Hacker News Reader

Comment by curiousgal | Hacker News Reader

> this kind of thing will be the next step in computing

If by computing you mean video/game consumption then yeah sure, but for pretty much every other application (programming, editing, reading, etc) this is a poor medium.

View on HN

I can't disagree more. I actually think the opposite.

Games and stuff are nice, but everyone I've known that uses a vive or oculus gets tired of needing to move around in VR pretty fast.

But being able to get rid of the 3-4 screens on my desk, and replace them with a headset that I wear? That I can put windows everywhere? Behind me, far left, even throw one up above me to glance at? That's HUGE imo. And the cost can quickly make sense.

I'm in the market for a new set of screens for my machine. I want to go to 4k. I'm looking at realistically $1500 for new screens. If something like Magic Leap or hololens was only 2x more than that and could get even "1080p equivalent" resolution compared to my screens, i'd happily drop the extra cash right now.

Yes, it's still not at that point as far as I can tell, but I don't think needing to increase resolution a bit is going to be the thing that ends up making VR/AR "impossible".

So basically, you want multiple desktops a la Win 10 Virtual Desktops or KDE activities, but instead of pressing a key combo to switch between desktops, you want to rotate your head? And then in order to stay in the virtual desktop you've selected, you want to have to keep your head pointed at a particular angle?

Are you sure about this?

yeah i'm sure. How is it any different than working with papers on a physical desk? Or working with a large corkboard or whiteboard where you place many items while working on something big?

Because that's the idea i'm envisioning. Being able to put papers or applications on a virtual whiteboard that completely encircles you. Move them to where you want, make them "fullscreen" (full-view?), maybe even be able to move them forward and backwards in focus and "position". Hell, with some extra work, we could even put them on surfaces around the room. Throw a monitoring program on the wall next to my window, "project" keybindings on top of my keyboard's keys when i'm pressing parts of a combo, etc...

Hell, even if you hate the idea of an "augmented reality desktop", you could just project "fake" screens and use them the same as you normally do.

I mean it's not like our current tools just go away and I'd start craning my neck to look up and to the left as far as possible for 9 hours a day... You could still have tools like "multiple desktops", and change/move them. But now I have the option of putting my task manager above me at like a 60 degree angle straight ahead and can glance up at it when needed.

Why wouldn't you be able to switch between "desktops" with a key press any more? Have some imagination.

You say that as if there are not millions of developers using multi-monitor setups already.

What if all the screens you were using were off in your peripheral vision, but you could swipe them in front of you when needed. It would make it much easier to keep track of things.

That's how (some) realy people already work. I'm staring at 3 screens right now, arranged next to each other.

Are you seriously using only one screen for work??? I have 8 screens at work, I would love to be able to ditch all the screens and wear an headset to achieve something even better.

...Why do you use 8 screens?

(And before you ask: Yes, I use one laptop screen for all my work.)

I use one screen, and it's too large. I don't understand why anyone would want two screens, let alone eight. I find having anything onscreen but my code and offline documentation (i.e., not in a web browser) incredibly distracting.

What in the world do you put on those other seven screens?

My IDE has enough going on to dedicate an entire HD screen to it. Then I need more room for documentation, and showing the app for debugging. Even if I'm blocking out the rest of the world that's at least two screens full.

> offline documentation (i.e., not in a web browser)

This deeply confuses me. Why does it matter if the documentation is in a browser or not?

I am four keystrokes away from Hacker News if I have a web browser on my screen.

I wrote a simple script for a cronjob that nukes HN and a bunch of other sites via my hosts file during work hours, and removes them from the hosts file outside of work hours. Highly recommended.

So 4 instead of 6? Either way is seconds.

Temptations in visual view are distracting. Out of sight, out of mind.

"in visual view" being the url bar?

Tab bar, moreso. Not to mention distracting ads, and the need to use Google to search many sites.

man and info come distraction-free out of the box.

I am one touch away from hacker news on my home button on the phone.. What I’m missing???

My phone is in my pocket, not underneath my fingertips. Muscle memory is a powerful thing.

I wanted 2, but I went for a 32 inch 4k LG. Beast for productivity. In fact I still use the laptop screen for terminals.

Email, log files, pull requests, two instances of visual studio for different projects and one or two of IntelliJ idea for other projects. Obviously I switch the other c# and java projects in the background unless it is needed to debug them all together. Have you ever worked with at least one team using two different languages while looking at the production logs at the same time? Imagine it multiplied by two and you have your answer.

