
3 monitors won't solve your problems - kjendrzyca
http://aimforsimplicity.com/post/3monitorswontsolveyourproblems/
======
beaner
It works for some people, it doesn't work for others. It's a mistake to think
that more screens means more distractions for everyone. It certainly doesn't
for me. When I'm focused on an app, it gets my attention, and the mere
presence of data nearby doesn't really get me. The benefit for me is in app
switching, because I never have think about it when I can just glance over.

The things that do affect me are popups and noises and the nearby phone. But
these are all things that still exist on a single-monitor setup.

I'm glad the author has found a solution that works for him, but it's wrong to
generalize it as a solution for everyone.

~~~
kennu
I've found it depends on the depth of 'flow' you're in. When trying to force
yourself to get something done (perhaps using various productivity
techniques), eliminating distractions can be quite beneficial. OTOH when
actually enjoying what you're doing and being naturally focused, the
distractions don't really matter and can even add enjoyment to the work.

Personally I can detect this easily by trying to watch TV or movies at the
same time as I'm working. If it feels good, then I'm naturally focused on the
work. If it feels distracting, then it's probably best to eliminate all
distractions.

------
db48x
Sure, increasing the amount of screen space you have doesn't automatically
make you more productive, but neither will it make you less productive unless
you fill those screens up with nonsense and distractions.

Personally, I got a lot more productive when I went to a triple-monitor setup.
I put my code on the middle screen, since it's the most important (emacs,
white text on black, some color for syntax, no menu bar, no tool bar,
maximized), the program I'm developing on the left (usually but not always a
webpage of some type, maximized), and the debugger on the right (tools depend
on what I'm working on, of course, but it's maximized). See? No distractions.

When I'm out and don't have all my monitors, each of these things has a
window, they're all maximized, and they're all right there at the top of the
window list when I alt-tab. No distractions.

Having a separate monitor for each is certainly nicer; alt-tab is generally
faster (the computer can swap windows very quickly), but I think the smoother
transition of physically looking to the side is less likely to interrupt my
train of thought. You know how you sometimes forget what you were doing when
you walk into a room? I sometimes feel that way when I alt-tab.

------
burntsushi
One possible problem with your experience with 3 monitors is that you have
poor tools at your disposal to manage them. When I first switched from 2
monitors to 3 monitors (on Linux), it was _horrendous_ :

\- My workspaces were monolithic. If I changed my workspace, the windows on
_all_ my monitors went with it.

\- Alt-tab worked globally across all monitors. I wanted it to only list the
windows that were on the currently focused monitor.

\- Moving windows from one monitor to the next in a predictable way was a
chore. (I eventually resolved this with some key bindings, but it was a hack.)

\- No window manager I know of afforded me the option of using tiling _or_
(GOOD) stacking layouts on a per-monitor basis. (Some tiling WMs exist that
solve the monolithic workspace problem, but they are all tiling.)

My first solution to this was to fork Openbox. It worked well for a while, but
it was subject to a lot of state transition bugs and my hack became hard to
maintain.

So I wrote my own. In Go. (Including a full X client stack.)
[https://github.com/BurntSushi/wingo](https://github.com/BurntSushi/wingo)

I love working with three monitors now, because I can freely mix and match the
windows on my screen. My workspaces are dynamic (add/remove/rename as I
please), so everything is composable. On one monitor, I might have a bunch of
terminals in tiling mode. On another, I might have GIMP in stacking mode.
Interestingly, in order to achieve this, I had to break compatibility with
existing standards (but support as many as possible). As a result, some
existing WM tools (particularly pagers and possibly task bars) just can't work
well with my WM without explicit support. Perhaps this is why so few of these
WMs exist outside the tiling world!

