[p12tic]

It's strange when monitor costs are being discussed while they are the primary tool for software development. If software developer produces $100k/year value, then it's worth spending several thousands of dollars for every percent of increased effectiveness. This can buy almost any monitor on the market.

I've found the following worth considering:

- It makes sense maximizing usable screen real estate, both in terms of pixels and area. Complex problems involve a lot of information and being able to view everything at the same time makes it easier to understand them. Personally I've found three 4K 32 inch monitors work well.

- OLED allows working comfortably at low lightning conditions.

- Many larger higher-end monitors support picture-by-picture, which allows splitting the monitor into multiple virtual monitors for separate inputs (2x or 4x per monitor). This is useful in case of multiple external test devices which can then be integrated into existing display setup.

[Bancakes]

I don't understand this consumerist mindset. A monitor is a monitor. Programmers don't need color accuracy so any 4k will suffice. Your thinking just incenivizes "Programming grade" monitors that are just overpriced regular ones. I don't see how you could make a several thousand dollar 4k monitor if you tried.

[eyelidlessness]

> Programmers don't need color accuracy so any 4k will suffice.

Surely it depends on what we’re programming? Color accuracy (and inaccuracy for accessibility testing) is important for most anything we produce graphically that’s user-facing.

> A monitor is a monitor.

Color accuracy isn’t the only reason to invest more in display quality. Viewing angle and refresh rate are important factors as well. Their relative importance varies by use case: of course refresh rate being more important for game development; viewing angle and even color accuracy can be important for developer accessibility (example: I have a lot of sensory sensitivities, and color warp/washout at angles is a constant cognitive burden even if I’m not directly looking at it).

> I don't understand this consumerist mindset.

Indiscriminately buying cheap goods tends to also be a consumerist mindset and behavior. It often leads to more frequent purchases and disposal, producing both greater cost and waste. Which isn’t to say all pricing—in technology or otherwise—reflects value or longevity. But blanket rejecting the possibility isn’t helpful in distinguishing that.

> I don't see how you could make a several thousand dollar 4k monitor if you tried.

Even without addressing specialized use cases, it’s easy: low volume + high cost bill of materials. This used to be the case with IPS panels, and continues to be the case with newer/less pervasive panel details (eg OLED or higher pixel density displays). And again, whether those are requisite for a given programmer will depend on their work product and their own individual needs.

- - -

I won’t go so far as to say that everyone should arrive at the same cost/benefit analysis. But I will say that, in terms of tools to do our jobs, displays are very close to directly analogous to mattresses, chairs and shoes: oftentimes, skimping on cost is more costly than spending more upfront.

[waste_monk]

> is important for most anything we produce graphically that’s user-facing.

I can see the need for cross-domain (e.g. UX or graphics) specialists to have high-accuracy monitors but for most devs I don't it as necessary, as generally speaking you have an IDE with a bunch of code (text) and probably another monitor with your terminals, web browser with documentation, instant messaging app, etc. pretty much all of which is text-based.

>refresh rate... viewing angle and even colour accuracy can be important for developer accessibility

With regards to viewing angle, I have a nice dual-arm monitor mount system that allows it to be easily repositioned (limited 6DOF) as I change sitting posture throughout the day. Maybe something like this would help you?

I will say I usually score badly on colour perception tests (not colourblind, rather the tests where you have to order a number of very similar hues) so I could be missing a whole bunch of subtle colour errors that would irritate regular users :)

[eyelidlessness]

> I can see the need for cross-domain (e.g. UX or graphics) specialists to have high-accuracy monitors but for most devs I don't it as necessary, as generally speaking you have an IDE with a bunch of code (text) and probably another monitor with your terminals, web browser with documentation, instant messaging app, etc. pretty much all of which is text-based.

I was speaking specifically to the domains that serve use cases where display quality matters. Quite a lot of us at least overlap with that. Basically all FE web or GUI dev, any end-user image/video processing, pretty much anything that puts graphics on a screen that aren’t UI SDK builtins.

