
Study: Two Monitors or One Ultrawide - epaminond
https://keenethics.com/blog/1497078000000-two-monitors-or-one-ultrawide
======
chrismorgan
How about two _vertical_ monitors? I use a laptop and normally also have
connected two 27″ monitors, both vertically oriented, above it. There are
certain code tasks that _really_ benefit from the increased height of vertical
orientation; as an example, last week I was doing some substantial rebasing,
and the increased vertical height in a four-way diff was invaluable. Most of
the time I find I’m actually using at most one of the external displays, but
it’s definitely still common to get practical value out of both of them.
Referring to web pages or other documents on vertical screens is also
_normally_ better—mostly normally because they’re half the DPI of my laptop
display.

    
    
      ┌────┬────┐
      │    │    │
      │    │    │
      │    │    │
      └──┬─┴──┬─┘
         │    │
         └────┘
    

(The slight off-centring of the laptop in this diagram is also curiously
realistic; early on, a couple of years ago, I had it centred; but a few weeks
ago I looked closely at where it had ended up, and found that I consistently
placed the laptop definitely right of centre, and favour the right-hand
monitor to the left.)

A few others in the company use one or more vertical screens too. Those of us
who do, certainly like the increased vertical space.

Quality of window management is also going to be an important factor: of the
two main OSes: Windows is good at simple window-per-screen and two-tiled-
windows-per-screen arrangements; macOS is fairly weak, being more inclined to
manually accomplishing it. (I’m on Windows for now, but I’m planning on trying
Arch Linux, which I previously used, on my Surface Book, as it’s now probably
good enough to work with. With Sway (i3 clone for Wayland), its handling of
such a screen arrangement will be superb.)

~~~
_bxg1
macOS has terrible native window management, but there are a number of window
manager programs that are as good as what's available on Linux.
BetterTouchTool is my favorite.

~~~
onetom
Spectacle ([https://www.spectacleapp.com/](https://www.spectacleapp.com/)) is
also open source and it's tiny, but only works with keyboard.

Magnet ([http://magnet.crowdcafe.com/](http://magnet.crowdcafe.com/)) costs 1
USD, but it provides mouse control via snapping at the display edges and it's
also tiny (6MB). Its default keybindings does NOT clash with most apps. They
are logical, hence memorable. They are easy to press too.

In fact I invented the same shortcuts and I was always changing the Spectacle
defaults to them on every installation, which was tedious... With Magnet I
don't have to fiddle at all.

I used xmonad on NixOS and I quite like it, but in any tiling wm on macOS I
tried, I hit some issues within 5-10 minutes.

To be fair IntelliJ didn't work with xmonad out of the box either. I had to
set some strange `startupHook = setWMName "LG3D"` Source:
[https://wiki.haskell.org/Xmonad/Frequently_asked_questions#P...](https://wiki.haskell.org/Xmonad/Frequently_asked_questions#Problems_with_Java_applications.2C_Applet_java_console)

------
mark_l_watson
I am a minority opinion here. I don’t like turning my head and I like just
having everything I need for a 2 hour sprint visible at once on the screen.

At home I use a MacBook with a 22” retina I bought at the Apple store, the
external monitor place directly above the laptop. I rarely do video or photo
editing, but I spend a lot of time writing books and also programming. This is
plenty of space for me. This is not a matter of money: 6 months after I bought
this monitor for my home use, I started working at a large financial services
company; I could choose any monitor(s) I wanted and I chose exactly what I
have at home.

I don’t multi-task, especially in my home office. I like having just what I
need for my current task visible.

I bought a System76 Oryx Pro last fall with a 16” 4K display and I find the
screen size so adequate to my development needs (I use that laptop just for
machine learning, it has a 1070 GPU) that I don’t even bother hooking it up to
an external monitor.

I have spent so many years working on remote servers in a few SSH shell
windows. This might affect the setup I chose for all-local development and
writing.

EDIT: corrected second sentence

~~~
y4mi
It depends heavily on what you're doing.

There is little benefit in multiple monitors for Office work (Excel, word,
etc). Server admins have some benefits for multimonitors.. i.e keeping
documentation open while you're on the server etc.

Especially if the Excel rows arent too wide

GUI development gets massive value from multiple monitors. Nothing beats
having the application open and visible while you're changing the code.

It gets even more important if you're a full stack developer, which has
several terminals open to keep track of logs, a browser for the webpage you're
modifying and the editor for changes.

~~~
o10449366
You definitely raise some valid use cases where you need more real estate, but
I think a big reason people on Mac/Windows feel like they need more space is
because window management is so poor on those platforms. I came from Linux
where I used tiling window managers and I really missed that on Mac. I ended
up installing Amethyst and while it's not nearly as powerful as the window
managers I was using before, it almost entirely killed my desire for my real
estate. Now I can quickly and evenly split my editor, terminal, and browser
into various layouts and adjust them as needed.

------
ndespres
Notably missing from this study is any note of the display resolution. The
market is flooded with a glut of 22-26" monitors that have the same low
resolution as the smaller ones they are supposedly designed to replace.

This is all also really dependent on the applications you run. I'm personally
stuck running a CRM and remote control programs that open new windows for
everything. 1 large high-resolution display + heavy use of macOS workspace
seems like the best way to deal with it, though my colleagues all prefer 2
displays. Anecdotal observation indicates that none of us can easily find the
window we were just looking at once we move away from it, so I think the
window manager needs work too.

~~~
bluedino
>> The market is flooded with a glut of 22-26" monitors that have the same low
resolution as the smaller ones

The 27/30" inch monitors that are only 1080 make no sense to me. Maybe if you
have really bad vision. I love my LG 4K and would like a 27" 5K but they're
expensive. The text is so sharp on those things.

But, for a 21" monitor that is only 1080, if you're using multiple ones, you
can sit back far enough away to be able to see 4 of them and not have the text
unreadably small.

The younger guys at work like 25" 2560x1440 monitors and just run 8 point
fonts, my vision was never very good so I could never use that for more than a
few minutes. I'm using a pair of 27" monitors but I do end up turning my head
a lot. I'd like to try a 3840x1440 screen.

We have a couple Steelcase 'collaboration tables', some with 1 40-something
inch TV and some with 2 slightly smaller ones. They basically look like this:

[https://images.steelcase.com/image/upload/v1415376898/www.st...](https://images.steelcase.com/image/upload/v1415376898/www.steelcase.com/12-0005719.jpg)

They are very nice to use for a few hours. My theory is that with the screen
being 3-4 feet away from your eyes, your eyes are very relaxed. Watching TV vs
reading a book.

This is despite the fact that they are only 1080 resolution. I'm sure we could
stick 4K screens in there but I'm not sure how much more useful the resolution
would be at 40".

