 10 have anything different from win 7?
Yep.
It might've been 7, but I thought it was 8 that you could hop the windows around between half screens w/ win key + arrow ( and shift to jump to the next monitor ), but what 10 introduced is quadrants, so you can now use the keyboard to position a window in any 1/4th of the screen in addition to 1/2. This is perfectly suited to a 4k screen, where each quadrant is 1920x1080.
@Dashrender said:
I'm not sure I could go back to a single monitor for daily driver. My pair of 22's is about perfect. I might like a pair of 27's, but I'm thinking that would be the max without pushing them about 3 feet back from me. Right now when I'm sitting in my desired location, i can just barely reach out and touch the screens.
My screens are about 40 Inches wide by 12 inches tall.
The dual monitors gives you some advantages over a single, mainly in windowing/full screen modes, but the other thing I really like is the format. Super wide (40 inches) yet not super tall (12 inches) I think I would like something more akin to 40 x 15 or 40 x 17, but eh.
Any wider than 40 inches, say I went to pair of 27" monitors (would be around 45-48 inches wide) I'm guessing I would start noticing neck fatigue from twisting left and right switching between screens.
I'm not a programmers - i don't spend most of my day in a single app writing lines of code that are only 80 or so characters wide. In that situation I can definitely see where a single larger monitor would be nice.
Any time you spend the majority of your time in a single window, you're probably perfectly happy with a single large display.
Actually, quite the opposite. As a fullstack web developer I iterate through somewhere between 4-6 applications continuously ( consistently, you write a nugget of code, run it, test/debug, complete a micro task, update a reference doc, and dip into Google Docs, email, Slack, research browsing, and a few other apps intermittently ) all day long, and after having spent the better part of the decade using the advantages you mentioned about windowing and fullscreen modes, there's a new technology now that's UHD resolution at screensizes where the text is still perfectly readable at 100% scalling. The 40" 4k screen I have is about the same as if you put 4 x 24" 1920x1080 monitors in a grid of 2 by 2 and removed all bezels ( only without the seams ). Windows 10 has amazing screen division shortcutting ( win key and arrows and shift ) to tile your windows exactly how you'd want them to simulate having multiple monitors, only you can also use it as one big giant screen when strategically advantageous ( like seeing 10 zillion database tables and rows all at once ).
I loved using multiple monitors, and I at one time attempted to use 5 at once in a very strange, though stratege-icky setup ( 3 in portrait w/ 2 flanking the trio on the left in landscape but stacked bezel to bezel ), which had its advantages and weaknesses.
Multi-monitors is great and a total productivity boon to a good chunk of people ( some people just can't figure out how to work like that and feel comfortable ), but when you get 3840x2160 in a readable size on a single pane of glass... it's even better.
@Dashrender said:
Yeah, I'm with Creayt - working from a 15" or (kill me) an 11" - man I'd rather die I think!
I have a pair of 22" monitors on my desk which suit me fine. I'd be happy with a pair of 19 if that's all I could have.. but doing day to day work from a 15" would just be super painful.
it's one thing to surf the web at home on a 13.3 (my Yoga Pro 2). But when I want to do actual work, I go to my office with the pair of 19's.
Which reminds me. I've tried using a laptop stand to get the screen higher and even tried that at coffee shops before. You always hit an issue w/ getting it closer to your face and still having room to type comfortably ( or at least I do ). I'm totally w/ you on wanting bigger, real monitors to do actual work on. I just sold my rig and 3x 27" monitors to upgrade to a 40" 4k screen and now when I use anything but I want to cut my wrists. Big screens = big productivity IMHO.
@art_of_shred said:
@creayt said:
I think it's mostly just that I have a really tall torso so the distance between the screen and my eyes is far above normal, making everything less comfortable to see without hunching over pretty hard.So, basically, you need a shorter chair.
It's funny that you say that, because to compensate sometimes I drop my chair down as low as it can possibly go, which looks funny to most people, and put my arms as far into the desk as possible to approximate my face to the screen. Doesn't particularly work in public places like coffee shops and airports where there aren't adjustable chairs, and isn't particularly comfortable. Sharug.
Here's how it looked folded ( when you'd carry it ).
It really was the baddest ass notebook-class computer ( at least it was for me, I'm sure it was too big and heavy for all demographics to carry around ) in human history. folded up like a brief case for easy portability. I'd get compliments on it all day long every day around campus.
@scottalanmiller said:
I can't even stand to use a 17" anymore, let alone something like that. That is SO much bigger than a 17"!