I think we have the same amount and kinds of "stuff" open, but where we differ is I place things on virtual desktops (organized by a tiling window manager), of which I have between 4 and 8 at any given time. (Typically: web, coding, VMs, one or more bug logs, one or more back-burner projects.)

I can't think of a situation where I'd need to focus on all the things you list simultaneously – even just having e-mail on the screen while I'm trying to code is distracting – so I'd rather have them hidden. Sure, I'll have a couple code windows and documentation or logs open, but that fits with room to spare on a single monitor.

No, I use 2 screens.

What do you use 8 screens for out of interest?

I’ll answer you after all the noisy comment that I thought would never start after my previous comment hours ago. I don’t need 8 screens, I would be very happy with no screen at all and a magic leap or hololens or whatever can give me the same experience or better. I need to be able to see at least 3-4 screens of code, preferably 165 chars long. I would like at the same time to look at production logs in other screens. Since I’m not living in a vacuum let’s say that I would dedicate one screen to the emails and one to the chat. So we are at 6 screens, right? Imagine to be able to speak with your colleague that obviously is working from home while having all these under your eyes. I honestly can’t wait for something like this. Probably it won’t be magic leap or hololens. But show me something like that and I’ll buy it before it’s even on the market.

8 Screens? Does that include dev phones or something?

The only people I know using 4+ screens are monitoring Satellites or industrial processing equipment.

I sit on a trading floor where 8 screen is pretty much the norm... I actually use only 6 most of the time.

I use 28 screens where I work. Just sayin'.

How about programming with 0 screens: http://primitive.io/

Why desktops?

With this, you could just float individual windows around you. Quick splitting and navigating between splits in Vim is already one of the features of this editor I use the most - and if I could do that in 3d, leaving small splits all around me and moving them around, it would be an immense boost in productivity.

> If something like Magic Leap or hololens was only 2x more than that and could get even "1080p equivalent" resolution compared to my screens, i'd happily drop the extra cash right now.

Of course you would, that's like saying "if something like a Tesla could operate completely autonomously in all weather and road conditions I'd happily drop the extra cash right now!". Unfortunately, this is a "hard" problem and while I'm not saying it won't happen, we are nowhere near anything that can render 1080p VR monitors... 4k VR monitors are unlikely to be possible (in a consumer product) within the next 20 years, and you can definitely be sure that anything like that will not be wireless.

Why? Seems like a perfect medium for programming, once done well. Think where this will be in 15 years. Imagine being able to have as many "screens" of whatever size that you want. Hell, what would it even mean to have a "screen" anymore? You can just have your application windows floating in space.

Why is any of that a good thing, though? I could already have a lot more screens than I currently do, but the two I have is just fine. What advantage do windows floating in space offer me over a physical monitor (that will make it worth strapping a headset on every time I sit down at my desk)?

Less space required. Not limited by the size of your workspace. Trivially move your workspace. Get more "screenspace" at the click of a button instead of having to spend $$$. Power efficiency.

Think about where this will be in 10-20 years, not where it is now. It will be like putting a pair of glasses on, not a huge headset. Once your workspace can exist in 3 dimensions, new paradigms will emerge for arranging a "desktop" that we can't even envisage right now.

Think how much space you could save in an open plan office! Twice as many seats at each desk. A CFO's dream.

You can get a good idea of this with virtual desktop software running on Vive. After trying it myself, I was reminded that I actually love retina displays and feel like an even higher resolution would be nice. Also FOV is major. Until I can get massive FOV and retina+ resolution, I will always choose a regular desktop display.

"16K" is what's needed to get a literally retina display in VR apparently. We're a ways off (though making progress).

With AR UI won’t need to be constrained to windows either. It can be much more integrated into our environment and tools. Virtual ‘screens’ are a natural but kinda dull progression to that point. Although I think we’re a lot further off from realising comfortable, everyday virtual screens in AR than fifteen years. One of the interesting facets of VR is that we can already start playing with these new ideas.

> but for pretty much every other application

Huh? I'd love to get rid of the chunky, heavy, power-hungry screen. Read lying in bed? Check! Program on an escalator? Check! Watch a big-screen movie while eating in McDonalds? Check!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com