~~~
Matthias247
I don't even understand the 27" 2560x1440 things that seem to be most trendy
in the recent years. I tried one for a couple of days and couldn't make it
work. Without scaling things are too tiny, but for a reasonable scaling that
doesn't take too much quality away the resolution is simply too low. 27" 4k is
a lot better, and looks ok at about 175% scaling. However I'm really looking
forward to 5k and above getting more mainstream, so that we finally get good
quality (like the Macbook screens) for desktops.

------
dsr_
To summarize the 43 comments so far: different people have different
preferences, so a one-size-fits-all policy will make lots of people unhappy.
Offer people a choice and if possible, allow them to try out several
configurations to see what works best for them.

~~~
degenerate
Here's another config I never see mentioned, but I love it. One giant 42" 4K
TV. They are relatively inexpensive now (~$200) and it's roughly the same as
having 4x 21" monitors conjoined in a square. It's very important to tone down
the brightness and back-light considerably, since TVs are designed for sitting
about 10 feet away, but they work great as monitors if you buy a good brand.
Make sure your graphics card can support ultra high resolutions, and use a
modern HDMI cable capable of 4K.

edit: Ensure 60Hz or higher refresh rate. This should be true if the TV is a
good brand.

~~~
jacksproit
30Hz refresh rate is brutal for some apps/people

~~~
indiandennis
Most 4k tvs, or at least the 250 dollar TCL model I have, support 4k at 60hz
over the newer hdmi spec. It works fairly well as a large monitor, even when
sitting up close.

~~~
kylek
Personally I don't think I'll ever get a <=60Hz monitor after using one with
144Hz. (Caveat- there aren't many 4K 144Hz models the last time I checked, and
they're quite expensive. I'd rather make due at 1440p, any day!)

~~~
sandos
Does 144hz really make any difference in office applications? Gaming,
obviously but I cant imagine it affects productivity at all....

------
iam-TJ
I've been using 6 x 1920x1200 displays for several years - 5 x 24" plus the
laptop's own 15" panel [1] in a corner configuration with 3 in portrait
orientation (perfect for reading documents and web pages).

    
    
       _  _       _
      | || |[===]| |
      | || |[===]| |
       -  -  [=]  -
    

I'm so used to being able to distribute 'tasks' and workflow to specific
monitors that I struggle terribly, to the point of giving up in frustration,
when having to use a single display for anything other than casual or single
application use.

I use a combination of head movement and rotating the chair depending on task.

The outstanding benefit is to have multiple applications and documents open
and readable simultaneously, just as I would with multiple physical reference
books.

An added benefit is having the same 'book' (document) open at different
'pages' on different monitors - and not need to flick back and forward between
'pages' or tabs.

This is using GNU/Linux Xorg server with 4 X sessions.

[1] Dell XPS with ExpressCard -> PCIe ViDock extender containing an Nvidia
NVS420 driving 4 monitors, the laptop panel, and an HDMI connection, all
1920x1200.

~~~
abledon
6 monitors? good god man lol, are you a sys admin?

~~~
iam-TJ
Mostly bug-hunting and coding in unfamiliar code bases so I need a lot of
resources instantly available in front of me to compare and figure out
relationships.

However, it does make remote sys-admin safer too in that I can assign remote
hosts to specific monitors - avoids the risk of accidentally issuing commands
to the wrong target!

------
nickjj
2 separate monitors is almost always going to win vs 1 ultra wide monitor.

1\. You can orient them independently.

2\. You can position them in ways that are more suitable to your environment.
For example if you wanted a small gap in the middle to fit an eye level web
cam, you can do that.

3\. If you put them flush together, 2x 24" inch monitors has roughly the same
head movement requirements as a single 48" monitor.

4\. 2 monitors gives you the option to do a GPU pass through VM which is
extremely useful in some cases (running native Linux but wanting native
Windows performance for certain apps without dual booting).

5\. It's usually easier to manage multiple applications using native window
snapping tools. It's also easier to ignore a 2nd monitor vs the 2nd half of a
single monitor.

~~~
azhenley
They are measured diagonally so the width of 2x24 is not the same as 1x48.
Also the bevels do take up a noticeable amount of space, but will likely get
better.

I definitely agree about the window management though. I went from 2x27 to
1x34 and found it much easier to organize windows on the two displays.

~~~
nickjj
Good call on the diagonal measurements but it's not a big difference in the
end. Both of my monitors have about a 1/4" inch bezel. So there's 1/2" of
extra space and this monitor isn't made to have slim bezels. If you need to
move your neck to see an extra 2 inches, that's not really going to make a
noticeable difference in the end. You can also choose to sit back a fraction
of an inch further to fit more in your field of view.

~~~
the_pwner224
> Good call on the diagonal measurements but it's not a big difference in the
> end.

This makes a huge difference. 2x24" will give you half the total surface area
of 1x48". For example, if you have 2x24" side-by-side, you could put another
copy of that pair above the original pair (to get a 4x24" grid), and that
would be equivalent to having a single 48" monitor.

If you cut your current X inch monitor into 4 quadrants, each quadrant is
diagonally X/2 inches. So having two of those would be like having just the
bottom half of your current monitor.

~~~
kaftoy
In the original article they are talking about Ultrawide single monitor setup.
In practice, all ultrawides don't have the same aspect ratio as normal wide
minitors (16/9 or 16/10). I have seen ultrawides from 21/9 to even 32/9 (just
search for ultrawide, I'll not provide links). So it's not as easy as to
divide 48" by 4 to get to 24".

Also, only very expensive setups give good resolution, to not waste all the
metric space.

------
huffmsa
> _So, why do we spend money to display several things at once?_

Because there's a higher cost to switching windows than just switching where
you're looking.

This isn't just a developer / office worker debate, the aviation industry has
done it too. Having dedicated displays is almost always better than having to
cycle through windows until you find the one you want.

~~~
oftenwrong
I guess it depends on your usage. Under my tiling setup I usually already know
which "workspace" is the one I want, and how to summon it directly with a key
combination. No cycling.

I find it quicker and easier to change workspace than to turn my head. For me
there is one optimal display position, so I always want to be using it.

I also might have 10 workspaces, but I don't have 10 displays.

