5 ms·

I'm always curious why people think having multiple displays is so super awesome. 1) It ruins your neck. The ergo people at Yahoo really dislike giving people

by sh1mmer 17y ago

I'm always curious why people think having multiple displays is so super awesome. 1) It ruins your neck. The ergo people at Yahoo really dislike giving people dual monitors let alone 6. 2) You can only look at so many of these screens at once, probably too at the distance he is sitting. Why not just use virtual desktops at that point because it doesn't cause neck trauma.

brianobush 17y ago
the only application I can see is wall street traders, even they don't need more then 2-4.
- jasonmorton 17y ago
  and 640K ought to be enough for anybody. Seriously, if you want to move things like working on a big chalkboard or with papers spread out on a big desk to the computerized version, it makes sense to have space to work.
- slioslat 17y ago
  you're clearly not a trader. give a trader a screen and they'll fill it.
  - brianobush 17y ago
    No, I am not, but I know a few. Depends on the markets you trade and the analysis you do though.
listic 17y ago
Could you please elaborate on ergonomics? Exactly what is causing the neck problems? Personally I am using much less monitors, but I am very interested in ergonomics of it.
- sh1mmer 17y ago
  Moving your neck around constantly. I've had recommended by multiple ergonomics specialist and a chiropractor to only use as much display as I can see without having to move my head to see it. It's not that moving your neck is bad, it's that constantly moving it around all day causes unnatural stress. Much like you can give yourself RSI from bad posture when using an input device.
Silhouette 17y ago
I'd rather have one large display than two medium-large ones, so I can keep what I'm mostly working on centred for ergonomic reasons. But having a two medium-large displays is definitely better than one, IMHO: modern software puts so much clutter on the screen that the useful working area is often just a small fraction of what it used to be when everything was designed for full-screen working. I consider the second display to be the equivalent of having a 3GHz chip and 4GB of RAM now so my poorly programmed word processor can let me type the same letter I could write with a 133MHz chip and 256MB of RAM a few years ago. :-) By the same token, I totally understand people who want a big central screen and secondary screens either side for supporting tools/reference information. As long as the set-up doesn't have a break in the middle so I can spend most of my time looking straight ahead rather than keeping my neck permanently kinked to one side or other, I'd find such a set-up very useful.
mquander 17y ago
For one, Windows 7 virtual desktop support is godawful. There are third-party tools to make it possible, but they are rife with graphical glitches and inconsistent handling of your desktops in weird edge ways.
jodrellblank 17y ago
"1) It ruins your neck." In what way, by what mechanism, over what timescale and possibly, demonstrated significant in which study? I've been using multiple monitors on my home computer since 2001 and at work since 2005 and I attribute my neck crunchiness to general physical atrophy due to aging and desk driving. Usually people advocate movement, saying people weren't built to stay still for long periods, multiple monitors require head turning but not as much as walking requires leg join movements (and neck movements for that matter). "because it doesn't cause neck trauma." 'Trauma' is a scarily strong way to describe "turning your head".

by sh1mmer 17y ago

brianobush 17y ago

the only application I can see is wall street traders, even they don't need more then 2-4.

jasonmorton 17y ago
and 640K ought to be enough for anybody. Seriously, if you want to move things like working on a big chalkboard or with papers spread out on a big desk to the computerized version, it makes sense to have space to work.
slioslat 17y ago
you're clearly not a trader. give a trader a screen and they'll fill it.
- brianobush 17y ago
  No, I am not, but I know a few. Depends on the markets you trade and the analysis you do though.

listic 17y ago

Could you please elaborate on ergonomics? Exactly what is causing the neck problems? Personally I am using much less monitors, but I am very interested in ergonomics of it.

sh1mmer 17y ago
Moving your neck around constantly. I've had recommended by multiple ergonomics specialist and a chiropractor to only use as much display as I can see without having to move my head to see it. It's not that moving your neck is bad, it's that constantly moving it around all day causes unnatural stress. Much like you can give yourself RSI from bad posture when using an input device.

Silhouette 17y ago

I'd rather have one large display than two medium-large ones, so I can keep what I'm mostly working on centred for ergonomic reasons. But having a two medium-large displays is definitely better than one, IMHO: modern software puts so much clutter on the screen that the useful working area is often just a small fraction of what it used to be when everything was designed for full-screen working. I consider the second display to be the equivalent of having a 3GHz chip and 4GB of RAM now so my poorly programmed word processor can let me type the same letter I could write with a 133MHz chip and 256MB of RAM a few years ago. :-) By the same token, I totally understand people who want a big central screen and secondary screens either side for supporting tools/reference information. As long as the set-up doesn't have a break in the middle so I can spend most of my time looking straight ahead rather than keeping my neck permanently kinked to one side or other, I'd find such a set-up very useful.

mquander 17y ago

For one, Windows 7 virtual desktop support is godawful. There are third-party tools to make it possible, but they are rife with graphical glitches and inconsistent handling of your desktops in weird edge ways.

jodrellblank 17y ago

"1) It ruins your neck." In what way, by what mechanism, over what timescale and possibly, demonstrated significant in which study? I've been using multiple monitors on my home computer since 2001 and at work since 2005 and I attribute my neck crunchiness to general physical atrophy due to aging and desk driving. Usually people advocate movement, saying people weren't built to stay still for long periods, multiple monitors require head turning but not as much as walking requires leg join movements (and neck movements for that matter). "because it doesn't cause neck trauma." 'Trauma' is a scarily strong way to describe "turning your head".