What screen resolution/size is good for a beginning programmer?

Going to a high school where we learn how to program and stuff. I wanted to know what screen size or resolution would be good since we're allowed to use laptops in class. 1080p? 17.3 inch? (I read that you open multiple windows? :0 Is this true? does that mean the bigger reso, the better?) Let me know, advanced coder people!

 

When you code, you always have a slew of windows opened. The higher the resolution, the better. Unfortunately, the coding conventions also make it so that your code will take more vertical than horizontal space, so the move to 16:9 lcds was a loss as far as programming goes. You'll be stuck with a 16:9 screen anyways so there's not much you can do about it. You still want a resolution as high as possible.

 

If your code span more than one sceen(logically, i.e. you need more than one vertical screen to understand a block of code), it may be time to think about why. So the 16:9 may accidentally become a good check of coding style.

 

Go 15.6" for a bit more portability over 17.3", and go for 1600x900 (only 15.6") or 1920x1080 (15.6" or 17.3").

Or 14" 1600x900 or 17.3" 1920x1080.

 

while screen size isn't very important to me, I do enjoy the additional resolution for having multiple tools open.

I'm working on a 1920x1080 and it's 15.6". Great combination if you've got decent eyesight (the text can be a bit small on occasion)

 

For programming you'll want the most real estate you can get, but vertical pixels is generally more important.

 

Exactly, though horizontal is nice to have more windows opened. Dual screen fixes that though. I would tell you to get a 1080p laptop and get a screen for your desk so you can place it vertically and hook the laptop to it for homework coding. While i'm not a programmer, i had to do coding on C++&MATLAB and even while doing only that i was already wishing for more vertical real estate.

 

I'd also say that it would be best to have the highest screen resolution possible.

 

I think I'll go with the 15 inch then. I have 20/20 vision so I think I can handle not having jumbo text. My dad has a 13/14 inch XPS M140 and having a laptop a bit bigger than that seems good enough. Thanks guys I'll be sure to come to NBR if I ever have some coding homework troubles xD

 

I find 15" and 1080p is not very good because the pixels are just way too small. Eyesight has nothing to do with it. I think 900p is the sweet spot for 15". Either way you go, buy an external monitor for home. A 20+ inch 1080p screen plus your laptop screen will give plenty of realestate.

 

Doing it for over 8 hours a day, I don't personally find this to be true. In fact, given the tools I have used(Visual Studio for example), I found I want more horizontal pixels most of the time(and I am already on 1920x1080 23" monitor).

 

If you're going to be using the laptop in class, 15" should be the limit of what you're considering. 17" laptops are far too bulky to use on the tiny lecture hall tables, and besides, you'll break your back lugging it to class in the first place.

+1. Definitely agreed, especially for a beginning programmer.

Same. It's far more useful to see two windows side to side (two different files, or a list of program specs and the code, etc.), in my opinion.

Yep, it's not as much eyesight as personal preference. I love 15.6" 1920x1080 screens, and can handle even higher DPI with no problem (ie: I loved my friend's 13" Sony Vaio Z with the 1600x900 display), and yet, I have pretty poor vision (I wear contacts).

 

Well that's why my first post stated, overall higher resolution is better. And comparing 1920x1200 to 1920x1080, I'd take 1200p..

 

I have a 16" 1080p laptop and while it took a week or so getting used to it, now any other screen makes text look huge. It's just a small shock period and then it's all good and you learn to love the extra space.

 

You never coded in assembler, right?
16:9 is a catastrophe unless your favourite editor is ed. Although in some situations using a tiling window manager can relieve that screen problem a bit.

 

That was when I was still running DOS or hacking Linux. And no, my favourite editor was vi and I am still using it for quick editing. With a good terminal emulator, even 1024x768 was a lot of space(and I still find horizontal pixel more important).

Does any U nowadays still teaches assembler ?

 

What has changed that? vi (ok, actually vim) is still my favourite editor and I do about 80% of my coding in it.