In the past I have used a three display setup where the workspace I summon
gets pulled to the centre display, swapping with other workspaces, which may
be displayed on the peripheral displays. However, I found that I never really
liked looking at the peripheral displays while I worked, so I switched to
using a single display.

------
azhenley
They only had 3 participants. You can’t make any claims or generalizations
from these results since they will likely be caused by individual differences
of the participants. There may also be ordering effects.

~~~
necovek
The title says "study" which is, as you highlight, not really true.

Studies in general assume a certain level of scientific rigour,
reproducibility and verifiability.

To further your point, the discussion here is as valuable as the original
article: people sharing their individual anecdotal experiences.

------
kuon
Everybody has different preferences and needs, I don't think there is a golden
standard, but here is my setup.

4x27" (not retina, sadly I don't have the budget for this).

They are all horizontal, with 3 at the bottom and 1 at the top.

    
    
        A
       BCD
    

\- C is my main monitor, I use i3, and my current focused app is always
fullscreen, code editor, terminal, kicad, firefox (like right now). Nothing
really new here.

\- B is my "put it all" monitor, on it I have multiple i3 workspaces, with
IRC, Slack, riot.im, twitter, chatty, discord, toggl time tracking, spotify,
music player, keepass XC and a few other utilities. All apps on monitor B have
notifications muted and I cycled them (the social ones), like once every hour
or two hours. I hardly every look at B except when scanning social things and
changing music. When working B is just black.

\- D this is my secondary working monitor. Browser with dev tools, 3d preview,
datasheets, documentation... all this goes there.

\- A this is the persistent monitor. If I'm monitoring (eg trying to find a
performance bottleneck in an app), I'll have a grafana or whatever graphs on
it. Or a log tail, trying to find a visual pattern in the logs (sometimes it
happens). Anything that has to persist through the day or even the week. If I
don't use it (like 60% of the time), I put some ambient images on it, like
this video
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4CQHzLAi8o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4CQHzLAi8o)

------
Stratoscope
Wait until you get to your 40's or 50's and your eyes lose the ability to
adjust their focus distance. This will change everything.

First, you should get _two_ pairs of glasses, progressives for general use and
single vision lenses tuned to the specific distance to the monitors you use.

Since I use a ThinkPad for much of my work, my computer glasses are adjusted
to a focus distance of about 20".

This means that _all_ my monitors, in whatever configuration, also need to be
about 20" from my eyes. And it means that large monitors are unusable unless
they are curved, because the distance to my eyes changes too much from center
to edge. I tried a 32" flat monitor at a company I was visiting a few years
ago and it was hard to keep everything in focus.

My vision does correct well, so as long as I can keep the focus distance
constant, small high-DPI monitors work best.

The sweet spot for me is the high-DPI monitor on my ThinkPad combined with one
or two 24" 4K UHD external monitors. One external monitor is centered above
the ThinkPad display in landscape orientation, the other is to the side in
portrait orientation. The external monitors are also 20" from my eyes.

If I only have one external monitor, I like to have it on a mounting arm so I
can use it in either of those orientations as needed.

Each monitor is positioned so the screen is centered relative to my eyes (i.e.
I'm not viewing it at a slant).

By sticking with small monitors and adjusting them to all be at the same
distance, I can easily see everything on all two or three of them.

Whatever you do about monitors, take care of your eyes! Don't do what I see
too many people do, where they avoided getting glasses long after they should
have and squint and crane their necks to try to read the text. Or even worse,
they only get a pair of progressives, so when they try to read the screen they
have to tilt their heads back and aim their eyes down through the close-up
part of the glasses.

Getting proper prescription computer glasses - and getting the prescription
renewed every couple of years in my 40's (when your vision changes most
rapidly) - was one of the best things I ever did for myself.

~~~
zepolen
Sounds cheaper and better to get laser eye surgery in the long run.

~~~
Stratoscope
Laser eye surgery does not restore your eyes' ability to dynamically change
their focus distance. Age will take that away regardless.

I have heard of people getting laser surgery where each eye is adjusted
differently, one for near distance and one for far. In fact, that is how my
eyes worked naturally for many years: I had good close-up vision in and good
distance vision in the other.

This did let me avoid noticing how my vision was changing for some years, but
it meant I was only getting clear focus in one eye and blurry vision in the
other. When I got my first computer glasses and I could see the displays with
both eyes, it was like night and day.

I've also seen references to new procedures that use multifocal implants, so
you would essentially have some kind of progressive lenses in your eyes. This
sounds terrible for computer use.

I don't see how any kind of surgery could give me the usability and
flexibility that I have with my progressive glasses and computer glasses. With
the computer glasses, all of my displays are in perfect focus with both eyes.
And the progressives are perfect for other everyday activities - driving,
reading on smaller devices, etc.

I like the ability to tune my vision to these different needs. With surgery it
seems I would have to pick one or the other.

------
adamtulinius
Imo. it comes down to the window manager, with regards to productivity.

One ultra wide (I got the Dell 38") has the added benefit of making it
possible to have the primary app in the center, with less important stuff
occupying the far ends of the screen.

~~~
zone411
How about 3 monitors?

~~~
maze-le
The correct number of monitors to have is always n+1.

~~~
rlonstein
> The correct number of monitors to have is always n+1.

This applies to bicycles and motorcycles too.

------
gexla
Any change in the way I work is going to screw me up if it's not incrementally
added. You don't just add a 2nd monitor, you significantly change your
workflow. Maybe you add the 2nd monitor and don't use it at first. Then as you
get work done, you drill on experiments to mine for improvements.

Some people are also more open to exploration than others. It amazes me when I
show a gray beard (getting there myself actually) a new trick using keyboard
shortcuts which have been shipping in that system for many years. I get that
way myself at times, but I'm trying to get better at actively searching for
improvements on my workflow, especially using tools which ship with the box
I'm using.

If something like a 2nd monitor greatly improves your performance, then I
imagine you would be able to improve just actively trying things. Otherwise it
would be like adding a 2nd gearshift for a pro stock car racer. WTF am I
supposed to do with that? It's going to take me a while to add it to my
workflow.

------
iforgotpassword
> Naturally, when working with two monitors, you have to turn your head more
> often. [...] Therefore, while working on 2 monitors may require massages or
> physical exercises to reduce neck strain, one monitor is lean and mean.

