Forgot your password?

My in-use, non-TV displays add up to (diag.):

Displaying poll results.
15" or less
  1510 votes / 4%
  8169 votes / 24%
  12717 votes / 37%
  5430 votes / 15%
More than 90"
  4872 votes / 14%
I don't have any "displays."
  1296 votes / 3%
33994 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

My in-use, non-TV displays add up to (diag.):

Comments Filter:
  • Odd Binning (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GrayNimic (1051532) on Tuesday March 29, 2011 @08:48PM (#35661198)
    The size categories yield some odd bed partners:
    15" or less: Small to mid laptops
    15-30": Mid-to-large laptops, CRT displays, most LCDs
    30-60": Most two-monitor setups of any main/old monitor size, and high end LCDs
    60-90": Presumably 2-4 monitors, depending on quality, and some solo tv-as-monitor setups
    More than 90": Presumably above 3-5 monitors, depending on quality; 3+ large LCDs, or 5+ 18" CRTs, along with more exotic displays, such as projectors

    Given the vague wording of the question, it also lacks any kind of distinguishment between multiple single-headed computers, and lone multi-monitor setups, which seem like very different usage cases to me. My two ancient 18" CRTs, one standalone and the other the head of a KVM switch, leaves me rubbing shoulders with the $1000+ single-LCD users.
    • by ShakaUVM (157947)

      Yeah, if I added up the monitors on all my computers, it would be crazy high.

      On just my primary machine, it's in the 30"-60" range. Though I have two monitors, I tend to keep the second one turned off except when I need it.

    • Yeah I'm not sure what counts as a "non-tv display". I use a 55" LCD TV as my primary monitor at home. Does that count as a "TV"? It has no cable or OTA reception.

      • Yeah I'm not sure what counts as a "non-tv display". I use a 55" LCD TV as my primary monitor at home. Does that count as a "TV"? It has no cable or OTA reception.

        I'd say yes, that's how I counted it. Alternatively, if you had a monitor hooked up to a tuner or other TV-esque device, I'd call that a "TV". I suppose if that TV-esque device were a myth box, etc., one could argue either way. And who am I to come someone's home or place of business with a squad of goons to beat them until they say it my way . . .

        The poll is vague. But if it weren't, we wouldn't have as much to discuss.

      • by Creepy (93888)

        I get satellite and slingbox to everything, so technically every display including my cell phone is a TV display :P

        There is one display that I only use as a secondary monitor and have never used for TV, so I did vote. Incidentally, I also use my 42" plasma TV as a secondary monitor, but I also use it as a TV.

    • by wvmarle (1070040)

      I'm in the 30-60" range: two 15" monitors (one at home; one in my office) and a mobile phone.

    • by mcvos (645701)

      Simply adding diameters together is pretty meaningless. I mean, I've got a 20" monitor at home, a 10" EeePC, an old laptop with I think a 17" screen, and who knows, I might have some old CRTs somewhere. Add a 3.7" smartphone, two old feature phones (1.5"?), and then I'm wondering if the screen on my old iPod counts.

      In diameter it's a lot more than the 27" iMac at work, but in surface area, I'm not so sure.

    • Re:Odd Binning (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anrego (830717) * on Wednesday March 30, 2011 @07:41AM (#35664918)

      My two ancient 18" CRTs, one standalone and the other the head of a KVM switch, leaves me rubbing shoulders with the $1000+ single-LCD users.


      I previously had a 3x nice quality 17" CRTs. No LCD display I've seen yet has compared with the quality, not to mention viewing angle, and the CRTs were reasonably priced (sub $200) at the time.

      Now I've got 6 LCD monitors (4x 19" square-ish and 2x 24" widescreen in a 3 by 2 config). 2 of them, light is starting to bleed around the corners, and one of them has a small patch of dead pixels in the corner. I really miss the "always just works and looks great" of my CRTs.