As long as we don't consider the actual screen size I don't find these numbers sufficient to make a judgement. For example, there are fonts that are easily readable at 7 pixels height, so a monitor with 768 vertical pixels can display more than 1000 loc. If your eyes are good enough to read it is another question.
15 years ago I had no problems with font size 10 on a 15" monitor @800x600 pixels but I have one with the same font size on a 9" display @1024x600 and my eyes barely degraded since then. So what actually matters is not the display's number of lines but its height in cm, inches or whatever measure you prefer.
Sure, if you want additional information like a 2nd window to compile a wider display will be nice, but usually wider also means less height. People have been looking for 15" laptops 5 years ago just like they do today, but only very few realize that what they get today is not even as high as the 14" laptops they had back then.

Mine did, at least on a basic level. That's not even 10 years ago and afaik they still do.

 

Most of my day time task is coding in Microsoft stack so relies heavily on its environment(Visual Studio, Intellisense to its .NET library etc.), vi cannot compare there and I use it for quick editing of HTML/css files etc.

I am less and less code in such a raw form of language. Other than Microsoft stack, my other times are on Haskell, J, clojure and the like where anything that needs more than 10 lines of code to understand is a failure of the programmer.

 

I've a Lenovo T500 1680 X 1050 or 16:10. This is the best screen for me. I'm a SharePoint Developer and develop with C# on Visual Studio 2010. It gives me a very good vertical estate for coding & styling on the 15.4" laptop.

Try & get a 15" 1680 X 1050 or 16:10. I think it's only Apple Macbook Pro that has this spec.

The other stupid manufacturers has stop doing 16:10 screen which is pushing their sales down while Apple is picking up their customers

 

Going with a 15 inch 1080p (maybe an ASUS), weight doesn't really matter to me (I'm 6"1 and a burly young man.)

Do you guys know any good screens that can turn vertically? or should I just get a nice monitor/tv? I'm thinking like 300$

 

1600x900 is the minimum as noted. I read a lot of code and write documents daily on my 15.6" 1600x900 work laptop, and I generally don't have issues. With 1366x768 I have a hard time, avoid that resolution like the plague ... even though you're a doctor that deals specifically with plagues.

If an external monitor is practical then that's a valid idea. See if you can find a 1920x1200 monitor, that is the highest resolution you are reasonably going to get. Unfortunately that resolution is not produced anymore, you may have to go eBay/2nd hand. The stands on some external monitors allows you to turn them vertically, currently no laptops do that.

 

While you're at it, try to get one with pivot function!

 

And make sure that you can actually read the screen when you pivot it. At work I have an external monitor that I can pivot but if I do I can't look at the screen without getting a headache.

 

Good advice. When it comes to actual interfaction(pixels included), only field test can tell if it works for pro long period of time.

I was under the impression of more pixel is better(for the same screen size) until I had the chance to use one that is way too much and making me sick. After that incidence, I deliberately choose fewer pixels for new purchase(well one I know would work better for my eyes).

 

The old WUXGA (1920x1200) for 15 inch laptops were a bit too high for my liking tbh.

 

I have a 1920x1200 16:10 and I'm loving it. The best part is you can place two letter sized documents side by side and read it, while with 16:9 you have more empty horizontal space. It gives a much better combination of width and height compared to the my desktop 4:3 and my other laptop of 16:9. I would go with that if possible. Why did they ever change it to 16:9 anyway...

 

16:9 was just cheaper to manufacturer, and in the cut throat business of making the cheapest laptop, screens were first obvious thing to kill. How to reduce costs? Make the computer slower? Nope. Cut features? Nope. Kill screen resolution to the point where the average joe customer won't notice? Yup. I'm not going to turn this into a 16:9 bashing thread, but 16:9 was inevitable with how cheap laptops are getting. The problem is that trend eventually became standard in the business laptop market which is really quite sad. I like 4:3, 16:10 offered more choices for higher resolution without breaking the bank.

 

Wasn't 16:9 just what was decided on for widescreen footage and standardised long before PC's ever existed?

 

i remember a LOT of 'media laptops' being released as we started to transitioning to 16:9.