3 ms·
After doing the exercise of going from 3 displays -> 11" MBA (no external), I'm maximally productive on any reasonably sized laptop monitor. 16" is great, but
by brandall10 5y ago
After doing the exercise of going from 3 displays -> 11" MBA (no external), I'm maximally productive on any reasonably sized laptop monitor.
16" is great, but I'm probably 95% on my new 14". It's all about optimizing your workflow, utilizing workspaces, tiling, etc.
- seanmcdirmid 5y agoI mean, sure, you are probably going to be 80-90% on any monitor that doesn't hurt your eyes (crappy refresh rate) and can support bitmapped graphics (not just a TTY terminal display). But having lived through multiple iterations of displays starting from plain old TTYs (4 inches at that!), I really appreciate display advancements and getting access to better/bigger ones.
- brandall10 5y agoI'm 45 and have been programming professionally for 26 years - not some kid trying to be controversial. I feel there are distinct advantages to improving your workflow and working w/ a smaller and/or fewer displays. The main issue is scan time for your eyes and neck. As well when you have a more focused presentation, you are more deliberate about your workflow. Do you need to see five columns of code simultaneously? I'd argue hardly ever, and trying to maintain that layout with what is optimal or useful is extra cognitive overhead or simply wasted space that is not helpful to being more productive. Last time I was in an office about 3 years ago, they gave me a 34" widescreen. I only occasionally hooked it up where that width could be helpful, but most of the time I opted to use my 15" laptop display as I'm simply more effective in that mode.