Dual monitors in different orientations.

[Bert Coules]

A follow-up to my earlier thread on using a TV as a monitor. The focus seems sufficiently different enough to justify a new thread.

Following everyone's thoughts and advice, I did a bit of practical ergonomic experimenting.

At the moment, my 4:3 monitor in portrait orientation can display an entire A4 image at or just above actual size, and as, I've said, I want to keep that capability while at the same time gaining more screen width for other programs.

For a new monitor to display an upright A4 page while in its landscape position, it would have to have a screen diagonal of at least 36" (if

16:9) or 30" (if 4:3). I mocked up (ie I cut out of cardboard - this is a DIY group after all) two shapes of just over those sizes and tried them in position on my desk... and they were huge. Impractically gigantic. In my enthusiasm for the underlying idea I hadn't previously thought to visualise anything beyond the quality of the actual displays. Twit.

Which leaves, it seems to me, these remaining options:

Forget it. Stay with the upright 4:3 Dell, enjoy the excellent full-screen A4 display, and live with the awkwardly small, conventional (4:3 or 16:9) window for everything else.

Use two monitors side by side, one upright, one not. A compromise in viewing angles and seating position which doesn't appeal.

Use two monitors each mounted on a multiple-hinged arm. With a bit of geometrical luck I might be able to move either one to the centre and the other right out of the way. (I've seen dedicated dual-monitor hinged mounts but haven't looked closely at them yet.)

Construct (since this is a DIY group after all) a moving platform on which both monitors could sit side by side, and slide whichever one was the prime focus into the centre as needed. Possibly the most fun solution. The platform could even be motorised...

I'm sorry to have diverted everyone with a wild goose chase enquiry which I should have looked into more carefully before I posted (though I learned a lot, so I'm grateful for that). But now, if anyone has any thoughts on these new possibilities, I'd love to hear them.

Thanks. Bert

[Owain Lastname]

Check your video driver allows you to rotate screen orientation separately for each screen, if you are phyically rotating one but not both screens.

Owain

[Bert Coules]

Thanks for the thought. Yes, I can do this.

Bert

[Robin]

I had missed that your current monitor is 4:3. I had also missed its resolution and wonder now if it is less than full HD. Perhaps 1280 x

1024?

Added together that makes me wonder if you really need a vertical screen height of 16 inches. You could get much the same vertical resolution as now with a 1920x1200 screen. A 24" 16:9 comfortably displays 2 A4 pages side by side at full size. New IPS screens are around £200 but decent used monitors are often still found as offices upgrade.

[Bert Coules]

It's a nice thought, but once you factor in the various toolbars and whatnot of the word processing software, plus the Windows taskbar, then the comfortable fit disappears, I'm afraid. Even a 26" monitor is more cramped than I like (I've tried a friend's).

But I'm gratfeul for the prompt: I'll take a look at some 28" models.

Bert

[Jeff Gaines]

One of the major defects of Win 11, the Taskbar is fixed at the bottom of the screen. At least in Win 10 you can move it to either side.

[John Rumm]

I don't think the sums quite work out there...

I run a pair of 27" 16:9 monitors (ASUS ProArt PA278QV[1]) at 2560 x

1440 resolution. The height of A4 is around 30cm, and the height of my screen is about 34cm. So I can display A4 at full scale vertically - and about 2 and three quarter pages horizontally.

Here is a photo with a A4 page resting on the lip of the bezel beside windows on screen:

I have mine on a dual arm gas spring design - so you can shove them about (and rotate them) fairly easily.

(I rarely bother - just have both side by side hovering about 7" above the desk)

Nothing wrong with a bit of out of the box thinking on these things - it lets you home in on what will actually work for you.

[1]

[John Rumm]

I have my taskbar set to auto hide - so it only pops into view when I mouse over where it would be... (and I have it at the top of the screen!)

[Andy Burns]

On certain machines (mainly which I use as a jump-box for multiple RDP sessions to other machines) I do use a side taskbar.

if you're using Win11 22H2 you can use this, maybe microsoft will bring side taskbars back with 23H2 ?

[The Natural Philosopher]

My taqsbar vanishes when not hovered over. +1 for Linux MATE

Yes 28" is about the right compromise if I could be arsed to spend the money on a new one here.

[Jeff Gaines]

Many thanks, bookmarked :-)

It does seem that MSFT are unaware that screens are much shorter nowadays than they used to be. With a ribbon at the top and Taskbar at the bottom we'll soon be down to viewing 3 or 4 lines of text at a time!

[Paul]

The quoted size of the screen, is the diagonal dimension of the active part of the screen. It does not include bezels.

When an advert specifies the product, the HxWxD dimensions given, might be including the bezel, yet they still have value as dimensions for the purposes of mockup. Some of the following were selected, as the biggest monitor with that aspect ratio. This "wide" monitor, isn't very tall at all. Even with the curves screen, I don't think I can see the edges properly.

LG 49WL95C-W 49" 5120 x 1440 32:9 (slight curvature, a very wide monitor)

Dimensions (H x W x D) 14.40" x 47.84" x 4.50" w/o stand

With such a high aspect ratio (a "squat" monitor), the W dimension is pretty close to the Diagonal advertiser dimension. If I switch to 16:10 , it's still workable.