My personal experience is the opposite. With just one screen I tend to sit
still in one position for long periods at a time and feel really uncomfortable
after a couple hours. With my current 3 monitor setup I not only turn my head
frequently but even sit differently depending on which screen currently has
main focus and which one is e.g. just showing debug info or logs.

~~~
scotty79
Generally always more movement is better unless it's constrained and/or highly
repetitive.

------
karmakaze
> Three people were selected for the study: the first person received a 24”
> monitor, the second participant – a 25” monitor with a 21:9 aspect ratio,
> and the third participant – two 24” monitors. The study lasted for three
> weeks.

This study is seriously flawed in another way. I'm assuming that the 24" is
16:9 which has a height of 11.8" The 'larger' 25" ultrawide has a height of
9.8"\--I would hate working on that for the same reason I don't like 16:9
laptops--the height of 16:10 or 3:2 are so much more useful.

~~~
rhizome
Hah, yeah. I felt pretty dumb when I realized that a 40" LCD is about as tall
as a 29" 4:3 CRT (est. from memory), so SD video on the LCD is no bigger than
I had 20 years ago.

------
reustle
For me, I've always felt that CMD+tab was faster and easier than turning my
head. My eyes can only look at one thing at a time anyway.

~~~
randallsquared
Peripheral vision helps with anchoring where and what something is. If what
I'm looking at suddenly changes to something else, there's a moment of
disorientation, too brief to react to, but still enough to interrupt my train
of thought. If pressing cmd+tab didn't actually produce the very next thing I
needed to see, this is even worse, since now I need to consciously decide if
what I'm looking at is the right thing, press cmd+tab again, wait until I
understand what I'm looking at, etc. I feel confident that this is not a
problem unique to me, due to the existence of extensions like
[https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=johnpapa...](https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=johnpapa.vscode-
peacock) , which colors window borders differently to allow reducing this
delay.

If I turn my head to look at a window that I could vaguely see in the edge of
my vision, there's no such disruption, at least consciously. It feels as
though turning my head doesn't require any conscious attention at all, unlike
the "what am I looking at? Is this what I expected? What was I thinking?"
process that happens with hidden-to-visible transitions. By the time my head
has turned to bring the window on the other monitor into the center of my
vision, I already have the visual context, and in the meantime, I haven't lost
my train of thought.

------
justinclift
> Three people were selected for the study: the first person received a 24”
> monitor, the second participant – a 25” monitor with a 21: 9 aspect ratio,
> and the third participant – two 24” monitors.

The "ultrawide" monitor in this test is 1" bigger than one of the 24"
monitors.

How the heck does this get counted as some kind of valid "ultrawide"
comparison? Doesn't seem legit at all. :(

~~~
sk0g
> The "ultrawide" monitor in this test is 1" (2,54 cm)˜ bigger than one of the
> 24" (61 cm)˜ monitors.

Not area-wise. It's going to be shorter as well, which would make it worse for
programming related tasks :|

[http://www.displaywars.com/24-inch-16x9-vs-25-inch-21x9](http://www.displaywars.com/24-inch-16x9-vs-25-inch-21x9)

------
bbx
One benefit of having a single monitor (ultrawide or not) is that when you end
up working on the go on your single-screen laptop, you don't lose much
productivity in terms of environment adjustment. It also helps focusing on a
single task.

With that said… I did buy an ultrawide monitor in the end (which allows 2, or
even 3 apps to co-exist side-by-side). But I still kept my old monitor as a
secondary one (mostly for iTerm, Spotify, and live sport).

So to answer the question: two monitors or one ultrawide, I would say, why not
both?

------
sb8244
Lots of comments around the study...i will give my monitor thoughts as I think
they're vastly different than most.

My theory is that I'd like to achieve productivity no matter where I'm at.
This means I don't use more than the laptop's monitor. I've gotten really good
at using workspaces to keep tasks separated and use 3 full screen "desktops"
in Mac for my standard Dev flow. I never move my head to trigger a change in
flow, just a quick swipe. Also every window on a desktop must be visible in
some form if multiple programs are in 1 desktop.

I've never had a complaint about my performance although I don't think it
would matter much if I had a different but efficient flow.

I do have some colleagues who have tried this but they don't follow rigid
organization and so they can't find their windows well.

~~~
waz0wski
If you'd like to do away with touchpad gestures for an even faster workflow on
osx, try using [https://contexts.co](https://contexts.co) for your switcher,
and [https://www.alfredapp.com](https://www.alfredapp.com) for your launcher

contexts gives additional 'switching' options on different hotkeys, window
searching+selection, and no mouse interaction required (but it is supported)

I have Contexts setup as follows:

    
    
        cmd-tab: cycle thru all visible windows of all apps on this desktop
    
        opt-tab: cycle thru all apps on all desktops
    
    
        cmd-~: cycle thru all windows of focused app on this desktop (include hidden/minimized)
    
        opt-~: cycle all windows of focused app on all desktops (include hidden/minimized)
    
    
        cmd-space: activate Alfred
    
        opt-space: search/activate of all running apps on all desktops
    

This workflow allows for complete, keyboard-driven navigation/switching, and
total deprecation of the slow 10.7+ mission control gui (you can restore the
older & faster exposè style window view with the app TotalSpaces)

~~~
sb8244
I am going to check this out, it looks interesting. I haven't really
experienced inefficiencies with the speed of mission control, but I'm open to
better ways of interacting with the workspaces and applications.

------
jmiserez
1\. Sample size of three people (one per monitor arrangement).

2\. A 25" 21:9 ultrawide is not comparable with 2x 24" 16:10 screens. You'd
need something like a 44" ultrawide to get the same screen width (omitting
bezels)

~~~
epaminond
Indeed it's not as wide as 2 monitors, but you can split workspace into 2
applications and that's still quite comfortable. E.g. when working on web-
development you might have VS-code and browser opened at the same time.

~~~
jmiserez
I know what you mean, I have used 34" and 38" UWs and they feel large enough.
But a 25" UW is tiny and actually has 12.59% _less_ space [1] than a single
24". And most run at just 2560x1080.

[1]
[http://www.displaywars.com/24-inch-16x10-vs-25-inch-21x9](http://www.displaywars.com/24-inch-16x10-vs-25-inch-21x9)

------
darrmit
For years I ran 2 1080 27's - one portrait, one landscape - off of my MacBook
Pro. Last year I decided to try a 28 inch 4K at work, which led to purchasing
a 30 inch 4k at home. I also purchased a laptop stand so I can put the laptop
off to the side and stow Slack or Spotify over there.

