3 ms·

>Nothing beats having all the important stuff visible at the same time. But those aren't visible at the same time since you can't fit your whole 9 monitors in

>Nothing beats having all the important stuff visible at the same time. But those aren't visible at the same time since you can't fit your whole 9 monitors in your field of view and focus on them at the same time. You can only focus and work only on a monitor at a time, and so you need to constantly switch monitors, meaning the monitors you aren't looking at each moment are basically a redundant waste. I don't judge, whatever floats your boat. But I managed to replace multi monitor setups with virtual desktops and shortcuts. Way cheaper and more space efficient, and more ergonomic since I don't need to keep my neck at an angle all the time to the monitors on the side, but always to the one and only in the middle.

Nevermark 3y ago
Really? You can’t set up more than one monitor in your field of view? Or turn your head and track faster than you can jump back and forth between several overlapping windows? That’s also bit like saying you don’t need a monitor bigger than your fovea, because you can only read in your fovea. Eye movement, head movement, and internal tracking a good part of a sphere of awareness around ourselves are what our visual system - physical and mental - were designed to be extremely fast at.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >Really? You can’t set up more than one monitor in your field of view? & Just because we can see movement on the outer ends of our field of view to see predators, doesn't mean I can also comfortably stare at code via the side of my eyes. Filed of focus != field of view. Yeah, I can see nearly 180 degrees, but I can only comfortably focus for work on what's in the center of my FoV.
  - leptons 3y ago
    >can also comfortably stare at code via the side of my eyes. This is not what I suggested. I never suggested coding in your peripheral vision, and to suggest it is just trolling. I have long-running tasks in windows open around and I need to know when they update. Peripheral vision works extremely well for this, but having the window submerged under the code I'm working on behind dozens of other windows, I would never see it. then I'm forced to have my code at half the width of a tiny screen so I can see the long-running task progress in another half of a tiny screen? No Thank You. I'll take multiple screens all day long for the complex development work I do. But sure, go ahead and invent whatever you want out of what I said to win a pointless internet argument, I don't care. I just won't be replying anymore.
leptons 3y ago
I know exactly where each bit of info is, and I just dart my eyes to the appropriate monitor, or tilt my head slightly, which is far, far easier and faster than switching through dozens of windows to find the one I need. The windows I need are already open exactly where they should be, I always know where they are, and the latency between me and the data I need is practically nothing, zero. My three 32" 4k screens are equivalent to 6 pretty big 24" screens, essentially one big 55" screen and sitting with my head against my chair's headrest I my eyes can see every corner of all of it without having to move my neck one millimeter, my eyes effortlessly move around and I can see all the data. Maybe you have some kind of problem with your eyes that prevents that, but it's absolutely easy to find the data I need with zero additional effort. It's way more efficient than having 1 screen and locating the data required constantly. The difference in friction is very noticeable and painful when I'm only on one screen because it does slow me down, and there's no way around that for anyone, one screen always means more cognitive load and higher latency to getting the data in front of your eyes. Shortcuts and virtual desktops don't change that. And, often things happen that I catch in my peripheral vision, like console logs I'm expecting to happen, that I wouldn't be able to catch if the window isn't visible. Sorry but you'll never convince me that 1 monitor is in any way superior to multiple monitors, it just does not compute.
- d-lisp 3y ago
  Well, I don't even have to turn my head, <super + ]> and the screen for the web browser appears in front of my eyes. To be fair, on my keyboard super + ] is right thumb + right index finger. I have shortcuts for every program that I use, and every program that I use has its virtual desktop binded to some key combination on what is a very weird keyboard. And I maintain that a small screen is perfect for redacting code (and I had a similar setup of yours in the past).
  - leptons 3y ago
    >Well, I don't even have to turn my head NEITHER DO I. I don't know how much clearer I can make that, yet you still refuse to understand. ><super + ]> and the screen for the web browser appears in front of my eyes. To be fair, on my keyboard super + ] is right thumb + right index finger. I have shortcuts for every program that I use, and every program that I use has its virtual desktop binded to some key combination on what is a very weird keyboard. None of this is relevant to me in the least. I don't have to do any of it, because all the info I need is already in view of my eyeballs >>without moving my head at all<<, as if that's even some kind of manufactured inconvenience. >And I maintain that a small screen is perfect for redacting code (and I had a similar setup of yours in the past). Sure, if all you do is interact with one single text editor, and not any of the many other screens that modern development requires. Having this conversation with you is pointless, enjoy your mediocre computing experience.