Dell U3023E 30" 2560 x 1600 16:10 (flat. but Tall for its diagonal)

Dimensions (H x W x D) 16.50" x 25.80" x 2.10" w/o stand

So now we try the mainstream and see what the biggest 16:9 is.

BenQ EX480UZ 48" 3840 x 2160 16:9 (flat screen, OLED)

Dimensions (H x W x D) 25.5" x 42.1" x 4.2" w/o stand

If I sit up in my chair, I have 24" to work with, if I slouch, about 22" ergonomic height. On the 16:9 then, the BenQ could still be used, but I would have to look up slightly. And since some of the "dimension" is the bezel, the

24" sitting up straight, I just might be able to swing it. Pretty close to ergonomic.

But a sheet of glass two feet by four feet is still pretty big. That would pretty well cover the entire "viewing area" of my desk :-) And that one is an OLED -- all the ones with that particular size are OLED.

You can get a 4K monitor, down to 24" diagonal. I bumped it up a bit to make a "typical".

ASUS PA329CRV 32" 3840 x 2160 16:9 (flat screen, IPS)

Dimensions (H x W x D) 16.5" x 28.1" x 1.76" w/o stand

So I could set that one down, and lift it a bit on its stand. For me at least, that one is still in the realm of the do-able.

And the price range on these things, is amazing. I'm really surprised some of the 4K are cheap. And those OLED ones, are home-theater-expensive. I would not take one of those if you gave it to me -- it would probably poke out an eyeball with the light output. Imagine eight square feet of screaming white light in your face.

If I wanted the pixels to be about the same size as my current screen, I might go to this size. Which is just a bit smaller than the 48" Benq.

Dell U4320Q 43" 3840 x 2160 16:9 (flat screen, IPS)

Dimensions (H x W x D) 22.2" x 38.1" x 2.30" w/o stand

And you know, I don't think that 22" is fully in my vertical field of view. I have to rotate my eyes down, to see the bottom of the screen, so maybe the ergonomic height isn't the only factor, and there might only be so many inches of "practical vertical" space. Perhaps the PA329CRV 32" really is my limit. I can certainly move my head to improve the bottom extent of a 22" view space, but moving my head might not be a good idea if editing top and bottom of docs that are placed side by side. You don't want your new monitor to "have a dead space you're not using".

Even if you could see one sample of a 4K monitor in person, it might help in the selection process.

Paul

[Paul]

But so does the Windows one. It has the MacOS-like feature too.

There might have been some install I tried, where they had made it the default. But it might not be turned on for everyone, and some people likely don't know about the option.

Windows also had a half-height taskbar option, but that was removed. I used that for a while, to suit VBox sessions. When W11 22H2 was installed, that's when that one went away.

Paul

[Robin]

Fair enough. The customer is always right. But JFI when I want to see the precise layout on a 24" 1920x1200 screen I just autohide the taskbar and ribbon (in Word 2019 and Windows 10/11).

[Bert Coules]

Thanks for the picture. It's not easy to make out what's on the screen but it does appear to show that the top and bottom of the A4 sheet are both hidden by the software banners. I appreciate that these can be moved off-screen but that isn't the way I like to work, unfortunately.

I'd be grateful for some details about your dual-arm mount: that's an approach that appeals to me.

That monitor does look very good.

Bert

[Bert Coules]

Paul, thanks again for another detailed reply. Your point about a single large monitor dominating the working space mirrors exactly my own view: it's for exactly that reason that I'm now thinking in terms of two smaller monitors, one in portrait orientation and the other in landscape: much less visually overpowering, especially if they can be moved around for the best viewing position.

Your points about field of view are fascinating and something I've never considered. Sitting at my desk in working mode, my straight-ahead eyeline is at about one-third down from the top of the screen, and to look above or below that, it's my head that I move, not solely my eyes. This I find comfortable and not at all fatiguing, and it's what I would want to duplicate in any new setup.

Bert

[David]

I used to have one landscape and one portrait (Full HD) monitor. The very old Dell monitor (portrait) packed up and I tried out a 40" TV to replace both. It works well enough for me, combined with a very good computer chair from Ikea, as I can swivel very slightly to move my focus between screen areas.

I am assuming your requirement is to have an actual size A4 document in portrait mode. Just checked, and that is easily done on this Full HD 40" TV. My ultimate aim is to have a 43" 4K screen down here in the living area. I have one in the office and that works fine, but needs the font size increasing to make everything readable.

I am minded of the experiment where observers were tasked to watch one activity on a video, and in general completely missed the pantomime bear dancing around in the background because human vision only works fully on a small area, and the rest is low attention peripheral vision. So I am happy swivelling my chair slightly to look at different parts of a large screen.

40" Full HD just about works with two windows side by side. 43" 4K works very well.

Possibly worth revisiting your conclusion that a 36" monitor is impossibly huge?

Cheers

Dave R

[Andy Burns]

I should hope so, even on my 32" monitor, in Word I can get three side-by-side A4 pages at 100% physical paper size, with all taskbars, toolbars, rulers and ribbons turned on.

[Bert Coules]

Thanks for the thought but it's not simply the display that would be a problem: the physical presence of the monitor as a whole would completely overwhelm the workspace in a way that two separate units, even if their combined surface area was much the same as the one large one, somehow would not.

Bert

[Andrew]

There is this unusual offering for those with deep pockets