[nathan_long]

> you sit down at a desk with just a keyboard and mouse and your "displays" are only shown in your field of view - and you can customize, move and resize them as you wish

This. I don't wear glasses and don't like the idea of walking around with notifications floating around my eyes.

But a set of monitors that fill my field of vision and fit in my pocket sounds awesome.

[klibertp]

From what I understand (I'd love to be wrong here) we have currently no AR or VR technology which could conceivably be used to work with a lot of text. The resolution is not there and it's possible that it won't ever be.

Which is a damn shame, because I'd sell my kidney for the ability to work with two decently sized (virtual) displays from my couch or in the garden...

[d0lph]

I'm intrigued by the 'possibly never will be' part, any references or reading on that?

[rtkwe]

I can answer a little. It's a problem of the conjunction of providing enough resolution that the screen is useful while having a large enough viewing angle. If I want to replicate the screen for my Surface Book, 3kx2k, at normal working distance that screen takes up about 1/5th of my working vision (that being the area my glasses cover which is a majority of my whole field of view and as much as I could expect of a non-contacts AR solution). So to render that screen and be able to place it inside the normal working field of view any AR glasses would need to have a resolution of about 5-6x whatever screen you want to duplicate, and this number gets worse as we talk about replicating TV screens which are further away and thus need even higher resolution to look the same.

It's a problem of being able to pack that many pixels onto the tiny screen area of a glasses based AR solution and then being able to process and render that in a mobile form factor. It's a hard problem to solve to say the least.