A sobering reminder of where some businesses are at in 2018... 1280x1024

[Vexr]

I've recently been drafted over to a site for some short-term problem solving cover. The PC monitor I was greeted with was a 4:3 1280x1024.

I have some quite demanding work to sort through involving large Excel spreadsheets amongst at least a dozen other windows open at any one time.

I've been working from home for most of the past couple of years on my 3440x1440 Dell U3415W, and adjusting to this is pretty horrendous.

I contacted IT stating that my productivity was impaired on such a low resolution, and requesting either a second monitor or at least an upgrade to a monitor that could do HD (1920x1080) or so. I was denied, unless I could approve a budget for an 'upgrade'. Prices started at around £100 for another 1280x1024 dross monitor, all the way up to £250 for a 'premium' 21" 1920x1080 60 hz display worthy of 2006.

Obviously the organisation is being fleeced by its IT suppliers, but it's a sobering reminder to be thankful of what I've got at home. A few years ago I sold 2x 1920x1080 21" monitors and 1x 1920x1200 24" monitor, netting about £120 for all three displays.

I'm certainly feeling thankful to come home to my 3440x1440 60 hz display now.

 

[Vexr]

That is really quite shameful. Makes Nvidia look like a charity! Wonder if managers realise how much they're being taken for a ride?! That's got to impact their bottom line at the end of the day... while the IT suppliers are laughing all the way to than bank!

I 100% agree, and I seriously doubt anyone at a reasonable decision making level realises the lack of value they're getting and the impact something as mundane as monitors is making on employees trying to do their job. I reckon even 99% of employees don't even know it and it wouldn't occur to them to realise their productivity would be massively increased with more display resolution.

Afterall, they rushed out to buy phones that do full HD on a 5" display, and their HP laptop at home does HD, as does the kids PS4, but it never occurs to them to connect the dots and realise how utterly gimped their works PC and display is, and more difficult their job therefore is.

As for decision making management, far easier and more pleasing to all stakeholders to sack staff for cost cutting sakes. Any IT equipment costs that those of us on OcUK would tear to shreds is completely out of their field of vision and deemed sacrosanct and immutable.

 

[Vexr]

On revisiting this thread - @WJA96 - Have you considered running for political office? Sounds like you could talk up a case justifying £100 for a simple screwdriver or power cable.

I stand by my statement that companies are getting fleeced for monitors, as per my original example and many others saying the same on this thread. They require next to no maintenance, support, or replacement. The lack of realisation that screen real estate impacts on productivity is offensive to conventional wisdom. Tasking employees to provide evidence that screen real estate improves their productivity is similarly ludicrous. The phrase "some truths are self evident" comes to mind.

If computers didn't come with a desktop mouse, your logic would seem to suggest employees prove having a desktop mouse improves productivity. Afterall, you can control a PC via the keyboard, so should a company invest their precious pennies on equipping each PC outright with a mouse?

Does an employee really want a mouse? No paid overtime then.

Who wins from that arrangement I wonder? It would probably be the same people who push 16" 1280x1024 monitors for a £100+ right now I imagine, and everyone else loses.

 

[Vexr]

I'm sure it's terrifically hard work and very expensive to provide what a normal person could arrange themselves to be delivered to their home for about an 8th of the price of what an in-house IT department quotes for a monitor.

And yet, you couldn't justify your case to the company so they shelled out for a better screen? Apparently it's not so self-evident to the people paying your bills.

I was only on site for about six weeks so didn't press the issue. I'm now happily back working from home and some other poor sod is enjoying their permanent 1280x1024 screen and diminished productivity, but no doubt they'll be reassured the piece of crap adorning their desk has 100% IT support behind it in case of the 1 in a million chance it fails.

 

[Vexr]

You can be as dismissive as you like but ultimately someone has to do everything and that's what keeps IT personnel employed all day.

Again, you make my point for me. If the 6 weeks could have been reduced to 5 weeks (20% improvement in productivity) then the management would have signed it off immediately. But it wouldn't have been, because the productivity improvements are actually very, very, marginal. And the fact that you've yet to put up anything like a proper metric improvement would suggest you can't stand, lie or sit behind your original assertion.

You seem to be saying that 4K monitors, 3440x1440 ultrawide monitors, multiple 1080p monitors etc, are the same productivity-wise as a 1280x1024 display, and the burden of proof is on the end-user/employee to demonstrate otherwise. If I'm on site for six weeks only, then the tackling of bureaucracy / 'metrics' I need to provide to demonstrate the difference between monitors is a task well outside my job description, especially with the nature of my work on site where I'm supposed to make an impact immediately, not faffing around with IT.

I mentioned in my original post how many windows I had open, and the sheer mental workload transferring/comparing data on multiples of these at 1280x1024 isn't just a productivity issue, it's a potential accuracy issue as I had to constantly commit information to short term memory and swap between windows, instead of comparing like for like on screen side by side. Some applications, unless they were at 100% maximized, turned into a blurred unreadable mess, so definitely no side-by-side comparisons on any scale at that resolution. If my employer wants to pay me to write a thesis on workstation ergonomics in the context of monitors, I'd have plenty to go on, but I'm employed to do other things.

I can understand tiny monitors with tiny resolutions for bespoke software designed for them, say like in a call centre, where you maybe have one UI designed for 1280x1024 and its been calibrated around that to allow you to navigate between what you need/see what you need to see. For more general purpose office-based work, tiny resolutions are a serious hindrance.

 

[Vexr]

You can be as dismissive as you like but ultimately someone has to do everything and that's what keeps IT personnel employed all day.

TBH I suspect what keeps IT personnel employed all day is answering daft calls from irate employees who claim outlook has failed completely as they can't see a email a colleague has confirmed they sent them recently, and all it actually is is they've got their emails sorted by a tab other than descending by date.

I've watched aghast as otherwise reasonable colleagues who, after my amateur non-official IT input, have decided "Yeah but I'm phoning IT anyway because that's just not RIGHT!" and then gone on to unload bile on some poor IT support guy with a cryptic but charged description of their mundane problem. I can see why IT tech support isn't too popular an occupation, and that much I can sympathise with.