For me, the higher resolution on a single wide screen makes me far more
efficient. I can tile 4 windows or 2 side by side and, as others have
indicated, not be turning my head constantly. Plus, when using the dual 27s I
still naturally tended to push lesser used apps over to the monitor not
directly in front of me, so the single ultrawide and laptop stand was not much
of an adjustment workflow-wise, but was a huge boost in productivity for me.

YMMV of course, but I've seen a lot of benefit going the ultrawide route.

------
_trampeltier
I love my 43" 4K monitor not because he just wide, he also does give me much
more verical space. I don't sit in the center, I sit about 1/3 on the left
side.

~~~
LeonM
I run a 43" 4K at my office, and have to conclude that I'd prefer more
horizontal space (thus 2 smaller screens side-by-side, or an utlra-wide).

I contribute 2 reasons:

\- The vertical space on a 43" is too much, you have to tilt your head up to
see the upper region of the screen, which is not ergonomic.

\- I currently run MacOS, which has horrible window management, as a result I
regularly find myself piling up a whole bunch of windows in the lower center
of the screen, leaving about 1/3 of the screen unused.

Situation: sitting desk, 80cm depth, sitting in the center of the screen,
MacOS with stock window manager.

I'll probably hang this 43" on the wall as a dedicated grafana monitor (who
doesn't love the eye candy) and place a ultrawide on my desk once I replace my
aging apple laptop with something more capable of driving such display.

~~~
skinnymuch
What Mac window manager do you use?

~~~
Scoundreller
> MacOS with stock window manager.

------
kareninoverseas
Ha, I do almost all my work on a 14' laptop. Plugging it into a spare monitor
is just too much of a hassle, and I've grown used to the screen economy. The
way I get around such a small screen size is to have multiple workspaces open
on i3 -- one for the code editor, one for docs, one for messaging, and a bunch
of other ones shelved around. Flipping between workspaces is pretty painless
since it's just a keyboard shortcut but I wonder how much time I lose by
getting distracted when I have too many workspaces open.

------
mnm1
I used a 4k 40" monitor for a few years and now I'm back to the 27" 1440p
Apple thunderbolt display that I had before. I have another 27" like that I
could use but don't. The 40" gave me rsi and I spent a lot of time moving
windows around (split the screen in three columns mostly) as working on the
two edges strained my neck. Using an additional monitor with either the 40" or
27" also strained my neck and having chats be always there (since the second
monitor was not much use for anything else) was distracting. The point is,
bigger and more are not always better. One 27" is perfect with side by side
windows and switching apps with quicksilver on a mac. I'm switching to Linux
now and hope to find a similar app or hotkey setup where I can open or switch
to a specific app with one hotkey or key combo. I may consider a 30" curved or
so in the future but even that seems like it might strain the neck too much.

------
upofadown
There seemed to be an assumption that someone on a single monitor would tend
to use the whole screen for a particular program. So this might be specific to
a particular, undefined, windowing environment.

------
reacharavindh
Here I am, finding multiple monitors distracting.... I splurge on one monitor
with the best display I can get, preferably high res and 16:10 aspect ratio
for more vertical space.

I find the simplicity of my setup soothing in a way, and lets me focus on one
thing that is dead straight in front of my eyes and not get distracted by
peripheral vision.

May be I'm the odd one in this regard.

------
bdz
I'd also consider the new gen super ultrawides like the Philips 499P9H. 49",
5120x1440. I think that's the way to go

~~~
rubzah
A cool monitor for sure, but compared to three 4k monitors (which current gen
PCs can usually drive) it is still a big drop in resolution.

------
hartator
> Naturally, when working with two monitors, you have to turn your head more
> often. When working with two monitors,

I’ve also noticed I move my eyes a lot more with bigger screens. Notably
working on a dell 34” ultrawide. Whereas small screens - even down to the
MacBook 12” - with efficient use of alt-tab and Alfred can be very productive.
You don’t loose time looking for something. However when you workflow needs
two side-by-side panes but no more, 27” is a bliss.

In my experience in web development, coding usually needs 2 browser windows
with 10-20 tabs, 5-6 terminal windows, DB GUI, text editors with 2-3 related
projects open, logs views, OS task monitor, and a couple of misc. apps. Might
as well work on a small screen with less eye browsing but efficient use of
keyboard shortcuts if context switching is that high.

------
TACIXAT
I've come to love single monitors. It is like a task mode for me where I'm
only looking at one thing at a time. I use multiple desktops to quickly change
between applications or views. It really removes a lot of the urge of
distraction for me.

------
toss1
Nice to see some quantification and hints of where the point of diminishing
returns is reached. Counting tab/window switching time and neck moves seems
like a decent start, tho seems moving the neck or chair is quicker.

It's been obvious since the CRT days that the biggest possible monitor was
best. Anything smaller was like trying to navigate through a porthole instead
of the broad seascape visible from the bridge.

The ultimate in some SciFi scenes, a large curved desk-monitor surround,
though past the point of diminishing returns for most tasks, still seems cool
for very complex tasks, or large CAD work...

------
scottlegrand2
I've used one 30-inch monitor for the past decade. if I try to use more than
one monitor, I get vertigo when the mouse crosses from one monitor to the
other and is in the least bit out of alignment. And I am someone who did a lot
of code development on an ADM 3 monitor in the late 1970s to early 1980s, but
I am very prone to motion sickness.

I cannot stand laptops in general. It's amazing how much functionality can be
packed into them but the first thing I do with a laptop is plug it into a
full-size keyboard, tracball, and monitor.

------
traviswingo
While two monitors with a standard window setup might be more productive,
tools like Bettersnaptool or Magnet, which allow you to position your various
open programs evenly on one display, will absolutely be more productive than
multiple monitors.

My setup (tried and testing over the years), is one 27” high resolution
display and Better Snap Tool. My laptop is in clamshell when connected, and
BST allows me to use keyboard shortcuts to position my working windows. I have
everything in one display.

------
kristofferR
I really like this video about the best way to setup two monitors - it
compares price, ergonomics, productivity, aesthetics and desk space usage for
all the various ways to setup two monitors

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1N3jlgqcQ4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1N3jlgqcQ4)

I don't have fancy monitor arms though, so for now my two monitors are just
placed right beside each other on my desk.

------
iFred
Went from two 27” thunderbolt displays that were side by side, to two Dell 38”
stacked on top of each other. With the bottom monitor closer to the desk and
the chair a bit higher, my eyes are at the top center of the bottom monitor
and I’ve noticed my head doesn’t go back and fourth and my eyes can cover the
vertical space pretty easily.