      • by Ogive17 (691899)
        Until one of the color guns in the CRT starts acting up and the screen has a horrible tint to it. Had that happen twice... granted both monitors were at least 4 years old.

        Only had one LCD crap out on me.. and sadly it was the best quality one I ever owned.. Samsung and it quit working 3 days after the warranty period expired.
        • by Anrego (830717) *

          Oh, not saying CRTs don't break down. I had an ol` "radiation master 3000" style sun monitor go completely haywire.

          The difference is that when a CRT goes.. it's usually old(ish) and needs to be replaced. LCDs on the other hand seem to degrade over time almost as a matter of course, or atleast that has been my experience with them.

      • by Enleth (947766)

        Take a look at professional IPS panels. When I saw one at a hardware store last week, I was dead sure it's a mock-up with a printed sticker glued on. Then it crossfaded into another picture. I think it was an Eizo, but I'm not sure about the model number. It looked way, way better than the best CRT I've ever had, and that was a professional CTX with composite input, made for DTP work. It was appropriately expensive, of course.

        • by Anrego (830717) *

          I should have said "bought yet" vice "seen yet". I have seen very nice looking LCDs, including LED/IPS, but have yet to own one (I tend to cheap out on monitors.. so probably have myself to blame for my bad LCD luck).

      • by antdude (79039)

        Are there any good NEW good quality CRTs made any more these days? If not, then what about LCD or other types that match CRT's quality?

        I had to get a cheap 19" 5:4 Samsung SyncMaster 931BF LCD monitor a few years ago immediately because my CRT went blurry with shimmering effects on me. Also, All of my computer monitor CRTs, at home and work, do not last very long (a few years). CRT TVs do last forever like my current 20" from 1996! I must be having bad lucks with computer CRT monitors.

    • Doesn't consider virtual-vs-physical either. My situation: computer 1: 2560x1600 physical/3200x2400 virtual computer 2: 1920x1200 physical/2560x2240 virtual computer 3: 1920x1200 physical/2560x2048 virtual How do I count this?
      • by coats (1068)
        I forgot to mention sizes and numbers of virtual desktops:

        30-inch / 24-inch / 24-inch

        10 desktops / 10 desktops / 8 desktops


      • by wagnerrp (1305589)
        You count it as batshit crazy for actually WANTING your desktop to scroll when you hit the edge. Besides, the poll is about physical dimensions, not resolution.
  • Projectors? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bleek II (878455) on Tuesday March 29, 2011 @08:52PM (#35661224)
    I included my HD projector which puts me well over 90".
    • by mug funky (910186)

      ooh, good point. DCI projectionists at a multiplex could possibly have up to 10 30 metre screens in use at any one time... totaling 12836 inches diagonally, assuming all movies are showing in 2.35:1 aspect ratio (scope these days is 2.4:1 now that we're all shooting super-35, but i thought i'd be conservative)

  • I have a laptop I use on the train, a monitor I use with said laptop at home, and a monitor to use with said laptop at work. I'm in the 60-90 bin without even using any dual displays. I'd imagine quite a few people are using a lot more monitor than I am.
  • by trinarybit (963146) on Tuesday March 29, 2011 @09:19PM (#35661466)
    is on the back of my eyeballs, so I'd say 3" is generous.
  • My CRT: 22in Viewsonic (KVMed to my desktop and the server)
    My wife's CRT: 20in Dell branded Trinitron
    The lab CRT: 21in Viewsonic (KVMed to my VMware ESXi box, an old Windows box used for VSphere and an old Linux box)
    the laptop: 15.6in flat panel
    Wife's laptop: 17in

    I hate to "upgrade" to more flat panels and lose resolution. It would be nice if you could get a flat panel with better than 1080 vertical resolution without paying way too many $$$.


    • by dltaylor (7510)

      More importantly, a widescreen (22' 1920x1200) LCD that can scale up a 640x480 StarCraft BroodWar game.

    • With all the electricity and physical real estate being consumed by those CRTs, you're paying the cost of LCD upgrades even though you're not getting them.