~~~
twa927
That's something I can't understand - why the inferior model is enforced by
the specs (the same workspace on all screens). Having separate workspaces for
separate screens is a natural setup, and for me it's the reason I couldn't use
GNOME or KDE for work.

~~~
burntsushi
As with most anything, the answer lies in history. The idea that multiple
monitors could share the same root window in X is relatively "recent"
(Xinerama, but now RandR). Before Xinerama, you'd drive multiple monitors on
Linux by using separate X screens. Separate X screens have distinct root
windows. As a result, you could not move one window from one monitor to the
next. Window managers and the specifications surrounding them were built up
around this architecture.

As a result, there is very meager support in the FreeDesktop WM standards for
multiple monitors that share the same root window. Wingo breaks very few of
them, but the ones it breaks (e.g., `_NET_WORKAREA`) are pretty important for
pagers. It also breaks an implicit assumption that only one workspace is
visible at any point in time.

So pagers and taskbars are like, "Oh. So you have multiple workspaces visible
and they don't all have the same geometry?" Whoops. :-)

------
cheatsheet
Thing I'm building | IDE,code,ssh | Documentation / Debugging

Email and messages will always interrupt me, whether I have one monitor or
three.

Honestly, the internet is boring. Facebook is boring, here is boring, reddit
is boring, it is all boring. It is so much more fun to make stuff. But it's a
good place to go to when I want to start my day up, shut it down, and reboot
my brain when I'm working on something difficult.

The concept of multitasking and single tasking is oversimplified. People
define what tasks are and what organized is. If I see mathematical similarity
through the 30 or so random topics I switch up and progress through, there is
something that is single tasked in there because it unifies all the
information selections, and it builds as I progress through each one.

~~~
aaron-lebo
> Honestly, the internet is boring. Facebook is boring, here is boring, reddit
> is boring, it is all boring. It is so much more fun to make stuff. But it's
> a good place to go to when I want to start my day up, shut it down, and
> reboot my brain when I'm working on something difficult.

You just put into words something I've been feeling very strongly lately. Well
said. Thanks.

------
jkot
One of privileges of running your own business, is that you do not have to
explain yourself to anyone.

I have 4 screens now, soon will upgrade to three 40" 4K TVs. I also have 24
core machine with 192 GB RAM and water cooling.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
40" 40K TVs don't really have great DPI and might refresh at 30hz, 4 24" 4K
real monitors would be much better (but much more expensive).

~~~
jkot
Thanks.

24" in pivot mode are another option I am considering.

------
noir_lord
I use 3 and it works fine for me (I'd take 3x1920x1200 over a 4k/5k larger
monitor).

Middle for code/editor/terminal, right for browser/debugger/unit tests and
left for everything else (email, bug tracker, tickets, netflix).

The separation of concerns is what I really like.

[http://i.imgur.com/kxcCh8D.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/kxcCh8D.jpg) is fairly
typical.

------
taude
The OPs arguments on reducing distractions really has nothing to do with using
multiple monitors.

I can regularly use multiple screens to perform single tasks: Three screens:
one web-browser with the product running, one with browser dev tools open, one
with ide/text editor. No distractions, pure coding/debugging.

Or having remote desktops/shells open with tail/ for troubleshooting something
in production....or if you're writing/researching etc...

Anyway, the point is there's plenty of single focus tasks that can utilize a
multiple monitor desktop for productivity.

Of course, these days with the high-res monitors, you don't really need three
anymore, when you can snap two 1200px wide windows next to each other on a
single monitor.

------
Fannon
While I agree that multi-tasking is a bad idea for productivity, three
monitors don't necessarely lead to multi-tasking.

It really depends on how much screen space you need to efficiently do one
task. Having three monitors myself, I mostly use two of them, sometimes one or
sometimes all three, depending on the task. So you can still minify
distraction.

And there are definately tasks where three monitors come in handy and save me
a lot of window switching / aligning.

~~~
arthurswiniarsk
Agreed, 3 monitor doesn't mean spreading useless/distractive thing on the
3rd(2nd?) one. It's often handy for me to have my xcode spread on 2 screens.

And no post is going to make people discipline themselves or focus. Let them
manage their productivity the way they do.

------
jcromartie
The "macbook on a wooden desk with a moleskine and a cup of coffee" is a
running joke on many productivity/minimalism forums.

~~~
sneak
If you need more than that to work at maximum effectiveness, consider yourself
High Maintenance.

I'm thinking of downgrading to an Air or MacBook just to refocus my efforts.

~~~
douche
Having a full keyboard and a mouse is a big boost to productivity, over
crippled little laptop keyboards and trackpads.