Looking forward to some high dpi 38” monitors over the next few years.

~~~
rubzah
I would be a little concerned about the ergonomics - any slight deviation from
the heads central balancing point on the neck (i.e. looking slightly up or
down) over a longer period can cause neck strain with the associated problems.

The ideal position of a monitor is with the top directly in front of your eyes
when your head is perfectly upright.

That said you obviously don't have to turn your head as much, which might make
up for that.

~~~
swozey
Yeah I used to have a 2-28" side by side with a top 28" on arms and I really
didn't like it. It caused constant neck pain no matter how I adjusted my
seating position and I wound up rarely even using the top monitor. I initially
figured I'd just keep spotify/media on it

Back to 2-28s now. Debating on getting 1 49" but I'm worried I'll miss having
two completely separated monitors.

------
bayesian_horse
When I have two monitors side by side I tend to use one monitor exclusively
for a significant portion of the time.

But when working on web applications, I do prefer to have the browser on one
monitor and the editor/terminals on the left, and I do believe the latter
improves my productivity. I haven't tried this with a split widescreen yet.

------
aloer
I switched from 2x24" to 1x34" uwqhd and it's so much better

my setup would not work without bettertouchtool and the floating web view
([https://docs.bettertouchtool.net/docs/floating_html_menu.htm...](https://docs.bettertouchtool.net/docs/floating_html_menu.html))
that allows you to show a fully customizable view with custom controls
triggering btt actions

* I can sit and look in a symmetrical centered way. previously one screen was always "main" and I would naturally keep my head rotated more often left than right causing neck pain

* the btt view allows me to have all kinds of flexible layout, see [https://i.imgur.com/wHyS3HP.png](https://i.imgur.com/wHyS3HP.png) for my webview setup. every color is a different kind of layout, dark purple was intended to be most often used and thus easier to reach (webview opens with mouse in the middle). But I have noticed that i rarely use the 60% middle width one so might change that

* if i read something i can put it center view, roughly 60% width

* widescreen allows for 4 windows with somewhat normal ratios in each corner. do that on a normal screen and they are way too narrow for e.g. browsers, editors with sidebars etc.

* curved screens are super nice

* i exclusively use a single iterm2 hotkey window, single screen means all is in one place and it just fits more. with two screens i would have to designate one for the hotkey overlay. 2x4 terminal sessions seems like a great fit for most things

things i wish were differently:

* its not yet possible to get real high dpi on widescreen. 2x4k screens are nicer here

* btt will only allow modification of window dimensions of the currently focussed window, not the under the mouse location when pressing the webview shortcut (middle mouse for me)

------
blackflame7000
Does anyone know why linux is so bad with multiple monitors using multiple
GPUs? I only have NVidia cards but I can only ever get 1 GPU and the intel
integrated graphics to work simultaneously. Is this a limitation with drivers,
X11/wayland, the desktop environment? Any hints would be appreciated!

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
As I understand it, it's a fundamental limitation of how Xorg and is dependent
on compositor support in Wayland.

------
NoPicklez
The arguments against two monitor setups or focusing on two different things
seems to be completely opinion based. Of course if you're checking your emails
then you might want those front and center.

But for me, I work in auditing and I'm constantly looking at two documents at
once, comparing documentation I have against my workpapers. And when working
out at a client site I cannot stand using one screen, having to switch between
documents every 5 seconds, constantly trying to fit two documents side by side
on my screen.

My opinion is that two monitors are better than one, but any variation of that
is simply personal preference. Side note, I also think that working with
ultrawide curved screens distort the image on the screen too much.

~~~
nsilvestri
I moved from 2x 23" 1080p monitors to a 32" 4k monitor with 100% scaling, and
vastly prefer the 4k monitor. I have effectively quadruple the screen space,
but with the option of extra vertical real estate without the visual barriers
of bezels.

On my laptop I'm stuck with a 1080p screen, but I run i3wm which significantly
improves the experience by maximizing my usable space on one screen with
easily switchable workspaces.

------
KozmoNau7
I've gone through a number of monitor setups, and at home I settled on a
single 27" at 1440p. That lets me maximize applications like GIMP for maximum
use of space, or have two 1280x1440 windows maximized side by side for
comparisons or multitasking. If I need a dedicated space for something, I'll
open a new virtual desktop.

At work I did use three 1080p monitors for a while (I do a lot of data
analysis and comparisons), but I realized that I hardly ever used the third
monitor, two displays of that size seem to work best for me. I think I would
be okay with a single ultrawide monitor of similar or higher total resolution.

I think the most important thing is to let people find the setup that works
best for them.

------
gomijacogeo
I used to run 2x 24" monitors in portrait mode (2400x1920) which was pretty
nice.

I upgraded to 27" monitors, but portrait mode (2880x2560) involved too much
head tilting so I ultimately went landscape (5120x1440), which was both too
short vertically and too wide horizontally.

So I'm currently using a single 30" (2560 x 1600) in landscape mode. It's ok.
There's simplicity in having a single monitor.

The next (and possibly final) upgrade will likely be to a ~32" 4K or 5K
monitor. If I had a 2nd monitor, I'd probably just want it to mirror the first
one at 3x zoom centered on the cursor - my eyes are losing resolution about as
fast as monitors are gaining it.

~~~
onetom
What brand is your 30"? I bought a second hand HP ZR30w but it's quite old and
its backlight is not even... [https://support.hp.com/sk-
en/document/c02159509](https://support.hp.com/sk-en/document/c02159509)

Other than that it's a sweet spot indeed. Maybe the only thing I miss is the
sharpness of retina screens :)