      Want pixels on the cheap? Use side-by-side 1920 LED displays. Want tons of pixels in one display? Then pony up the $800+ for a 27+" IPS display.

      • by wagnerrp (1305589)

        With all the electricity and physical real estate being consumed by those CRTs, you're paying the cost of LCD upgrades even though you're not getting them.

        Wasting physical real estate? Sure, CRTs are going to have a larger bezel, but who really cares how deep they are. You're going to have your display at the same distance from you regardless, and its not like you're going to store things behind your LCDs.

        As for power, a nice 20" UXGA CRT is going to pull around 100-120W. A comparable 20" UXGA IPS LCD is going to be closer to 30-40W. Lets say you use this display for work, so 8hrs per day, 240 days per year. That amounts to maybe $20 at standard North Am

        • UXGA is 1600x1200 which is (alas) hard to get in LCD. A 23" 1920x1080 IPS LED-LCD from Newegg is now $230, so payoff is about 11 years. There are added advantages of a truly flat screen without very thick glass and ridiculous weight. Furthermore, LCDs are perfectly sharp everywhere, whereas CRTs even when perfectly adjusted are only approximately sharp.

          If you use your computer heavily at work and actually need to see fine detail over a large area, an excellent monitor is a luxury more significant than a muc

      • by toddestan (632714)
        While CRTs do use more power, it's not really that much more. I ran the numbers, hoping that the power savings could justify the upgrade, but it doesn't work out. You're talking something like 50W more to run a CRT than a LCD, so with a 8 hour day you're talking 0.4kwh. Which is about a nickel's worth of electricity, or something like $20 a year. Even with LCDs as cheap as they are (though the cheap ones can't touch a high-end CRT), you're talking years to pay it back.
    • I picked up a Samsung SyncMaster 213T shortly after they came out. It's a PVA panel so it's usefulness for gaming is questionable, but the color has always been really nice and at 1600x1200 it's still my primary work monitor. (And, if I wanted more vertical resolution, this thing will turn on it's side for 1200x1600 action.)

      The backlight's giving out though. Even at brightness set to max it's starting to dim. Too bad too since I've always liked this monitor.

  • by LBArrettAnderson (655246) on Tuesday March 29, 2011 @09:47PM (#35661706)

    2x24" monitors
    2x22" monitors (these 2 and the previous 2 are in a 2x2 grid, so I kind of just look at them as a single 45ish inch monitor)
    22" computer w/ built in monitor
    13" laptop
    10" tablet
    9" tablet
    4" phone
    3.2" phone
    2x3.7" phone (I use all of them for development)
    2x3.5" pda-like devices

    Also, I'm broke and live alone.

    • by mjwx (966435)
      1 x 22" LCD (primary monitor)
      1 x 14.1" laptop (current lappy)
      1 x 15.6" laptop (former lappy)
      1 x 40" TV (technically, it's attached to my media centre PC)
      1 x 3.2" phone.
      2 x 3.7" phones.

      I'm not broke but I live in a sharehouse.

      I also find it's ironic that there are only 280 vertical lines difference between my 3.7" phone and 40" TV.
  • by John Hasler (414242) on Tuesday March 29, 2011 @09:56PM (#35661762) Homepage

    I do my editing with Scotch tape and a hole punch.

    • by tomhudson (43916)

      I do my editing with Scotch tape and a hole punch.

      I do my editing with Scotch tape and a hole punch.

      Then you're doing it wrong. A hole punch will ruin your screen. Use liquid paper / whiteout on your display instead.

  • 4 x 24". [] Sometimes I go three across, and have Top Chef on the upper one or whatever... Working on two is still ok, but when I have to use just one screen, I find it difficult now. I don't understand you guys who just use a laptop for everything. :)
    • by SheeEttin (899897)
      4 24" monitors, a wireless several-button mouse, some other kind of input device... and an Model M keyboard. Nice. :D
    • You have a total area of about 980 sq inches.
      23.6 high, 41.5 wide

      23.6 squared = 556.96
      41.5 squared = 1722
      A sqr + B sqr = 2279.21
      the sqr of 2279 is 47.7

      Cars guys over compensate with fast cars, computer guys overcompensate with large monitors.

