When HN users recommended it
1 HN user recommended this in 2010, in one comment.
20072026
Each tall tick is one HN user's first recommendation. A short tick is the same user again. Click a tick to jump to the comment.
1 HN user recommended this in 2010, in one comment.
Each tall tick is one HN user's first recommendation. A short tick is the same user again. Click a tick to jump to the comment.
I just got a 25.5" 1900 x 1200 screen for 280$. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001LYPNFQ/ref=oss_product) So, I don't think there is much money to be saved by getting a screen much smaller than that.
IMO, the real question is using widescreens appropriate for a dual monitor setup. My work setup is two 4:3 aspect ratio monitors which I think works much better than two widescreen monitors because it reduces the time it takes to move the mouse. For text editing I suspect three 4:3 ratio monitors is more useful, despite providing a similar number of pixels as two widescreen monitors, based on how maximizing windows operates and the pain of trying to split a window across two screens.
However, when working with images, having a large unbroken screen is extreamly useful. So a 2560 x 1600+ monitor paired with a lower resolution scratch space seems to work better than two evenly sized monitors.