Dual Monitors for nMP

agentBasedMac

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Nov 14, 2008
10
6
While we wait for the nMP, I thought I'd ask a question some of you may have more insight on than myself.

What is the "sweet spot" for dual monitor setup on the nMP?

I will be using my nMP for scientific computing. Lots of programing in R, C++, Python etc. So I am not doing video, or photos so I need the monitors to be good (I stare at them for hours at a time after all), but they don't have to be amazing.

So taking price into account, what would be a good value dual monitor setup for the nMP?

I'm thinking dual 24's or even better dual 27's

Thanks,
 

theSeb

macrumors 604
Aug 10, 2010
6,963
83
Poole, England
I don't think there is such a thing as a sweet spot. It really depends on how you like to work and which IDEs you are using. I like 2x24" 1920x1200 screens. One in landscape and the other in portrait. I can't wait to check out the upcoming "cheap" 28" 4k Dell monitor though.
 

Sean Dempsey

macrumors 68000
Aug 7, 2006
1,617
3
The few hundred dollars you may save by not going with the Thunderbolt 27's is meaningless. You can't stretch a monitor. After a year, what is the $400 going to do to your overall yearly number?

BTW I run 4 of them.
 

Cubemmal

macrumors 6502a
Jun 13, 2013
824
1
After many years and experiments I believe three is ideal. With two there is asymmetry - which is the main? How do you place them? But it is the best of the suboptimal setups, ideally two equal size, 27" is best.

Three is most optimal, specifically a center 27" with two 24" (not 1080p preferably, get the x1600 if you can) flanking. The main monitor is the focus and gets the main windows, and he other two are supplementary taking extra windows and side apps. It fits well on most larger desks too, and is easily visible in your field of view.

More than that is too much. Seems cool but not useful, too much screen space to navigate and manage, and is over stimulating.
 
Last edited:

agentBasedMac

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Nov 14, 2008
10
6
I had not considered 3 and I am not sure if it is in the budget (I'm at a state college). But if I went for 3 I'd definitely have to find an alternative to the Thunderbolt displays.

Anyone have good experience with $500ish displays?
 

ender78

macrumors 6502
Jan 9, 2005
319
17
I think 24-27 is the sweet spot. I found a 30" viewed at less than 2-3 feet too big.
 

tuxon86

macrumors 65816
May 22, 2012
1,320
468
One 27" in the middle, flanked by two 22" rotated 90 degree. Chrome in the left 22", desktop on the 27". The other 22" is splitted in two, top is file browser and bottom is MusicBee. Also use the HDMI conection of my video card to drive XBMC on my 60" HDTV.
 

Rich.Cohen

macrumors regular
Oct 28, 2013
193
3
Washington DC
I've presently got a 30" monitor in the middle, a 23" to the right and an old 15" Studio Display to the left. Email and reference files on the right. Activity Monitor and any progress dialogs on the left. Main work in the middle. My viewing distance to the center monitor is exactly 2'. I work on large data models, similar to engineering drawings in terms of text and lines. I need all the pixels I can get and a large enough screen to read the fine print.

When I replace my Mac Pro 1,1 with a new Mac Pro, I'd like to replace my main monitor with a 45" 4K monitor. The viewing distance will still be 2'. I did a cardboard mock-up and I think I can handle it, but I'll have to tilt my head to see the menu bar. So far I haven't seen a 45" monitor so I may have to go with a 50". A 40" would probably have such small pixels that I wouldn't be able to fully benefit from the 4k resolution. I plan to wait till mid January to see what is announced at CES. At present, my best choice seems to be the Seiki. For my work I think I can live with the 30hz refresh rate, but I'm hoping there will be something in the same price range with a display port 1.2 by then.
 

theSeb

macrumors 604
Aug 10, 2010
6,963
83
Poole, England
I am not sure if we're both speaking English. I am asking you where did you see duel in this thread? You're the first person to have mentioned duel around these parts.

"Dual monitors" is correct. "Duel of the monitors" is also correct. "Duel monitors" is not correct.
 

jondunford

macrumors 6502
Oct 22, 2013
480
1
Going for a poo Moderator
I am not sure if we're both speaking English. I am asking you where did you see duel in this thread? You're the first person to have mentioned duel around these parts.

"Dual monitors" is correct. "Duel of the monitors" is also correct. "Duel monitors" is not correct.
dual of the monitors is not correct
 

theSeb

macrumors 604
Aug 10, 2010
6,963
83
Poole, England
dual of the monitors is not correct
Indeed and you're the first one to have used "dual of the monitors" in this thread, so please explain to me, because I am really curious now, what was it exactly that you meant when you said:

its dual with an a

unless you mean you want to have 2 monitors which are going to fight each other
 

unfrostedpoptar

macrumors regular
Jan 29, 2010
173
10
After many years and experiments I believe three is ideal. With two there is asymmetry - which is the main? How do you place them? But it is the best of the suboptimal setups, ideally two equal size, 27" is best.

Three is most optimal, specifically a center 27" with two 24" (not 1080p preferably, get the x1600 if you can) flanking. The main monitor is the focus and gets the main windows, and he other two are supplementary taking extra windows and side apps. It fits well on most larger desks too, and is easily visible in your field of view.
I agree for multi, 3 is best since you don't have a line right down the middle. For a while, I had a 27" iMac + 2 Dell u2711. I had all 3 rotated 90º. I think it's import for all monitors to have the same DPI so you can move windows around and not have them change size. The problem with that setup was that it was like sitting in a tanning booth! Very hot.

With the changes in multi-monitor support in 10.9, Apple made things work really well now if you want to treat your monitors as un-linked but made things worse if you want to treat them as one big monitor. Between this, and really getting annoyed at the bezel gaps, and a $200 price drop, I just ordered the Seiki 39" Ultra-HD display. For $500 I'll have 39" diagonal, 3840x2880 resolution. Yeah, 60Hz (or more) would be nice, but I don't place any games and 30Hz is fine for movies and programming. It will be the equivalent in size and resolution to having 4 20" 1080 monitors in a grid without all the headaches of multiple stands/arms (been there, done that) and multi-monitor support in the computer hardware and OS.

Likely, in a couple of years, I can replace it with a 4k, 120Hz (HDMI-2 or DP), 40" curved screen! Actually, I'm hoping by then I can dump the huge monitors and will be able to get 4-k resolution retinal projection "glasses".
 

Cubemmal

macrumors 6502a
Jun 13, 2013
824
1
I agree for multi, 3 is best since you don't have a line right down the middle.
Yes and the other reasons I mentioned.

With the changes in multi-monitor support in 10.9, Apple made things work really well now if you want to treat your monitors as un-linked but made things worse if you want to treat them as one big monitor.
I haven't noticed any difference with the original use case (one big monitor). I switched it back in Control Panel and it acts the same as it did before.