      • Math is hard. Here's a picture to help you out (I scaled it down, since you're obviously working on a Newton or something): []

        24 * 4 = 96.

        Cars guys over compensate with fast cars, computer guys overcompensate with large monitors.

        It's what I stare at 18 hours a day. Why would I want to torture myself? If I'm a travelling salesman, you think I'm going to drive around in a Yugo?
  • by grahamkg (5290) on Wednesday March 30, 2011 @12:10AM (#35662780)

    24" iMac x 8 virtual desktops = 192" diagonal. Ftw. :D

  • by Barryke (772876) on Wednesday March 30, 2011 @02:57AM (#35663652) Homepage

    Does a 500" display count as a non-TV? We build jumbotrons..

  • The total 'size' or more accurately area of multiple screens is not just the simple total of the linear diagonal dimensions.

    eg. If two 15" screens are totalled in area, the result is closer to the area of a 24" monitor than it is to the size of a 30" monitor.

  • What are these " of which you speak?
  • by necro81 (917438) on Wednesday March 30, 2011 @08:09AM (#35665066) Journal
    It's tricky to add screens together based on their diagonal measurements. Put two 19" screens together and you don't end up with the equivalent of a 38" screen. Indeed, you would need four screens of any one size to equal the size of a screen that's twice as "large" based on the diagonal measurement.

    The other tricky thing that comes into play is aspect ratio. Two screens with the same diagonal measurement, but different aspect ratios, will have different areas. So if I add an old 20" 4:3 CRT to a new 24" 16:9 LCD I get ... what, exactly?
    • by alta (1263) on Wednesday March 30, 2011 @08:49AM (#35665404) Homepage Journal

      I think the rest of us saw this as just a reason to compare penis's. Not trying to figure out mathmatically how much screen area we have. In general a larger diag means more space. But yes, technically someone with 20 1"x2" screens (40") has less than someone with a single 20"x24 (480")

      • by skine (1524819)
        But HOW are we comparing penises? Length? Girth? Distance from tip to furthest drop of urine?
    • by cbope (130292)

      I think you are being a bit pedantic. It's not tricky. The survey explicitly said total diagonal measurement, period. Nothing about display area, aspect ratios, etc. This is NOT a scientific survey as with most other /. surveys... ;)

      • by geekoid (135745)

        My in-use, non-TV displays add up to (diag.):

        Yes, it can be interpetted either way. your total area and 16x9. the A2+B2 = C2

  • by alta (1263)

    Just looking at my computer, I'm at 108 (22W,22W,26W,20)

    If in use means, currently, then that's my number. If it means daily... Add the 52W"LCD in the living room, the 22W"LCD in the bedroom and the 17W"LCD on the laptop.
    Oh and the, eh, maybe 4"LCD on the iphone?

    That would bring us to 203" I'd give it to you in pixels, but I've done enough math for now.

  • Size isn't everything, and resolution counts, too. In a world where we regularly have cameras on sale with 5, 10, 20 megapixel sensors, it seems daft to be limited to screens with a capacity of 2 Mpix - 1920 x 1080. Something's out of balance here. Either we're happy to look at our photos on a 2Mpix or less screen, in which case it's pointless having many more than that in cameras - or the camera advertisements are right and we need better resolution to adequately appreciate our images. Even when you allow
    • by dingen (958134)

      Either we're happy to look at our photos on a 2Mpix or less screen, in which case it's pointless having many more than that in camera

      Or we're happy to look at our photo on a 2MP or less screen, but when we print said photo to paper, we don't like to look at pixels.

  • I wasn't sure whether to I should include my work PC since I don't own it, but it's an in-use, non-TV display so I did.

