4 ms·

Honestly I think more, smaller, monitors are better than fewer big ones. Given my choice I'd happily take 3 22" monitors or even 2 21" monitors + 1 19" monitor

by wanderr 17y ago

Honestly I think more, smaller, monitors are better than fewer big ones. Given my choice I'd happily take 3 22" monitors or even 2 21" monitors + 1 19" monitor if push came to shove. I can usually see all the code I need in one 21" monitor just fine, but usually need another one for reference of some kind: docs or watching debug output, etc. The 3rd would be for collaboration: chat windows & email. If you can isolate distractions to their own monitor, they're easier to ignore while busy and require less window management and never cover up your real work. Also in general it's more helpful to talk about monitors in terms of resolution rather than size; it's entirely possible to end up with a 27" monitor that is the same resolution as a 24" monitor, which means it doesn't actually have any more usable space, everything is just bigger, and that isn't very useful unless your devs are visually impaired.

toto 17y ago
About resolution: 24" - 1920 x 1200, 27" - 2560 x 1440 For me the most important number is the height resolution as I can display more lines. Having more screens is also a source of distraction. I prefer to focus on a single task and switch to an other if I need to.
Magneus 17y ago
I would argue that these problems are less relevant with a good window manager. Mac OS and Linux's GNOME and KDE both natively provide support for virtual desktops, which help reduce clutter and distraction. Moreover, if you want to truly maximize a large monitor, Linux has tiling window managers which are a boon to productivity. Tiling window managers free you from shuffling windows around with the mouse, instead dynamically resizing windows to fill all available on-screen space using a "tiling" algorithm. I find that they work fantastically on widescreen monitors. See XMonad, AwesomeWM, etc. On Windows, if you want virtual desktops, there are hacks such as VirtuaWin available: http://virtuawin.sourceforge.net/ http://virtuawin.sourceforge.net/ . And don't forget about the Windows "tile windows" buttons, which are crucial for efficiently utilizing a large-format monitor: http://lifehacker.com/287588/tile-windows-with-the-control-key http://lifehacker.com/287588/tile-windows-with-the-control-k...
- wanderr 17y ago
  To some extent that's true, but even with those solutions I think it's most convenient to manage your windows across multiple monitors. Perhaps I'm biased because I've never much cared for virtual desktops. I just tend to get confused/distracted trying to remember where I put everything, and then the annoyance of needing to see two things that are on different desktops simultaneously...I want to spend less time managing my windows, not more!

by wanderr 17y ago

toto 17y ago

About resolution: 24" - 1920 x 1200, 27" - 2560 x 1440 For me the most important number is the height resolution as I can display more lines. Having more screens is also a source of distraction. I prefer to focus on a single task and switch to an other if I need to.

Magneus 17y ago

I would argue that these problems are less relevant with a good window manager. Mac OS and Linux's GNOME and KDE both natively provide support for virtual desktops, which help reduce clutter and distraction. Moreover, if you want to truly maximize a large monitor, Linux has tiling window managers which are a boon to productivity. Tiling window managers free you from shuffling windows around with the mouse, instead dynamically resizing windows to fill all available on-screen space using a "tiling" algorithm. I find that they work fantastically on widescreen monitors. See XMonad, AwesomeWM, etc. On Windows, if you want virtual desktops, there are hacks such as VirtuaWin available: http://virtuawin.sourceforge.net/ http://virtuawin.sourceforge.net/ . And don't forget about the Windows "tile windows" buttons, which are crucial for efficiently utilizing a large-format monitor: http://lifehacker.com/287588/tile-windows-with-the-control-key http://lifehacker.com/287588/tile-windows-with-the-control-k...

wanderr 17y ago
To some extent that's true, but even with those solutions I think it's most convenient to manage your windows across multiple monitors. Perhaps I'm biased because I've never much cared for virtual desktops. I just tend to get confused/distracted trying to remember where I put everything, and then the annoyance of needing to see two things that are on different desktops simultaneously...I want to spend less time managing my windows, not more!