Monitors - How Big is Too Big?

First, you need to find out what your Mac's video card can handle.

My personal favorite for a desktop was running two 20'' Apple LCDs.

I loved it.

First, here are some visual comparisons of screen size (not resolution).

http://www.displaywars.com/
http://tv09.org/

However, the physical size of the monitor isn't as important as its resolution. All LCDs have a maximum resolution that they can display. The physical size of the monitor correlates roughly to this.
The 23"-25" range is ideal for most users, IMO. Monitors of this size will have a maximum resolution of either 1920x1080 (also known as 1080p) or 1920x1200. This enables you to watch 1080p HD content at its actual size, and to multitask with multiple windows open side-by-side (browser + word processor, etc.).

As Medievalist mentioned, another popular setup is to put several smaller monitors together. The upside is a much wider horizontal viewing space, usually at a price cheaper than a single large monitor (though the large monitor offers more vertical viewing space as well).

The downsides are numerous, but may or may not affect you. The bezels in between monitors will split your view, though your brain will learn to ignore them. In gaming, dual monitors is rarely a good idea since your character/PoV is usually centered onscreen. You'll either run the game on only one screen, or need a triple monitor setup. Also, multiple monitors require more video card horsepower to drive them. You'll have to ensure your card can output to multiple monitors, that your PC is robust enough to support the applications or games you want to run at that resolution, and you will occasionally run into problems with applications that are finicky in a multi-monitor setup.

For comparison, I use a single 30" monitor daily (I do design stuff as well as writing) at 2560x1600. While I love all the working space in a single, hassle-free viewing area, it took me a while to adjust to the size, and in some cases it still feels overwhelming. Depending on how I'm sitting, I sometimes have to move my head to see the edges of the screen. This can be exhausting over time.

With a 24" monitor, you won't need to move anything but your eyes if you're sitting at a normal viewing distance. This is the sweet spot for both monitor size and resolution, IMO.

If possible, try to get a 1920x1200 resolution (16:10 aspect ratio) monitor in this size range. The extra 120 pixels of vertical resolution make a big difference.

I wouldn't recommend anything above 25" for this resolution, though. It will make the image less sharp, and text can be hard to read. (Similarly, 23" feels a bit too small for 1920x1200 to me. 24" is just right.)

Leah Raeder said:

You'll have to ensure your card can output to multiple monitors, that your PC is robust enough to support the applications or games you want to run at that resolution, and you will occasionally run into problems with applications that are finicky in a multi-monitor setup.)

Click to expand...

He's on a Mac so a lot of this doesn't apply. The OS handles screen sharing, not the apps.

And honestly, you won't find many serious gamers using a Mac.

All Mac minis can handle multiple monitors; all current shipping Macs can handle multiple monitors, though you need a splitter for some.

I love my 25" HP monitor. The fact that I can have multiple pages showing, side by side without toggling back and forth is a blessing. And since its a HD monitor, movies and gaming is really exciting.

I'm a photographer and have a 27" monitor (iMac). I love it.

Great avatar, by the way.

Go to a store, even a Wal-Mart, and look at the monitors, or even the flat screen Tvs. This is the only real way to get a true feel for how big a monitor is. I did this, and decided the 25 was perfect. I love watching movies on it.

It's also small enough that a second monitor of equal size fits perfectly on my desk.

Even very good monitors are pretty darned cheap right now, but it's always a good idea to go look at them face to monitor. You really can't tell much by looking at them online.

If you're going to do video editing and other stuff, I'd recommend getting two monitors and lay them side-by-side. Two 20" would be really sweet. Also, if you get ones that can display portrait mode, they're excellent for editing documents or viewing websites.

If you must only have one monitor, then go with a 24". Personally, I think 27" is way too big -- it bleeds over my peripheral vision and I don't like to constantly have to move my head in order to see the whole thing, and I don't want to have to sit too far -- my arms are not that long.

maestrowork said:

If you're going to do video editing and other stuff, I'd recommend getting two monitors and lay them side-by-side. Two 20" would be really sweet. Also, if you get ones that can display portrait mode, they're excellent for editing documents or viewing websites.

If you must only have one monitor, then go with a 24". Personally, I think 27" is way too big -- it bleeds over my peripheral vision and I don't like to constantly have to move my head in order to see the whole thing, and I don't want to have to sit too far -- my arms are not that long.

Click to expand...

Hmm...I don't feel that way, but I essentially use it for split screen editing stuff, so it would be no different than two monitors in that case. Everything else I just center right in front of me.

I'd just go to the store and test some out for a bit. See what feels right!

charlotte49ers said:

Hmm...I don't feel that way, but I essentially use it for split screen editing stuff, so it would be no different than two monitors in that case. Everything else I just center right in front of me.

I'd just go to the store and test some out for a bit. See what feels right!

Click to expand...

If you're going to split the screen anyway then yeah there's no difference. I'm saying as one monitor, having something beyond your vision range is kind of counter productive. Bigger isn't always better -- talk about neck strain, etc. Most professional editing setups consist of two or three monitors instead of one giant screen. It's actually easier to manage that way, and your brain adjusts to that better than a "split screen."

maestrowork said:

Most professional editing setups consist of two or three monitors instead of one giant screen. It's actually easier to manage that way, and your brain adjusts to that better than a "split screen."

Click to expand...

I like a two monitor set up a lot; I could have had two large monitors but two twenties arranged carefully meant that I could sit comfortably and see both screens.

I could keep one screen for the proprietary multimedia content system I worked with, and another to do live checks on the production.

I could keep the Finder in one and current working apps in the other, and this, combined with Expose and Spaces, is downright nifty.

maestrowork said:

If you're going to split the screen anyway then yeah there's no difference. I'm saying as one monitor, having something beyond your vision range is kind of counter productive. Bigger isn't always better -- talk about neck strain, etc. Most professional editing setups consist of two or three monitors instead of one giant screen. It's actually easier to manage that way, and your brain adjusts to that better than a "split screen."

Click to expand...

True, and plus, my opinion is a little different because I do like to blow my pictures up really large so I can edit the details.

I have two Acer 21.5" monitors. I started using dual screens at work 2 years ago and can't work without it now. You really don't know how important two screens is until you have used them.

I do writing, web development, and video editing. IMO all of these work better with dual monitors just because I can dedicated a screen to different portions of the project. Also watching movies full screen while surfing the net in the other monitor is nice too.