Why is 24 inches the accepted standard for dev monitors?

because they are cheaper

because you have to move your head less

>>57338247
because it's reasonably big and affordable at the moment

just like 17" was the standard in 2000

>Because a day has 24 hours.
>2+4=6
>6 upside down is 9
>9-6=3
>3^2=9
>9+2=11
>9/11
Because monitors did 9/11

>>57338247
>24 inches
because this is a good size for 1080p, which is standard for at least one more year sadly

>>57338247
pixel density mostly.

Not to mention lack of desk space to push the monitor back further.

File: 2JYDSF0.jpg (183KB, 717x880px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 717x880px

>>57338436
pic related or /b

File: 1466623059866.png (118KB, 250x241px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 250x241px

>>57338436

>>57338247
4k 32 inch monitors are the standard at my office, and you can order more if you want.

I'm eyeing a 4K 43" Dell monitor. Overkill or not?

>>57338247
Joke's on you, I use a 32" monitor for development

>>57338247
27 is the sweet spot for me. 32 is too big IMO

>>57339216
Well, windows runs like shit and the lack of content in 4K still happen. It would be smarter to buy one if you planning to use it to play PS4 Pro or Scorpio. Remember to get 10-bit HDR pixels.

pefect pixel density at full hd

>>57339261
>gaymen
Adults are talking about using these monitors for productivity, Timmy.

>>57338436
full redpill mode

>>57338247
>dev monitors

What's a dev monitor? Monitors for architects? Plumbers? Starbucks?

Serious question:
How big is difference between 25 and 27 inches? Asking only because a price difference between 25 and 27 1440p monitors is very huge in my country.

>>57338247
How much screen do you need for a text editor and a terminal?

>>57338436
DELET THIS IMMEDIATELY

>>57340010
Approximately 2 inches.

>>57340010
about 2 inches

>>57340010
Precisely 2 (two) imperial inches or 5,08 metric centimeters diagonally

>>57340096
>>57340108
Yes, and also pixel density. But i mean how do they differ in practical using. Maybe someone owns two different monitors. Probably very stupid question so i'll change it: are those two inches worth 120-150 dollars?

>>57340010
About 2/3s of an English palm.

>>57340143
At that kind of price difference, absolutely not. Be better off getting a cheap 40" high refresh TV for the price you're talking about.

>>57338445
Grown-ups tend to prefer 16:10 generally
and 1920x1200 is plenty for development.

>>57340147
About 2 inches, which just so happens to be the length of your dick.

>>57338247
It's not a telly m8!
Sit closer to it.
If it feels small try a 16:10

I use a 32 Full HD TV as monitor. Mostly because I set my fonts to 9 points for maximum workspace and still want to see by my 40s.

>>57340668
2" is just under 1/3 of my penis

>>57338247
You have to be careful with density (size vs resolution), because perfect arbitrary scaling on the desktop will never be a thing.

Right now I have a 1440p 27" as my main monitor and I consider this the minimum for productive development now. Since most software assumes a DPI of 90-something (roughly 1080p@24), text and other elements are noticeably smaller on my ~110 DPI display. That's okay with me, but my near vision won't be perfect forever and if it were any smaller there would be a real usability issue.

I could definitely go with a ~40" 4K display, but there's a catch. I want my next monitor to be HiDPI ("retina", i.e. ~200 DPI), and I want it to have at least as much effective real estate as I have right now. That essentially means I want a 5K 27" monitor. If I wanted 4K real estate and HiDPI, I would need a non-existent 8K 40" display.

If I had unlimited funds to spend on my dream monitor setup, it'd probably be triple 5K 27". 44 million actual pixels, 11 million "effective" (usable real estate/100 DPI equivalent) pixels.

>>57340010
1440p@25" with 1x scaling will make the UI far too small. 27" already means rather small text.

Scaling will not come to your rescue. 2x scaling means an unusable small usable workspace (720p!). 1.5x scaling is generally very broken.

If it's almost entirely for gaming, you'll be okay. If you need to work and browse with this, forget it.

>>57340697
>Sit closer to it
Speaking of which... how far does everyone sit from their displays? I'm roughly 0.8m from my 27" 1440p during normal use. (Distance from centre of screen to eye.)

I could go a bit further than that; probably a little over 1m is the max before I would have to start thinking about bumping up font sizes (with all the issues that entails).

>>57340638
this

>>57339254
24 and 27 are basically the same thing

>>57340010
It's about the same as moving your head forwards or backwards by 2 inches

Try doing that and you'll know

>>57341152
I use a 32" 4K display (150 PPI) without scaling just fine. Others I know use 24" 4K displays without scaling just fine also.

Not everybody's eyes are shit

>>57342651
Distance from centre of screen to your eye during normal use?

>>57339254
Agreed

>>57342641
Not true at all.

>>57340010
Who knows?

It's not metric so it's not precise.

What's the sweet spot for 1080p?

>>57342952
24

>>57342952
I have a 23" secondary and it's fine. 24 would be max.

>>57343009
>>57343049
Got a 21.5 atm and its way too small.

>>57343095
yeah pixels too dense. for maximum screen estate with 1080p i'd go with 24

>>57343126
1440p could also work on 25 or 27

Are curved monitors good for gaming/watching movies when you lean back on your chair from time to time?

>>57343167
I can't speak from experience, but intuitively I'd say to avoid them for that. They're intended to normalise the distance from your eyes to any point on the display. That would only work inside a specific sweet spot. Outside of that, I think it would just look distorted.

>>57343270
What would be the closest to something like this: http://displaysolutions.samsung.com/business-monitor/detail/1033/C24FG70 then?

>>57340010

At a guess, I would say 2 inches. But I could be wrong

>>57341230
>If you need to work and browse with this, forget it
It's that bad? What choice do i have then? I wanted Dell U2715H, but I can probably buy Benq '32 1440p monitor for the same price. Is 32 good enough?

people didn't buy bigger monitors that much and smaller monitors became more profitable because more people bought them

>>57342821
~70cm for me

>>57342867
>he doesn't understand how optics work
Apparent pixel density is a linear function of your viewing distance

>>57338247
24" is optimal because it's calculated by viewing distance and field of view angle of your eye. There's a reason why your personal desktop monitor isn't a 60" TV.

>>57344047
>viewing distance
is arbitrary

>>57344277
60" in front of your face and 24" from a seat far away are not okay no matter how you try to argue against that.

>>57344370
>dat hyperbole
the point I am trying to make is that viewing distance varies considerably by person even in front of a pc screen

For example I sit comfortably at 70cm but others I know sit comfortably at 40cm. That's a difference of 75%, or equivalent to comparing a 24" monitor against a 40" monitor

>>57338278
This. 24" is the perfect size.

>>57344913
True, that's why the optimal is actually a range, so most likely 24" to 27" as mentioned in this thread, I don't expect everyone to be having the exact same monitor placement. 32" to 36" is heading into not normal territory. If you sit far as fuck and need 32" to 36", that's fine, but the answer to your question is without a doubt because your setup is not quite "standard".

21.5" is the best 1080p for a desktop typing and stuff

What is the big pixel fetish about?

I want to cover a wall with a large TV/monitor because I'm too lazy to paint it.

Is it worth getting a 50" 4k TV when my primary use will be browsing/work? I don't need any fancy refresh rates, color, or response times as I already have a separate build with those monitors.

Is there any real downside to getting a TV over a monitor? Does it look like total shit/unusable?

>>57342626
Manlet detected.