Nevermark 3y ago

Really? You can’t set up more than one monitor in your field of view? Or turn your head and track faster than you can jump back and forth between several overlapping windows? That’s also bit like saying you don’t need a monitor bigger than your fovea, because you can only read in your fovea. Eye movement, head movement, and internal tracking a good part of a sphere of awareness around ourselves are what our visual system - physical and mental - were designed to be extremely fast at.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>Really? You can’t set up more than one monitor in your field of view? & Just because we can see movement on the outer ends of our field of view to see predators, doesn't mean I can also comfortably stare at code via the side of my eyes. Filed of focus != field of view. Yeah, I can see nearly 180 degrees, but I can only comfortably focus for work on what's in the center of my FoV.
- leptons 3y ago
  >can also comfortably stare at code via the side of my eyes. This is not what I suggested. I never suggested coding in your peripheral vision, and to suggest it is just trolling. I have long-running tasks in windows open around and I need to know when they update. Peripheral vision works extremely well for this, but having the window submerged under the code I'm working on behind dozens of other windows, I would never see it. then I'm forced to have my code at half the width of a tiny screen so I can see the long-running task progress in another half of a tiny screen? No Thank You. I'll take multiple screens all day long for the complex development work I do. But sure, go ahead and invent whatever you want out of what I said to win a pointless internet argument, I don't care. I just won't be replying anymore.

leptons 3y ago

I know exactly where each bit of info is, and I just dart my eyes to the appropriate monitor, or tilt my head slightly, which is far, far easier and faster than switching through dozens of windows to find the one I need. The windows I need are already open exactly where they should be, I always know where they are, and the latency between me and the data I need is practically nothing, zero. My three 32" 4k screens are equivalent to 6 pretty big 24" screens, essentially one big 55" screen and sitting with my head against my chair's headrest I my eyes can see every corner of all of it without having to move my neck one millimeter, my eyes effortlessly move around and I can see all the data. Maybe you have some kind of problem with your eyes that prevents that, but it's absolutely easy to find the data I need with zero additional effort. It's way more efficient than having 1 screen and locating the data required constantly. The difference in friction is very noticeable and painful when I'm only on one screen because it does slow me down, and there's no way around that for anyone, one screen always means more cognitive load and higher latency to getting the data in front of your eyes. Shortcuts and virtual desktops don't change that. And, often things happen that I catch in my peripheral vision, like console logs I'm expecting to happen, that I wouldn't be able to catch if the window isn't visible. Sorry but you'll never convince me that 1 monitor is in any way superior to multiple monitors, it just does not compute.

d-lisp 3y ago
Well, I don't even have to turn my head, <super + ]> and the screen for the web browser appears in front of my eyes. To be fair, on my keyboard super + ] is right thumb + right index finger. I have shortcuts for every program that I use, and every program that I use has its virtual desktop binded to some key combination on what is a very weird keyboard. And I maintain that a small screen is perfect for redacting code (and I had a similar setup of yours in the past).
- leptons 3y ago
  >Well, I don't even have to turn my head NEITHER DO I. I don't know how much clearer I can make that, yet you still refuse to understand. ><super + ]> and the screen for the web browser appears in front of my eyes. To be fair, on my keyboard super + ] is right thumb + right index finger. I have shortcuts for every program that I use, and every program that I use has its virtual desktop binded to some key combination on what is a very weird keyboard. None of this is relevant to me in the least. I don't have to do any of it, because all the info I need is already in view of my eyeballs >>without moving my head at all<<, as if that's even some kind of manufactured inconvenience. >And I maintain that a small screen is perfect for redacting code (and I had a similar setup of yours in the past). Sure, if all you do is interact with one single text editor, and not any of the many other screens that modern development requires. Having this conversation with you is pointless, enjoy your mediocre computing experience.