3 ms·
I have a minimalist approach to interfaces, and work on 1080p (both desktop and laptop). I don't have second monitors and I don't intend to add any. I don't do
by pizza234 6y ago
I have a minimalist approach to interfaces, and work on 1080p (both desktop and laptop). I don't have second monitors and I don't intend to add any.
I don't doubt that adding screen estate has value, but in the minimalistic spirit, anything added also subtracts something :) And in the same spirit, anything subtracted adds something else - in my case, the ability to work more efficiently.
Try to work on a single screen for a relatively long time (say, a few months). Over the time, you'll develop (because you're forced to) more efficient habits.
- throwawayboise 6y agoI use a window manager that has multiple desktops. It's like having 9 screens, only you can only see one of them at a time. But really, that's how screens are. You can't really look at two screens at once.
- aksss 6y agoSort of, but doing a stare-and-compare, two screens beats two virtual desktops in productivity. It’s the difference between being able to set two documents side by side on a desk vs stacking them. There’s more friction in the swap than in the glance. Also, being able to have VC people on one screen while full screening content, or full screening content while playing a game is valuable.
- pizza234 6y agoIt depends on the use case. I frequently use two terminals side-by side; for this type of work, 1920p are enough [for me]. They're enough also for diffing source code, as long as the lines are not excessively long (around 100 chars fit on each side; comparing 2 lines long statements is acceptable).. I think a use case where a single (1080p) screen is significantly inconvenient is for windows with a fixed shape, for example, debugging a videogame.