I can't stand to use anything less than a 17". I thought I could, but I'm returning the XPS 15 I recently ordered in favor of the 17" Inspiron I'm on as I type this. I think it's mostly just that I have a really tall torso so the distance between the screen and my eyes is far above normal, making everything less comfortable to see without hunching over pretty hard. 17"-ers solve this problem with a bigger screen and typically being less thin and getting it up closer to your face. that said if there was a 20" laptop I'd grab that in a heartbeat. I used to tote a Dell M2010 around college and it was amazing. In auditorium classes I'd detach the keyboard and put the box in the row next to me and be able to read and see it fine. I think it was 20.1 inches at 1680x1050 or something like that. The day they stopped making those my heart broke.
@JaredBusch said:
usively devs via GotoMyPC. I cannot stand to watch him work. So there is your exception to prove the point.
That guy sounds like he hates productivity. I can't imagine what that would be like. Cringing as I write this.
@Dashrender said:
After that we were just playing a word game, so I disengaged.
One of us may have been playing a word game, but if so they were playing it alone. 
I have this 17.3"-er and it's absolutely amazing. The trackpad, keyboard, and screen are all as close to flawless and fun to use as I've ever seen on a laptop. The case itself is pretty ugly, but other than that I highly recommend it. Battery life is average.
@Dashrender said:
Yes you're working off a moment in time copy - of that I agree with, but you can't be working with the live data continuously assuming the live data is on another server somewhere else because that would require a continuous live stream of replication and the aforementioned latency.
I didn't say working w/ ( [on] ) the live data. You wouldn't want to do that in development, that'd get you fired after a while.
What I said: "When you develop locally you still have a full, up to the moment copy of the data. It's called replication."
What that means is that any time anyone ( or any event ) saves a change ( on a remote CMS for example ), that copy of the database sends just the data change down to your local database install and updates the replicated copy. There's a small latency ( one request's worth typically ), but it's happening asynchronously in the background and isn't perceptible.
This may help if you're interested in learning more: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/replication.html
@DustinB3403 said:
A quick ballpark of the price for parts alone, before a case and Windows is just over 1500 so it seems reasonable.
Thank you very much, exactly what I was looking for.
@Dashrender said:
That's not possible, otherwise your latency would be killing you just the same.
Hahhahaahha. Oh oops, guess even though I do it I just have no idea what I'm talking about and am making stuff up.
It's not only very possible, but very simple. The replication pushes each data delta to my local database install in the background, and I have a separate copy of it that I'm developing against, and whenever I want to refresh the dev copy ( which isn't something you do very often at all during development ), I click another button and voila. So I have a live, up to the moment copy of the data at all times available locally w/ no wait, and then I work off of a moment-in-time copy of that. I hope that all makes sense.
@Dashrender said:
yep, that's what the doctor said - he wanted paper charts back because he could flip as fast as his fingers could get him to a page - nevermind the fact that he couldn't get any data at all when he was a home or in the OR across town.
Hahahah. No, I think you're misunderstanding something in the chain. When you develop locally you still have a full, up to the moment copy of the data. It's called replication.
@Dashrender said:
why would those http requests be any slower to that box itself, than it would be on your local machine?
My box doesn't have to execute the http requests to a remote box at all, it just gets the queries and media and assets from itself, so there's 0ms lag instead of X requests * randomLag( ).
@Dashrender said:
@creayt said:
@Dashrender said:
Why are you doing this dev locally? Why not get a server? or get some compute power from a provider?
I actually have a handful of servers. Developing locally, at least w/ my workload, ends up being much, much faster because you don't have to wait for what can end up being hundreds of http requests per second.
At this point me saying anything feels more like I'm being an ass - but I'll one thing before leaving it alone.
If you're entire loadup/install/whatever you wanna call it, is on the cloud/hosted/etc remote solution, why would those http requests be any slower to that box itself, than it would be on your local machine? of course, the purchased resources might be more expensive in the cloud - and that could be a reason for your request.
This reminds me of the doctor who was demanding sub-second response to every click in his remotely hosted/cloud based EHR, something that just seems unrealistic (unrealistic for his demand - in your single dev setup, with a local install, and huge amounts of cash - totally doable).
If you're suggesting working directly on the server as a remote workstation w/ remote desktop, when you write and test code and overall navigate an OS very, very fast, the latency of remote desktop is unacceptable. I've tried to work like that at various points, it slows me down. I prototype and test extremely quickly and basically any, even momentary, lag or twitch in my workflow slows me down and makes it feel like working on a mac, which gets my blood pressure up.