Also, physically, the screen on an Air or many of these new MacBooks is one
fourth the size of just one of the three screens on my desktop. I suppose you
can get by if you're just doing email or writing, but I'll stick with my full
workstation for developing software. Two monitors is an absolute minimum, but
the third one is nice for stashing Fiddler or the Chrome dev tool windows in.

~~~
Lio
>> Having a full keyboard and a mouse is a big boost to productivity, over
crippled little laptop keyboards and trackpads.

I respectfully disagree. I use a 27" external monitor with a MacBook Pro as my
keyboard and mouse. I find external mice and keyboards too wide. It's been a
while since I used a full sized keyboard but I find they make my right
shoulder ache.

Since I can touch type I don't really miss the keypad at all. In fact I remap
Caps Lock to Ctrl and use Ctrl-h, Ctrl-m, Ctrl-i (in Colemak) so that I don't
have to reach for backspace, return and tab. That saves my right wrist, which
seems to be a bit weak.

Then again I spend a lot of time in a tmux window with short cuts to move
about, so that might be why it works for me.

[Updates for grammar]

~~~
Lio
Any feedback on the down votes?

My assertion is still that full sized keyboards and mice aren't necessarily
better than laptops with track pads I guess YMMV.

~~~
aesthetics1
I think the downvotes are for such a subjective setup.

Other thoughts - if you find a full-size keyboard uncomfortable, and prefer a
custom keymapping, sounds like you might like the Happy Hacking Keyboard and a
mouse of your choice:

[https://elitekeyboards.com/products.php?sub=pfu_keyboards,hh...](https://elitekeyboards.com/products.php?sub=pfu_keyboards,hhkbpro2)

It isn't cheap, but the compact nature of it allows you to have your mouse
hand much closer. CTRL/CAPS swapping is considered also.

A simple tenkeyless (keyboard ends before the tenkey) might be suitable as
well.

Of course if you're happy with your setup as is, that's all that matters. As
is the common view in this thread, do whatever works for you.

~~~
Lio
Always liked the look of the HHKB but think it needs a second ctrl key for the
right hand.

------
mightybyte
Distractions, frequent context switching, etc can definitely reduce your
productivity. Having three monitors can definitely work enable / exacerbate
this, but it doesn't have to. I use three monitors like this. One for a web
browser with API docs and testing my web app, one for code, one for build
output. If you use an IDE that combines code and build output into one window,
then I would say use the remaining two for API docs and your web app.

------
retrogradeorbit
Next, I think the author needs to try a tiling window manager; to better
manage the small amount of screen real estate.

~~~
k__
With the advent of 4k displays, tiling WMs will really shine, I think.

On my 1366x768 notebook display they do nothing for me, because many tools
have tool-bars and stuff.

~~~
KnightHawk3
I find on my display (1366*768) with my notebook, I prefer tiling window
managers because of the keyboard navigation.

The lack of a good trackpad makes working with most other window managers a
massive pain.

~~~
k__
Interesting.

Most of the time I work with 3 windows. Editor, browser and a terminal.

Between the editor and the browser, which are both maximized, I switch with
alt+tab and the terminal is a Guake on f1.

------
marvel_boy
In some companies to have more than one monitor is just a status privilege.

~~~
JBiserkov
Yep!
[http://dilbert.com/strip/2010-11-04](http://dilbert.com/strip/2010-11-04)

------
walshemj
Depends how you use them for webdev I think on monitor for your main IDE a
second for the Database IDE(work mangler or what have you) and a main one for
the application is a good setup.

You want to hide distractions like Skype,Outlook and so on.

~~~
Amezarak
Yes, I think it depends a great deal on _how_ you use your three monitors. The
author was using them in a way that led to distractions and then concluded
that it was always bad for productivity.

What I used to do was this:

\- One monitor for IM, email and ticketing system on the host machine. IM is
left in DND while working, but occasionally there are IMs and emails which do
need to be responded to immediately. Having email open also lets me browse
through any emails associated with whatever work item I'm looking at.

\- Two monitors devoted to a full-screen development VM. These two windows get
the IDE, database windows, and the browser.

I was hugely productive like this, and going to two (or worse, one) monitor
was a noticeable impact and I would get annoyed at all the alt-tabbing.

To me, having three monitors is analogous to having three stacks of paper on
your desk. If you were working on a task that required you to look at three
different sheets of paper, you wouldn't stack them on top of each other. You'd
lay them out side-by-side. If you couldn't do that, you'd drive yourself
crazy.

~~~
XorNot
I full screen my IDE on the center monitor, split that into 3 80-column code
windows. The project explorer and outline view go on monitors on either side,
along with the debugging windows, a browser to preview on the left, a browser
to search documentation on the right, usually 1 or 2 consoles on the right for
pure console commands, and maybe a tmux session to hold docker instances for
databases/webservers.