> With regards to viewing angle, I have a nice dual-arm monitor mount system that allows it to be easily repositioned (limited 6DOF) as I change sitting posture throughout the day. Maybe something like this would help you?

I have challenges with hyperfocus which include uncomfortable stillness for prolonged periods of time. I also have a puppy who reacts to very small motion adjustments during work hours in a way which becomes a huge ordeal. This is another reason my Comically Large Display (described in another comment in thread) works well for me. I think adjusting a mounting arm would be counterproductive for me.

> I will say I usually score badly on colour perception tests (not colourblind, rather the tests where you have to order a number of very similar hues) so I could be missing a whole bunch of subtle colour errors that would irritate regular users :)

I don’t do a lot of color accurate work but color/luminance wash is a huge problem for me if I have to deal with it. Like a background task that never stops until my brain is depleted. Having a panel that doesn’t distort that way in my peripheral vision is essential for me to be able to work.

[stonewareslord]

> Quite a lot of us at least overlap with that. Basically all FE web or GUI dev, any end-user image/video processing, pretty much anything that puts graphics on a screen that aren’t UI SDK builtins.

I completely disagree, except for high end picture or video production. I have used way too many websites that clearly only work well on large, nice displays. Most end users of anything will not have the same high quality expensive monitor/computer that's being suggested.

I remember reading some article about someone who used an old i3 processor on a 4:3 laptop screen or something, knowing that if his code is slow for him, it's slow for his users. I think this mindset is genius and should be more common. Take MS Teams for example. It's like their devs have only ever tested on a gigabit link M1 and it's painful for the other 99.9% of people who use it.

So if you want to get a nice setup for yourself, then you should. But you should not do it for your clients, and if you do, you should understand your users will not have machines like yours.

[eyelidlessness]

Upthread I also stressed the importance of using lower quality displays to account for that aspect of real world usage. The point of having high quality displays to support users who don’t is to be able to reliably understand what’s being displayed in the first place. If you’re working at low fidelity you can only address the users who have the same system flaws you do.

[listenallyall]

This comment is the equivalent of the developer having a redundant, 10GbE Ethernet connection, building a mobile app for users who will have spotty 3G.

[eyelidlessness]

I don’t see a problem with that? Artificially limiting my access to data doesn’t help me better serve people who have concrete limited access to it. It just limits my access to information and my ability to assess what their limits are. I agree that we should also test and experience the things we build the way our users do. But I don’t agree that we should build things by imposing those experiences on ourselves without exception.

[Bancakes]

By and large, modern mass produced monitors are more than good enough. In fact, the best programmers in history had no problems running big CRTs.

These people don't need any fluff, and don't blame underperformance on lack of technology. People nowadays are so spoiled.

https://www.doomworld.com/lordflathead/id_carmack.jpg

[eyelidlessness]

Big CRTs didn’t have nearly the viewing angle problems that TN panels tend to have. And having, and addressing, sensory issues isn’t spoiled. It’s just taking care of oneself.

[p12tic]

I agree that just buying the most expensive monitor is waste of resources. On the other hand, I think price shouldn't even come into the picture when deciding on basic things, such as the number of monitors or whether to choose 4K monitor or just FHD.

I guess the most reasonable approach is to select a set of models that pass the requirements and only then think about the price.

Some requirements are really expensive though. If one insists on OLED and wants to fit 3 4K monitors side by side the full setup cost is around $10k.

[ranit]

> If software developer produces $100k/year value, then it's worth spending several thousands of dollars for every percent of increased effectiveness. This can buy almost any monitor on the market.

This doesn't add up: 1% of $100K = $1000. You would spend _several_ $1000 for every $1000 of produced value per year.

EDIT: Added "per year" at the end, thanks to Arcuru's question.

[listenallyall]

Thank you for noticing this as well! Further, if a software developer produces $100k per year in value, the company is likely underwater. Very few developers cost less than $100,000, especially when taxes, benefits, tooling, etc are all factored in.

[Arcuru]

How often do you buy a new monitor?

[ranit]

Every 3-4 years.