When will someone finally make a ~28" 5210x3200 monitor? :)

~~~
gomijacogeo
Dell UltraSharp U3011. It's about 7 years old, but the backlight and image
quality are still good, but technology has moved on.

------
Zardoz84
On my little experience, dual monitors is better that a single ultrawide. I
had a ultra wide on my personal computer and two 16:9 monitor on my
workstation. Same OS, same desktop setup, doing the same stuff. The total area
and resolution is nearly the same . I know how explain, but I feel that I have
more organized the open applications using two monitors that a single ultra
wide monitor. However using the ultrawide to watch cinema movies (without
black bands.. Netflix I'm watching you!) or playing games that support
correctly ultra wide resolution it's a pleasure.

------
turtlebits
Linus Tech Tips just had a video on 49" 1440p Ultrawide monitors with glowing
praise, which has me considering purchasing one to try it out.

I currently have a 32" 4k and its the perfect resolution and vertical height
for me, but could use more width.

Side by side monitors is out for me as I don't like having a bezel in the
middle of my view, and vertical monitors are also out for me as viewing angles
are terrible- and just moving your head side to side can cause
brightness/color saturation to vary wildly - seems as viewing angles are
designed for landscape orientation.

------
thinkmassive
I recently replaced my main 4k 28” monitor with a 2k 13” portable display,
which is the same size/density as my laptop. Many people are surprised this is
my main setup, but I can view all the windows I need active at once (using i3)
and retain the exact setup whether I’m home or mobile.

One major factor for me was glare. There’s no way for me to position the 28”
panel without a giant reflection unless I darken the entire room. With the
smaller panels I can easily position both for zero reflection.

Now the 4k sits to the side for charts/monitoring, attached to a NUC.

------
anotheryou
> with two monitors, you have to turn your head more often. [This causes] neck
> strain.

Citation needed! Isn't a bit of movement healthy? It's not like you are
playing pong across monitors for hours.

------
ScottFree
Am I the only one who has two 27" monitors, but doesn't have to turn his head
to look at them?

Mine are set up so that one is in front of me as normal. The other is tilted
between the bottom of the first monitor and the front of my keyboard.

Pros: I don't have to turn my head side to side or upwards to see all of my
screen real estate. I found that holding those positions too often bothers my
neck and eyes, but looking down doesn't bother me at all.

Cons: You lose a lot of desk space. Cleaning underneath the bottom monitor can
be a pain.

~~~
nickflood
If you haven't already, look into spring-loaded or hydraulic articulating
mounts for your monitors. MountIt makes cheap stuff that's pretty good for the
money. Saves so much desk space and the monitor can be very easily moved out
of the way for cleaning or desk work and then positioned back with minimal
effort.

~~~
ScottFree
I'm not sure what that gets me. The bottom monitor sits on the desk and moving
it would disturb the monitor above it.

Here are some pictures of my setup:
[https://imgur.com/a/A43irYb](https://imgur.com/a/A43irYb)

------
cecilpl2
I appear to be in the minority. I use 3 24" monitors at work because it's the
most I can fit on my desk, but at home I bought a 6-monitor stand and have a
2x3 grid of 22-24" displays.

It's perfect for project work - one display for the site I'm building, one for
my IDE, one for 2 terminals split vertically, two displays for
documentation/research, and one for messaging/music/misc other stuff.

I wouldn't ever go back to fewer displays, and only wish I had bought the
8-monitor stand instead.

~~~
tigershark
Watch out your eyes health, try to look far away as much as possible if you
don’t want to lose the ability to focus far away. I’m speaking from direct
experience as per my other comment.

------
alkonaut
Single reasonably sized screen. Anything to the sides is just at an
uncomfortable angle so I’d be dragging it to the center screen anyway if I
were to work with it. I don’t have screens with read only information I need
to monitor like say a trader, game developer or Ops person.

I have lots of colleagues with multiple screens that use them to spread out
their slacks and mail clients and whatnot. I have no idea why you’d
deliberately put a _distraction_ at the periphery of your vision!

------
educationdata
It also depends on the type of work. If you work on data analytics projects,
you probably will need more screen space to fit: code, console / logs, plots,
data frame. If you work on web / mobile development, you probably will need
less screen space to fit: code, web browser / mobile simulator.

The problem with two monitor setup is that nothing can be at the center,
things are always on either left or right side. Ultrawide is great but I hope
there can be something wider than 21:9.

------
karmakaze
Current setup at the office is a 28-4k dead-centre with laptop stand beside
it. I use the side display for Slack and Spotify specifically to _not_ look
at.

At home I had a 28-4k but replaced it and my TV with a 43-4k. I mostly use the
middle area so a single ultrawide with laptop below it would suit me fine if
it wasn't my TV. The PiP is handy for using multiple machines.

Edit: when I was doing production engineering, I used two 28s, one vertical on
the side with the laptop on the other side.

~~~
soylentgraham
I currently have 3 27" displays side by side and keep wanting to try a giant
40-50" tv now that the bridge between monitors and tv is getting so small.
(Plus I would kill-9 for PIP)

What model do you have, (did you try a few) and what are any real life
downsides? (Eg. No usb hub? Display just not quite as good yet?)

Surprised this approach hasn't come up more often yet

~~~
karmakaze
I got an LG 43UD79-B after asking here[0]. Built as a high quality monitor
rather than a low-end tv. PIP as well as 2x or 4x P-by-P with USB-C
(video+hub), DP, and 4 HDMI.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19540939](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19540939)

------
dstick
My setup for the past 2 years has been a 34” 3440x1440 Dell Curved Widescreen
on max height with my 15” Macbook in front.

Combined with MacOS Spaces it’s perfect productivity wise. Extra screens would
just be Screen sprawl. Learned something new today ;-)

IDE on the Macbook, browser on the right, 4 terminals on the left. Slack,
Messages, Email, Calendar and others are all on a different Spaces screen for
minimum distraction.

------
burtonator
> Three people were selected for the study

N=3 ??? I'll pass.

------
brylie
I live-stream code sessions with OpenBroadcasterStudio. I use one monitor for
my work and the other to monitor the stream. On the work monitor, I split the
window evenly between editor and output (web browser with browser tools), and
find the OS shortcuts for arranging the windows to align to the edges and
split the screen really helpful for efficient use of the screen space.

