Has anyone changed from multitasking on 3 (or more) monitors down to a single high-res monitor? If so, how has the transition been?
I've mulled over changing from 3x 1080p screens to a single 4K but I like to leave applications full-screen on different monitors. On my right monitor, for example, I navigate the file system in the foreground with Outlook in the background. On the centre monitor is my main focus, be it programming, browsing the web, playing a game (the other two monitors go off then), watching a film, etc and on the left is where I view reference material (e.g.: Looking up more details on a function). Also, 40" is too big for my liking so if I do go 4K I'd aim for 32".
I have used a friends set up and personally for my kind of work I really didnt like a single 4k 32inch monitor...
Uisng multiple monitors for me allows me to better organise my work per screen and I also persaonlly prefer the horizontal working space as I can focus on whats in front of me and have a video or whatever in the corner of my vision...
Im sure lots of people Wendel included will tell me i'm wrong... but personally I prefer multiple monitors, my personal fav set up would be a central 29-34 wide monitor with two 24 inch portraits either side with a single 1440p above the 21:9
I have made the transition from two 1200p 24" monitors to a single 42" 4K, and although a bit different, I have been just as productive, if not more.
It is indeed nice to be able to just toss fullscreen applications up on multiple screens, so there is some adjustment with using one large screen. What OS do you run? Windows and several Linux distros have pretty good snapping features built into the OS, while Mac OS is catching up, and there is a sea of third-party utilities. Personally, I've found DisplayFusion to be excellent. If you really take the time to choose a high-quality solution and tweak it to your preferences, it can be terrific. I've used 2 x 2 1080p arrays before, and the single 42" 4K I have now, functionally, feels similar. I was a bit nervous beforehand and looked into virtual desktop solutions and such, but at least in my case, I haven't felt the need to go that route at all. Perhaps I should add that I routinely work in either a vertically-split (two windows) or 2 x 2 (four windows) configuration, but with 4K, you can cram in much more than that if you need to, and having the giant screen for single applications (media, games) is truly a luxury.
Whether you will prefer a single large monitor to an array is a subjective thing that will also depend on your particular workflows, so the best way to go about it would be to see if you could try one out somehow. If you really like that horizontal array like @Cerimania, you might also look into a 21:9 monitor. These feel much more like a two- or three-monitor horizontal array to me than a 16:9 4K. I will add that I think Wendell was on the money with 4K and 40" being made for each other. If you go 32", you will have to deal with scaling unless you have amazing eyesight, and that's not a lot of fun.
With Linux, and a lesser bit Mac OS X, and unbelievably absent in Windows, virtual desktops are so awesome.
I am moving from 2, 3, and 4 24" 1920x1200 LCD displays on my various systems to a single 40" 4K 3840x2160 display.
With 6 or more virtual desktops (across the multiple monitors) I have had all the full screen windows I needed. Now moving to a much greater resolution monitor, I get nearly the same results but have no bezel crossing visuals and the hi res monitor can accommodate many more windows at the same time.
Bottom line, my workflow has been using 6 or more virtual desktops for so many years that a single hi res monitor only increases my productivity in that I don't need to switch virtual desktops nearly as often.
CTRL+START+D to create a new one CTRL+START+left or right to switch between with a nice whoosh look.
Items on the desktop bar / ALT+TAB views etc can be limited to current virtual desktop, or you can have one combined task view and it'll autoswitch. It's a pretty clean, albeit late, setup.
Well I went from one 1440p monitor back down to a 1080p ultra wide and 2 regular 1080p on the side. I much prefer it! High res is nice to look at and all but everything feels so small. It's so awesome having multiple things open makes life so much easier. Yes a 40inch 4K monitor would do this as well but I also game a ton and 4K is just way to hard to drive these days.
I have a 24" 2560x1440 monitor that I use with a different PC on regular occasion, which is at 100% scaling. Is that a reasonable comparison?
It's interesting to read the varying experiences, thanks guys. Super-wide displays seem weird to me. I'm more inclined to increase the display in both directions. I'd rather have a 2560x1440 monitor than 2560x1080. I think I'd feel like I am missing something out if I picked 3440x1440 over 4k.
If you are comfortable with a 24" at 1440p, my guess is that 32" 4K will be fine for you. Then again, even in terms of the added real estate, I'm not sure that going from 24" 1440p to 32" 4K will be that amazing of an upgrade for you.
In your case, the horizontal array may indeed be the best solution, or you could double up the 1440p monitors.
The 1440p monitor is for a PC that I leave at a friend's for gaming (we do LAN gaming twice per week). This is in regards to my main PC, which is 3x 23" 1080p displays. I know that the real estate is the equivalent of an extra monitor but the desk space (seen here) will be increased and the gaming real estate will be massively increased.
More space in MMORPGs would be a nice luxury but multi-tasking is my concern.
I'd considered 40", particularly because of the price point (£380 is ludicrously cheap) but it wouldn't be practical for my desk, mainly because of the height, which would overlap my bookshelves by 2.5". The stand is also a heck of a lot deeper so the screen would be approximately 60cm (24") away from my eyes.
Just did some testing and my understanding is correct with the AMH A409U...
Also, don't discount the real world usefulness of a 40" 4K UHD monitor so close to your seating position. My vision is myopic with a slight astigmatism and using a 40" 4K monitor a meter or less from my seating position yields no headaches or eye strain.
My 4K UHD monitor is an arm's length from me. My straight ahead viewing angle has my natural eye position in the top 1/2 to 1/3 of the screen. The monitor is mounted to a telescoping wall mount VESA 100x100 arm with a VESA 100x100 to VESA 200x200 adapter plate.
The wall mount arm hasn't been remounted to the wall from my 24" monitor position and it's right where my eyes need it to be.
I tried getting rid of my three 1080p monitors for a single 1440 monitor but I really missed the other two monitors. For example one can have a video stream running while the other two are for work (research/work) works really well. Can't live without two, one of the reasons I have a portable laptop monitor.
The reason you go for a 40" 4K monitor, is pixel density is the same as a 27" 1080p monitor.
Have you seen Wendell's explanation of when he did this?
Having the 40" monitor in front of you would be no different than having 4 1080p 27" monitors in front of you. If you are sitting only a half meter away from your screen. I have two things to say One: Sit back, maybe get a keyboard tray. Two: You must already move your head a lot, I see not many differences.
Considering your space concern about it bumping into your book shelf, if you remove the feet, and get a VESA mount for the back of the monitor, either connected to the wall, or an arm on your desk, could that eliminate the vertical concerns?