> Many developers believe multiple monitors improve productivity. That's simply because it does. You cannot tell me, or others for that matter, that a tiling w

> Many developers believe multiple monitors improve productivity. That's simply because it does. You cannot tell me, or others for that matter, that a tiling window manager arranged across multiple monitors keeping everything relevant just a glance away is a useless feature and offers no real improvement in productivity. > Humans can only focus on one thing at a time. So why are we spending money to display multiple things simultaneously? Because utilizing even keyboard shortcuts to switch virtual desktops is slower than glancing left or right. Also, if you wish to compare the contents of two applications having them both displayed at once is a huge advantage. > I ran a 34" LG ultra-widescreen monitor for a month. At first, I loved it. But after a few days, I was surprised to find my opinion soured. It was far too wide to maximize my windows, so I found myself spending too much time fiddling with windows. If this was really a concern for most people, how have tiling window managers managed to flourished in recent years? > Both Mac and Windows support virtual desktops now. Which is why in my case I can still be very productive on my Windows laptop, but even more so on my multi-monitor desktop running i3. > But I don’t waste cycles on this arrangement either. The far left virtual desktop is always my browser, the one to the right is my editor. So I treat virtual desktops like physical screens that reliably present the same content. Wait. So why did you have so much trouble arranging applications before on a single wide screen? Why couldn't you just arrange the applications contained within these virtual desktops across a wide screen in the same manner? You know what? New title: "Why I Stopped Reading About Someone Who Stopped Using Multiple Monitors"