------
kfriede
I use 3x 24" monitors, all side by side horizontal with a minimal bezel and
love it. I generally have email open on my right monitor, web open on the
left, and productivity center. Works well for me considering it's my "office"
computer, not my development computer. Dev has 2x 24" horizontal, with a VM on
the right and Windows on the left.

~~~
HeWhoLurksLate
I am considering doing the same with my Dell P2210t's and cutting off the
bezels via dremel / etc.

------
simplyinfinity
At home I've been using one 1080p 23" monitor and one 32" 4k . the 1080p is in
vertical position on my left side, i keep chats there and do work and browse
the web on the 4k..

At work up until 2-3 weeks ago at work I had 2 x 1080p monitors, and going
from home to work felt crippling.

So i would recommend to anyone doing any type of work to get at least one 4k
30+" monitor!

------
mamcx
Other angle is the role of text. I have now a 32 4k, before iMac + 32 tv HD.

As pixels, the 32 4k is MUCh better, BUT, for reading and see things, I
actually downscale to almost Full HD (can't see UI artifacts and despite OSX
is better than windows, a lot of things not look good with increased text
fonts).

The need of multiple monitors, for me, is to dial the text..

------
jimnotgym
It depends on what you do!

I tend to use 1 monitor most of the time, but when I am remoting onto a
machine, or running terminal sessions, I tend to switch on another monitor and
put the remote session on that, this gives you a nice mental separation. I
have seen people wasting plenty of time moving stuff to another screen when a
simple alt+tab is faster!

------
plg
Any suggestions for good monitors to use in a vertical orientation? I notice
that the LG monitor they sell at Apple stores (the smaller one) cannot be
rotated on its stock stand. Maybe one can achieve this with a VESA mount +
arm?

But that's an expensive monitor. Any suggestions for others? High DPI would be
nice, I'm so used to it.

------
jammygit
I use a 27 inch 1080p and a bigger 4k monitor and I can't get the scaling
right. I'm considering selling one or the other and getting a new one so that
both share a DPI.

I wish Wayland was more stable so I could use it bug free and get some of that
fractional scaling working

------
bryanrasmussen
If I was Ozymandias being alone with the world I might consider some of these
setups but I prefer just having a crappy little screen because I figure the
user's setup probably looks more like mine than anything really good.

Or it could be that I'm a resolute primitive.

------
MagicPropmaker
For programming? Two monitors. Because no ultrawide has decent vertical
resolution. Consumer 4K is 3840 x 2160, and 5K monitors are 5120 × 2880.

Every ultrawide monitor I've seen doesn't have that same vertical resolution.
They have resolutions like: 3440 x 1440

------
the_gipsy
“Two monitors or one window manager” is a study I’d like to hear.

Is it better to constantly move your head from physical monitor to monitor, or
switch space/virtual desktop?

Of course this requires a WM that can switch to another space instantly, so
macOS is ruled out.

------
anonu
Not sure I believe in the detrimental health effects of having two monitors as
described in the article. I also don't see how having an ultra wide monitor
reduces left and right panning of the monitor with your neck and eyes...

------
usaphp
> Therefore, while working on 2 monitors may require massages or physical
> exercises to reduce neck strain, one monitor is lean and mean.

Isn’t it better for the neck muscle that it keeps moving instead of being
static?

------
corysama
I use an ultrawide with a common-sized 1080p off to one side. Work gets done
in two or three columns in the ultrawide. The smaller side monitor is for
music, api docs, Slack and other background tasks.

------
admax88q
This was a "study" of three people?

This would better be named an experiment.

------
burtonator
For what it's worth I was using 3 monitors and it gave me a SEVERE neck
problem that only resolved itself when I got rid of the setup and went back to
just one.

------
tirrit
This study seems very low value, to me.

There are so many variables effecting these decisions.

1\. Work activity I would never record music, with only one monitor, because I
use many programs, which are synced, and have LOTS of buttons and faders and
valuable information, in -real time-. That makes the time spent adjusting
settings, while replaying the same parts, using plugins while recording an
instrument alone etc., a very dissatisfying experience.

Gathering information on the other hand, for me is easily accomplished with
one screen. I then just snapshot every interesting/relevant peace of
information with key combos, and look through it in bulk, afterwards.

Browsing the web, while chatting with friends, watching some youtube videos
and listening to music, is for me doable on a single screen, since I use a
tiling manager, but I still prefer the second screen available in this
"idling" scenario.

I also have a monitor vertically oriented, to get more text without scrolling
down, on ex. email, hacker news, and other text based applications and
websites.

2\. Health of user; I have trouble sitting in one position for longer amounts
of time. Airplanes are a hazzle, so are boats and busses. Anyhow, this forces
me to move a lot and change position, which in turn could just as easily be
combined with moving my head, and still be beneficial to me, health vice (and
I have not seen studies showing static sitting posture and head placement, to
be lean and healthy).

3\. Type of work If you work with computer administration of live data of any
kind, a vertical monitor to watch alerts, changes, numbers and data - will in
my experience, be more informational than a horizontal monitor feeding the
same information. I understand this is also due to Graphical representation of
given data, but still, It seems easier to similar information in columns.

4\. User capacity Not all users can take advantage of their WM. Not all users
can take advantage of the extra space, with two monitors. If the user do not
adapt to the given setup, they will off course be better off, keep working as
they have done and are used to. It is like giving someone a keyboard driven
tiling window manager.. Some will thrive, learning the combos and adding their
own. Others will rip out their hair in frustration, claiming tiling wm's are
dumb, inefficient and just not giving any advantage in regard to work tempo.

5\. Proparbly lots of other similar arguments going the same way.

I therefor conclude; there IS NO best monitor-size or amount of monitors. It
depends on the work, the user, and the userspace.

------
rb808
Anyone find the source? NEC study?

This didn't seem right: > Yet, the performance when working with a 30-inch
monitor dropped compared to the 26-inch “champion”.

------
h43z
I'm not surprised. Operating one monitor requires the user to know and use the
window manager features correctly if he wants efficiency.

------
parrellel
Two monitors, because tasks can have more tgan one part and organizing a
workflow in physical space helps me implement it.

------
tln
For up to 43" has felt more productive. 50" was just too big. (I use 4k tvs).

It's definitely nicer than two 27" for me.

------
tokyodude
I know of no hd-dpi wide screens. They's need to be about 7680 pixels across
and at least 2140 down

------
innocentoldguy
Two Ultrawides. I use two 34" monitors and think it is a great environment for
programming.

------
sigi45
In my last job I used arch and awesome. One monitor and 9 desktops. Liked that
very much

------
Zekio
I wonder how common is it to turn your chair instead of your neck to go
between monitors

~~~
tonyedgecombe
I'm not even sure it's a good idea to avoid neck movements for a long time.

~~~
Kudos
Pretty sure it's worse to hold your head in a turned position for a long time,
than it is to reposition yourself and hold in facing forwards.

------
brownbat
Am I misreading or was there only one participant per group?

------
l1n
`Three people were selected for the study` Pass.

------
sgt101
Three subjects does not a study make.

------
gnulinux
I prefer a tiny laptop screen.

~~~
eemil
Same. Low-dpi monitors cause a lot of eye strain for me.

------
vasili111
One utrawide should be curved.

------
leowoo91
What is wrong with tabbing?

------
mikequinlan
n=3 (3 people were studied)

~~~
wasteur
Yes, this is not a study. So many problems with this. Measurement of outcomes,
what tasks? N 3 ridiculous and should not be published at all, or believed
(even if it might be true in an actual study)