    24" [gaming PC] + 15" [laptop] + 3.5" [PDA] + (17"*2) [work PC] = 76.5"

  • At work I have four systems using Synergy to manage 5 monitors. MacBook Pro, two Ubuntu desktops, and a Windows XP laptop.

    At home I have my Ubunut gateway with a 17" monitor, my work laptop (when working from home) with an attached 17" monitor, my personal Powerbook G4 essentially playing music and hosting game wikis, and my Windows 7 with four 23" monitors in a |=| setup.


  • That depends upon the definition of "is" ... er .... I mean what is a "display"...

    Do I count the car radio display? on my calculator? on my volt meter? The display on my microwave? on my watch? on my scale? on my thermostat? on my clock radio? on my Audio Recorder? on my digital piano? On my stereo? I am sure I am missing a few, but even without resorting to my smart phones, dumb phones, pads, laptops, computers, and servers, I am over 100" ... Add them all up and I am pushing 300"

  • Do you want the number of each monitor device just summed up? or do you want the diagonal of there summed up areas laid out in a 16:9 rectangle?

  • My desk at work, from left to right:

    - 15" (1400x1050) (Dell Latitude D630, Fedora)
    - 19" (1280x1024) (Dell Optiplex 755, Ubuntu)
    - 2x17" (1280x1024) (Dell Precision T3400, Fedora)
    - 20" (1440x900) (iMac, OSX)
    - 15" (1400x1050) (Dell Latitude D630, Windows 7)

    Everything is tied together with synergy.

  • My "TV" is used perhaps 50 percent of the time as a computer display, either to show Netflix rentals, as a display for my MP3 collection, etc. Even when I use it as a TV, I'm running a DVR, which is essentially a heavily modified Linux box.

    Also, my Prius has a display used for showing fuel efficiency as well as the rear-view camera picture. Does that count?
  • Ours have just 5" displays.
    But my crew is 300+ people.

    J.T. Kirk.
  • Computer 1: 1080p 32" LCD TV used as monitor.
    Computer 2: 720p 37" LCD TV used as monitor.
    Main room: 720p 55" plasma TV hooked up to an Apple TV.

    That's pretty much it (not including smartphone, etc.). Are those TVs or monitors? Based upon use, or inclusion of a tuner which is never used?

  • So many hard decisions. I have a 42" HDTV, but I almost exclusively use it as a 1080P monitor. Like others, I use it with my computer and Netflix, Hulu, youtube, etc when using it as a "tv".
  • 'Battlestation' 1
    Samsung SyncMaster 2493HM 24" LCD, Machine1-Primary
    Samsung SyncMaster 940BX 19" LCD, Machine1-Secondary
    Wacom Cintiq 21UX 21.3" LCD Tablet. Machine1-Tertiary
    Samsung SyncMaster 940BX 19" LCD, Machine2-Primary
    Samsung SyncMaster 940BX 19" LCD, Machine2-Secondary

    'Battlestation' 2
    HannsG HH-241HPB 23.6" LCD, Machine1-Primary
    Samsung SyncMaster 940BX 19" LCD, Machine1-Secondary

    Puts me just short of 145 inches. A shame my projector is DLP and not LCD, or that figure would double.

    So yeah, I live in t

  • This poll is simply silly! Just glancing at the topic, I came up with two obvious problems, but skimming the comments, I realized that there's actually five!

    1. Display sizes (diagonal) aren't additive. One 30" display has twice the area of two 15" displays, so treating them as the same is stupid.
    2. "Non-TV" is ambiguous. I can display OTA broadcast on my computer's monitor, and browse slashdot on my media center display.

    And after reading the comments, I added the following three:

    3. "My" is ambiguous. D

    • Just a slight correction, but on #1, you probably meant the 30" has four times the area of two 15" displays.

      I really wish the poll poster just went with megapixels or pixels.

  • "I'm still on a teletype, you insensitive clod!"

Harrison's Postulate: For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.


Forgot your password?