3 ms·

I've used WMs. It's not the same. Moving the mouse cursor is pain-free and fast. And the ability to compare the layout in different browsers visually is a big p

by chime 17y ago

I've used WMs. It's not the same. Moving the mouse cursor is pain-free and fast. And the ability to compare the layout in different browsers visually is a big plus. I save the html/css, hit refresh and see the web-page in 4 different browsers. Now I can instantly see if any of them have weird CSS issues.

jrockway 17y ago
But you don't need multiple monitors for that. Just switch to the desktop that has the 4 web browsers on it. A 30" monitor is bigger than 4 1024x768 monitors, remember. (Why don't I like multiple monitors? They take up too much space, and it's very hard to get one monitor adjusted to be comfortable... much less 5 of them. And, pressing a key to switch to a new display is not much slower than glancing in another direction, unless you aren't planning on interacting with what you are looking at.)
- barrkel 17y ago
  There's no comparison between multiple desktops and multiple monitors, IMO. A 30" monitor is smaller than 2x 24" monitors (close to what I use, 24" and 22").
  - jrockway 17y ago
    I have two 24" monitors at work and one at home. At work, I use XP. At home I use Linux/Xmonad. Xmonad on one monitor is vastly preferable to Windows on two monitors. Even a 9" monitor is good enough with Xmonad. Maybe you need two monitors if you are not an Xmonad/keyboard power user... but otherwise, two monitors just gets you extra neck strain.
    - barrkel 17y ago
      I already have a system for arranging windows, but it's not based on tiling. My secondary monitor is for cascaded windows, such that the bottom-left corner of every window is aligned along a diagonal line. This makes window switching a spatial experience. As to keyboard power user, I generally exclusively use the keyboard when I'm using an IDE, terminal, email, Google reader, etc., but use mouse for documentation, web browsing, etc. Two monitors comes into its own when you need to see more information on the screen at once. In my IDE as it is, when e.g. debugging, I have loads of tiled information displays, between the source, disassembly, CPU and FPU registers, CPU stack, memory, symbolic call stack, watches, locals, loaded modules, breakpoint list, thread list, log, project layout, etc. Fitting all that into 9" would be unreasonable; add in the actual running program in a terminal window, and scanning logs of previous runs in less, and it's hard to get by without two screens.

by chime 17y ago

jrockway 17y ago

But you don't need multiple monitors for that. Just switch to the desktop that has the 4 web browsers on it. A 30" monitor is bigger than 4 1024x768 monitors, remember. (Why don't I like multiple monitors? They take up too much space, and it's very hard to get one monitor adjusted to be comfortable... much less 5 of them. And, pressing a key to switch to a new display is not much slower than glancing in another direction, unless you aren't planning on interacting with what you are looking at.)

barrkel 17y ago
There's no comparison between multiple desktops and multiple monitors, IMO. A 30" monitor is smaller than 2x 24" monitors (close to what I use, 24" and 22").
- jrockway 17y ago
  I have two 24" monitors at work and one at home. At work, I use XP. At home I use Linux/Xmonad. Xmonad on one monitor is vastly preferable to Windows on two monitors. Even a 9" monitor is good enough with Xmonad. Maybe you need two monitors if you are not an Xmonad/keyboard power user... but otherwise, two monitors just gets you extra neck strain.
  - barrkel 17y ago
    I already have a system for arranging windows, but it's not based on tiling. My secondary monitor is for cascaded windows, such that the bottom-left corner of every window is aligned along a diagonal line. This makes window switching a spatial experience. As to keyboard power user, I generally exclusively use the keyboard when I'm using an IDE, terminal, email, Google reader, etc., but use mouse for documentation, web browsing, etc. Two monitors comes into its own when you need to see more information on the screen at once. In my IDE as it is, when e.g. debugging, I have loads of tiled information displays, between the source, disassembly, CPU and FPU registers, CPU stack, memory, symbolic call stack, watches, locals, loaded modules, breakpoint list, thread list, log, project layout, etc. Fitting all that into 9" would be unreasonable; add in the actual running program in a terminal window, and scanning logs of previous runs in less, and it's hard to get by without two screens.