3 ms·

These studies show how people with mediocre window manager and that doesn't know how to manage their windows benefits from a second screen. That's not my case a

by d-lisp 3y ago

These studies show how people with mediocre window manager and that doesn't know how to manage their windows benefits from a second screen. That's not my case and I am pretty sure I could show that one monitor is the fastest and most productive environment. I am pretty sure that tiling window managers, clever keybindings that never makes you need to move from the home row, replacement of the mouse by a keyboard based solution and vimification of the desktop are faster on a single monitor, and that they are faster than normal desktop on several monitors.

kazinator 3y ago
> one monitor is the fastest and most productive environment Okay, but ... how big of a monitor? Consider that a 50" 4K monitor is a bit like four 25" 2K monitors. Except that space is undivided. I agree that it's better to whip around virtual desktops with a hot key than to twist your neck between two monitors. But we have to agree on the monitor size first. Is it better to have a 24" 2K monitor with a 4x4 virtual desktop, or a 50" monitor with no virtual desktop? There is one special application that benefits from multiple monitor: when you have to monitor numerous real-time events and respond to them. If an alarm starts blinking on an object on one of your screens, you notice, even if that screen is in your peripheral vision. For things that your attention is riveted on, switching virtual desktops is fine.
- leptons 3y ago
  >I agree that it's better to whip around virtual desktops with a hot key than to twist your neck between two monitors. But we have to agree on the monitor size first. I have 3 32" screens in portrait, which is the equivalent to one 55" screen. I'm not sure where this "twist your neck" nonsense comes from. I can assure you I never, ever have to "twist my neck" to any degree to see the entirety of my 3 screens. My eyeballs might have to move half a centimeter in either direction, if that much, but no, my neck never has to move at all. >Is it better to have a 24" 2K monitor with a 4x4 virtual desktop, or a 50" monitor with no virtual desktop? Why not have a 50" monitor with virtual desktops. I do it all the time, and it's an amazing thing, far better than a single small monitor with a fraction of the pixels/real-estate. >For things that your attention is riveted on, switching virtual desktops is fine. Multiple screens is even better.
leptons 3y ago
Are you baiting me into calling you delusional? Because that's exactly what I have to think from all your nonsense comments. Enjoy your trolling elsewhere, this conversation is over. I've supplied very relevant information proving you are wrong, and you've provided nothing but your feels. Enjoy your sub-optimal computing experience. Goodbye.
- d-lisp 3y ago
  Well, actually the informations you provided are unrelated to what is discussed here, and I shown why by the previous message. My message are perfectly meaningful and I exposed why I think my setup is more productive and efficient than yours, and that 9 monitors are not necessary by any mean.
  - leptons 3y ago
    >Well, actually the informations you provided are unrelated to what is discussed here Only in your trolling mind. You lost this pointless internet argument but you simply cannot accept it. >My message are perfectly meaningful Only to you. Your messages are anecdotal and I provided studies that prove most people want multiple monitors exactly because it makes their jobs provably easier than whatever virtual desktop nonsense you have to deal with. > I exposed why I think my setup is more productive and efficient than yours, and that 9 monitors are not necessary by any mean. That doesn't mean you aren't completely wrong, because you are completely wrong. Enjoy your sub-optimal computing experience. Goodbye.
    - d-lisp 3y ago
      You only ignored my claims, and ignored the fact that your "studies" are unrelated and don't take efficient window managers into account, and ignored the fact that I was using a similar setup than yours in the past before finding this current solution, whose productivity is superior. Anecdotes do matter, unrelated studies don't. Now, I do hope microsoft will publish a study taking powerusers of i3/awesome/bspwm into account, because otherwise it seems your pride will force you into cultivating a taste for uneffective and expensive solutions, which wouldn't be a problem if you weren't at the same time showing signs of interest to the subject of what constitutes a good work tool. I wish you the best in life.

by d-lisp 3y ago

kazinator 3y ago

> one monitor is the fastest and most productive environment Okay, but ... how big of a monitor? Consider that a 50" 4K monitor is a bit like four 25" 2K monitors. Except that space is undivided. I agree that it's better to whip around virtual desktops with a hot key than to twist your neck between two monitors. But we have to agree on the monitor size first. Is it better to have a 24" 2K monitor with a 4x4 virtual desktop, or a 50" monitor with no virtual desktop? There is one special application that benefits from multiple monitor: when you have to monitor numerous real-time events and respond to them. If an alarm starts blinking on an object on one of your screens, you notice, even if that screen is in your peripheral vision. For things that your attention is riveted on, switching virtual desktops is fine.

leptons 3y ago
>I agree that it's better to whip around virtual desktops with a hot key than to twist your neck between two monitors. But we have to agree on the monitor size first. I have 3 32" screens in portrait, which is the equivalent to one 55" screen. I'm not sure where this "twist your neck" nonsense comes from. I can assure you I never, ever have to "twist my neck" to any degree to see the entirety of my 3 screens. My eyeballs might have to move half a centimeter in either direction, if that much, but no, my neck never has to move at all. >Is it better to have a 24" 2K monitor with a 4x4 virtual desktop, or a 50" monitor with no virtual desktop? Why not have a 50" monitor with virtual desktops. I do it all the time, and it's an amazing thing, far better than a single small monitor with a fraction of the pixels/real-estate. >For things that your attention is riveted on, switching virtual desktops is fine. Multiple screens is even better.

leptons 3y ago

Are you baiting me into calling you delusional? Because that's exactly what I have to think from all your nonsense comments. Enjoy your trolling elsewhere, this conversation is over. I've supplied very relevant information proving you are wrong, and you've provided nothing but your feels. Enjoy your sub-optimal computing experience. Goodbye.

d-lisp 3y ago
Well, actually the informations you provided are unrelated to what is discussed here, and I shown why by the previous message. My message are perfectly meaningful and I exposed why I think my setup is more productive and efficient than yours, and that 9 monitors are not necessary by any mean.
- leptons 3y ago
  >Well, actually the informations you provided are unrelated to what is discussed here Only in your trolling mind. You lost this pointless internet argument but you simply cannot accept it. >My message are perfectly meaningful Only to you. Your messages are anecdotal and I provided studies that prove most people want multiple monitors exactly because it makes their jobs provably easier than whatever virtual desktop nonsense you have to deal with. > I exposed why I think my setup is more productive and efficient than yours, and that 9 monitors are not necessary by any mean. That doesn't mean you aren't completely wrong, because you are completely wrong. Enjoy your sub-optimal computing experience. Goodbye.
  - d-lisp 3y ago
    You only ignored my claims, and ignored the fact that your "studies" are unrelated and don't take efficient window managers into account, and ignored the fact that I was using a similar setup than yours in the past before finding this current solution, whose productivity is superior. Anecdotes do matter, unrelated studies don't. Now, I do hope microsoft will publish a study taking powerusers of i3/awesome/bspwm into account, because otherwise it seems your pride will force you into cultivating a taste for uneffective and expensive solutions, which wouldn't be a problem if you weren't at the same time showing signs of interest to the subject of what constitutes a good work tool. I wish you the best in life.