"Get a bigger desk :).
I hate it when I have to use less than 2 monitors.
Virtual desktops are a replacement for monitors in precisely the same manner than alt-tab is a replacement for virtual desktops.
Ens on March 17, 2008 10:30 PM " — WELL SAID!!
A couple of people have commented that Virtual desktops are not the same thing as multiple monitors, but no one has explained why that may be so.
I have always been using 4 virtual desktops (Linux) and it has all the advantages of multiple monitors like not having to resize windows, having 4 full screen apps open all the time, etc, without the disadvantage of having to move the mouse to another screen or turn your head to the next monitor. With workspace switching mapped to a hotkey, the next workspace is just a keypress away. The only ‘advantage’ that multiple monitors would have is that you have them visible at the same time - i dont really see that as an advantage.
Can’t believe nobody has mentioned ion here:
From wikipedia (Polychronicity): “Polychronicity is in contrast to those who prefer monochronicity (doing one thing at a time)”.
Some cultures are monochronic, others are polychronic (?)
In our office everybody has one monitor and we still tell stories
about that spanish guy who insisted on used three
(1=terminals, 2=outlook, 3=word).
I’m using 4 virtual desktops:
1st: firefox fullscreen (tabbed only)
2nd: max 4 xterms on desktop, all visible
3rd: thunderbird fullscreen
4th: “don’t close by accident” apps (most likely xterm again).
When I have to read and write the same time I start to mess
up positioning windows on one desktop.
There are some tools to help autoarranging windows or resizing
to standard sizes, but what I use heavily is the "Stay in front"
feature. That way you can make good use of empty spaces in the
big window!
But I would welcome a 2nd or 3rd monitor to use them
for some status data (- nagios). Like those guys in
big plants do, where they have this whole wall full of
gauges and blinking lights and everything.
At home I’m used not only to multiple monitors, but also to
multiple PCs.
I’ve grown up with a setup of two monitors, one for the C-64 and
one running TV and I’m still doing that “multi-tasking” setup
at home - most likely because the apps I’m running are
not working on the same OS or because video games on PCs still
still block the PC from being used for something else.
More than one is too confusing and not a good concept. Same goes for virtual desktops.
This is why we have tabbed IDEs and browsers.
Multiple monitors are simply a geek affectation, nothing more nothing less and anyone who truly believes their brain is wired completely differently than all their ancestors and is capable of concentrating fully on more than one thing at the same time is welcome to their self delusion. If you can get your boss to pay for such a thing, fill your boots, but in reality the most efficient and effective way to get things done is to keep your work windows always maximized and use alt-tab if you must but make sure nothing NO THING can intrude upon you while working.
Programmers should get this fact of intense concentration being a fundamental requirement for being an effective programmer, apparently though they prefer to fulfill their geek lust over any and all logic.
I must say that for me, personally, at times multiple monitors are a lifesaver. But only for certain situations. When I am programming, I am happy enough using just my laptop, mostly because I enjoy sitting in a comfortable recliner while programming for hours on end. On the flip side of things, I run my own recording studio and there is nothing better than having the dual monitor setup. Using a nVidia card, there is the horizontal span option that allows the two monitors to be seem as one large display to all windows apps. The program has no idea that there is more than one monitor. Windows doesn’t even know, because it is done with the nVidia hardware and shows up as on display in the display panel. This is great while running my recording software, because it can span both screens seamlessly allowing for twice the space. Currently I am using dual 19 LCDs, with a total of 1280x2048 pixels of viewing area. I would love to upgrade that even further. I am looking into running four monitors (2x2), to give me a total of 2560x2048.
In conclusion, I can understand both sides of things, The people who think multiple monitors is pointless have a good point, because not everyone can benefit from it. But at the same time, for different situations, multiple monitors can be almost necessary for productivity sake.
@John, it’s not that focusing on more than one thing at a time is what multiple monitors are good for. It’s the fact that you have additional workspace so you can quickly access other avenues of info. If you have two applications you constantly have to switch back and forth between, having two monitors will increase your efficiency because it cuts down on that amount of time switching between programs. This is definitively true for call centers, for example, where reps will be going back and forth multiple times within one phone call. Think of an 8 hour shift where a call center employee might spend 2-4 seconds switching back and forth between applications to access a customers information and that this will happen an avg of 5 times per call at an avg of 80 calls per day. It’s simple mathematics to see how quickly that adds up (26.67 mins per shift for each rep - almost an entire lunch break at some jobs!). Say you employ 10 reps, multiple that loss by 10 and that’s how much time you lose everyday having your employees constantly switching between programs just to access customer data! We all know that time is money and in today’s corporate business environment it’s imperative that as a company you provide a customer with a quick and efficient solution to their call in, help get their answers, and get them on with life, or leave enough time to pitch new products the customer may not be aware of. I think multiple monitors are amazing and their applications will only continue to grow as more corps start to realize their true potential.
