5 ms·

I use 6 19" monitors (using a combination of display port, HDMI, display link adapters). It's a bit of a mess to set up, but I like the actual physical splittin

by larve 13y ago

I use 6 19" monitors (using a combination of display port, HDMI, display link adapters). It's a bit of a mess to set up, but I like the actual physical splitting of the monitors (I have the logfile monitor, the google chrome monitor, the firefox monitor, the jira monitor, the editor monitor, etc...). Also, it plays in very well with a tiling window manager where I can just switch windows from one monitor to the next without having to worry too much about tiling "inside" of a screen. On bigger than 19" monitors, I find I can fit more than 2 windows side by side and then it becomes a weird game of rearranging windows. I have been using this for 3+ years now, and while people always look at me like I'm crazy when setting up 6-7 monitors on my desk (I freelance so I usually lug them around or just buy a used set of monitors for a few bucks), I could never go back. Not switching windows, and using your peripheral vision for things like database load, or just plain having 2 editor monitors and 2 reference browsers open at the same time is invaluable. While I can work on a single monitor, even a huge one (I love the 3k x 2k notebook resolutions), I feel cramped because I don't have the physical separation that comes from the multiple monitors.

gizzlon 13y ago
Think I understand where you're coming from, but for me virtual desktops give the same separation. Do you use virtual desktops as well?
- larve 13y ago
  nope, just that layout. 6 really comes into play when doing web development. These days I'm usually running with 2 or 3 external monitors, as I don't have as many things to keep track off. Having virtual desktops hides the kind of peripheral vision thing I like having, plus I have to think in terms of "hidden" things, which I usually tend to forget about anyway.
Udo 13y ago
Having had a six-display setup for about 5 years, I agree. The Mac Pro made it quite easy to set up, too. Having separate (preferrably HD) panels, each dedicated to one window, feels excellent. For about half a year now, I've been using a 3-display setup centered around a large iMac. While the iMac display is nice, I kind of miss my old work flow. The iMac resolution is quite awkward, actually, because it's too small to split in two or four separate work areas, but at the same time it's way too big for just one window. There is really no good way to use that screen efficiently. So I often end up splitting it into two overlapping halves with a code window and some other window, but on the whole the setup is not as satisfying as the 6-screen.
- girvo 13y ago
  Out of curiosity, what iMac size? I've got the 22" one, which is perfect for vertical split of two windows, but I remember having the exact same issue you did with my previous 27". I've now got my 2011 22" iMac sitting next to two 22" Dell UltraSharps, and it's amazing for my workflow :) That said, I also do a heap of work on my 11" (1366x768) HP notebook, so I'm crazy, and use so very many virtual desktops its not even funny.
  - Udo 13y ago
    As I said, it's the 27". Too big for one window, too small for 2. Its pixel density has the same problem by the way: it's denser than the usual low-density HD screens, but it's also nowhere near "retina". I have a low-cost HP Pavillon 23" HD monitor on both sides of it.
virtualwhys 13y ago
Nice, but 6 is a bit much for me given my situation. On the road with 2 LG 23" monitors (6.5 lbs each) and a Dell M4700 laptop. i3 WM provides the tiling needs. Love the setup, not too much context switching (i.e. changing virtual desktops) and sufficient screen real estate to do my work.
lsaferite 13y ago
But, given a single large very high resolution monitor and a tiling WM, don't you get the same in the end but with vastly simpler hardware setups? If you are so keen on the 'physical separation' then perhaps a WM that includes some synthetic black bars to give defined visual separation of tiles? You didn't specify what resolutions your monitors are running. Out of curiosity, what are they?
- larve 13y ago
  i have 2880x1800 on the mbp, and 4-6x 1440x900/1280x0124 or whatever on the others (depending on which i find).
- burntsushi 13y ago
  With my WM, I can switch the workspace of each of my three monitors independently. If I only had a single monitor, such composition really wouldn't be possible (unless you specifically built a WM capable of doing so).

by larve 13y ago

gizzlon 13y ago

Think I understand where you're coming from, but for me virtual desktops give the same separation. Do you use virtual desktops as well?

larve 13y ago
nope, just that layout. 6 really comes into play when doing web development. These days I'm usually running with 2 or 3 external monitors, as I don't have as many things to keep track off. Having virtual desktops hides the kind of peripheral vision thing I like having, plus I have to think in terms of "hidden" things, which I usually tend to forget about anyway.

Udo 13y ago

Having had a six-display setup for about 5 years, I agree. The Mac Pro made it quite easy to set up, too. Having separate (preferrably HD) panels, each dedicated to one window, feels excellent. For about half a year now, I've been using a 3-display setup centered around a large iMac. While the iMac display is nice, I kind of miss my old work flow. The iMac resolution is quite awkward, actually, because it's too small to split in two or four separate work areas, but at the same time it's way too big for just one window. There is really no good way to use that screen efficiently. So I often end up splitting it into two overlapping halves with a code window and some other window, but on the whole the setup is not as satisfying as the 6-screen.

girvo 13y ago
Out of curiosity, what iMac size? I've got the 22" one, which is perfect for vertical split of two windows, but I remember having the exact same issue you did with my previous 27". I've now got my 2011 22" iMac sitting next to two 22" Dell UltraSharps, and it's amazing for my workflow :) That said, I also do a heap of work on my 11" (1366x768) HP notebook, so I'm crazy, and use so very many virtual desktops its not even funny.
- Udo 13y ago
  As I said, it's the 27". Too big for one window, too small for 2. Its pixel density has the same problem by the way: it's denser than the usual low-density HD screens, but it's also nowhere near "retina". I have a low-cost HP Pavillon 23" HD monitor on both sides of it.

virtualwhys 13y ago

Nice, but 6 is a bit much for me given my situation. On the road with 2 LG 23" monitors (6.5 lbs each) and a Dell M4700 laptop. i3 WM provides the tiling needs. Love the setup, not too much context switching (i.e. changing virtual desktops) and sufficient screen real estate to do my work.

lsaferite 13y ago

But, given a single large very high resolution monitor and a tiling WM, don't you get the same in the end but with vastly simpler hardware setups? If you are so keen on the 'physical separation' then perhaps a WM that includes some synthetic black bars to give defined visual separation of tiles? You didn't specify what resolutions your monitors are running. Out of curiosity, what are they?

larve 13y ago
i have 2880x1800 on the mbp, and 4-6x 1440x900/1280x0124 or whatever on the others (depending on which i find).
burntsushi 13y ago
With my WM, I can switch the workspace of each of my three monitors independently. If I only had a single monitor, such composition really wouldn't be possible (unless you specifically built a WM capable of doing so).