P.S. I am a day trader and I have a 6 monitor array that I purchased from http://www.multiplexpc.com about 5 months ago. I highly recommend anyone interested in multiple monitors or high quality multi monitor optimized computers to check out the site.
I say yes! Anyone who has multiple monitors knows that they have a huge advantage in productivity. Check out http://Multi-Monitors.com for SUPER PC multiple monitor computers. Or you could get an extra graphics card if you know what you are doing. Check out this awesome multiple monitor computer on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_avGStqZOI
Pretty cool, huh!
You can argue about preferences all day long, but independent scientific studies have shown that for someone who works in front of a computer, 2 monitors are better than 1.
http://www.humis.utah.edu/humis/docs/organization_951_1147817063.pdf
And the best part about this is that you don’t even need a desktop anymore to run multiple displays! Many products already on the market let you connect monitors to almost any Windows and Mac machine through a simple USB port. Why would you want to invest 100s and 1000s of dollars in a specialized PC when you can have the same office setup running off a laptop for a lot less? Check out http://www.displaylink.com/shop.html and see the options for yourself.
I have used virtual desktops for years and I have also used multi monitors for years and I kid you not both are wonderful things. You can accomplish more productivity with one solution compared to a single desktop, but each works well in certain situations.
The kind of work I do, multi-monitor makes most sense. in fact some folks in my office have upto 4 monitors and those are for very good reasons, these folks do lot of monitoring work for the production environment, which means runnnings different monitoring tools which paints pretty graphs on each screen. there’s no substitute to have all infomarmation in front of you at the same time if you need it.
Honestly, since I switched to multi-monitor setups, I’ve stopped using virtual desktops, its makes lot less sense. there are very convienient features like You can copy something on 1 screen and paste into the second and so on.
My programming desktop has 6 monitors. After ~4 years of using 4 monitors, the upgrade to 6 has been fantastic for what I do. I can develop on a single display, but why torture myself? The displays stretch about 100 across, which I think is about my limit for being able to use the displays. I have another desk with 3 displays for email, invoicing, documents, bug triage–it helps keep the 6 display system focused only on the coding issues and free of the other distractions.
I first started using 2 monitors full-time about 10 years ago.
Only people that have never used 2 monitors will try to convince you not to try it.
2 monitors = at least a 75% increase in productivity
+1 monitor to = +25% more…
eg: there is a ramp point and 2 is the financial/desktop realestate sweet spot for sure. I like 2 huge monitors and 1-2 smaller on the flanks.
Anyone who’s used AutoCAD swears by two monitors. There just isn’t enough room on one monitor for all the tool palettes and windows it requires.
I tend to find two monitors to be very productive. I am a college student and it is very convent to read off a website on one monitor and type in another. This also works great for entering excel or mini-tab data. I tried going to three monitors but found it decreased my productivity(not necessarily true for all users). Two monitors and the use of them is better then one big monitor in my opinion too. I can click drag and maximize into each monitor and after its setup its just a flick of the mouse to go to one or the other and change something. Let alone the chance that I want to watch netflix while doing homework. Just my opinion.
If you don’t like 2+ monitors, than you must hate all that wasted space on your dining room table when doing taxes. I’m sure you just keep all 10-50 documents in one neat stack and switch back and forth, viewing only one document at a time.
Certainly, there is no one solution that works for everyone, but your monitor real estate is called a “desktop” for a reason. Who wants a two foot square desk when they can have 4-6 sq feet?
I finally gave up this fight with my employer. I bought two 28 inch monitors ($300 each) to use at work. I feel crippled without two monitors and have two 20 inch monitors at home. For web development, database manipulation, debugging, graphic development, it’s nothing less than essential for me.
This, by the way, was after our computer purchaser said… I could have gotten you the bigger monitor, but this one was on sale for $89 and I got an extra $10 off by taking the demo unit.
I don’t think he really get’s it. Sure… he saved a dime, but he’s skimping everywhere… with a great loss in productivity.
Microsoft provides a tool that adds virtual desktop support to XP. Vista users will have to find third party programs to do it, but they are out there.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
If a developer needs more monitors, then he needs. But not all need them, or don’t need badly enough. I could think that if you need to monitor lots of stuff, then more monitors is good. But I like to do things in the center monitor anyway, so if I don’t need to keep an eye on other stuff, I can use one monitor only.