------
ghc
I went from three screens to one of those new 34" curved Dell monitors and
it's been a big productivity boost for me. Part of the story is that I was
never fully comfortable with either xmonad or gnome-shell on multiple screens.
The other part of the story is that it's easy to wind up focusing on the wrong
screen, at least for me.

The 34" \+ xmonad combo with a asymmetric three column format helps me have
two large focus windows and a series of shells off to the side, without having
the distraction of slack always being visible. As an added benefit,
notifications which used to appear on every screen now only appear way, way at
the corner of my vision. For me, at least, this is great because I don't
notice them if I'm busy concentrating, but if I'm looking at, say,
documentation (my rightmost column), the notifications are prominent enough
that I can look down and see what I'm missing in another workspace.

------
cxseven
It's funny, the NORAD command center in WarGames was an over-the-top set (the
director called it "NORAD's wet dream of itself") meant to visually impress
the audience, but it became the blueprint for command centers everywhere going
nuts with monitors.

Quoth William Lord, Commander, Air Force Cyberspace Command: "It was a great
movie! A few years later, I was an executive officer with the Air Force Space
Command stationed at Norad near Cheyenne Mountain. And I'm wondering, 'Gee,
where can we get such cool-looking displays?' It was a good forcing function.
It required us to all of a sudden say, 'If it really can look like this, why
doesn't it?'"

Source:
[http://archive.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/16...](http://archive.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/16-08/ff_wargames?currentPage=all)

------
pgtan
2015 and Windos still has no proper working virtual desktops. Not to mention
all the other, say, fvwm functionality.

~~~
AndrewGaspar
Virtual desktops is a prominent feature of Windows 10.

------
ezolotko
As a professional software developer I would say a multi-monitor setup indeed
brings not much extra into my workflow (except maybe for VS Stack Trace and
Output panes on a side monitor).

However, as a hobbyist 3D Artist, I would say multiple monitors are a must.
When you are modeling you need beauty drawing/different projections side-by-
side. You are unwrapping - you need UV window. You are working in Photoshop -
you bring all the brush/layer/properties panes to the second monitor, etc,
etc.

So this really depends on your task. When your primary UI is a text editor
with shortcuts is one case, but if your environment is a mix of an art studio
and a Boeing control panel, that's a different situation.

------
twa927
You need a policy on how to use multiple monitors, telling which monitors are
assigned to which applications. If you will just randomly place applications
on different screens, you will surely get a distracting work environment.

To disprove the statement that 3 monitors cause less productivity, here's a
simple policy that always increases productivity (although is rarely optimal):
use the extra screen just for one specific app. It leaves more space for other
apps on other monitors and you can always have direct access to the separated
app. A web browser is a good candidate to be this app.

------
Shivetya
Glad to see someone else who went towards the empty desktop for their
displays. I use various background scenes that are either calming or spark
conversation. I have no icons on there other than files/reports being exported
on a current problem and on their way to the vendor or responsible team. Once
sent they get filed. Its like the age old idea of a clean physical desk.
Things are where they belong.

I always liked the dual monitor setup, it keeps work separate from mail/etc
without taking up an undue amount of my physical desk and more importantly,
eye space.

------
Pxtl
Ive wished for 3 monitors, usually when debugging a data-binding problem for a
massive record. 1 for IDE, 1 for database browser, 1 for GUI. Giant record
meaning each of those is full screen.

------
dreen
Personally I found a single 21:9 aspect radio monitor is awesome for
displaying code, since it lets you comfortably display 4 files in columns.

Heres an example with Sublime
[http://i.imgur.com/snoNsUx.png](http://i.imgur.com/snoNsUx.png) \- 72 columns
per file, probably 80 if you disable code minimaps, enough for most neatly
written code.

I still have an auxiliary monitor on a side for stuff like docs, but all the
action happens in front of me.

~~~
swah
What resolution/size is this?

~~~
dreen
My resolution is 2560x1080, they're usually called something like "ultra wide
screen" in shops

[http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-
alias%3D...](http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-
alias%3Dcomputers&field-
keywords=ultra+wide+screen&rh=n%3A541966%2Ck%3Aultra+wide+screen)

------
ChikkaChiChi
A lack of resolution independence is the biggest reason why people keep
expanding their monitor real estate. If windows could be resized without just
rearranging their content, you could get a lot more out of a 24 or 27 inch
monitor.

So far, OSX is the closest to getting there, but resizing browser windows
still results in mangled layouts or "responsive" reduction when perhaps that's
not what I want.

Also, Google Hangouts is the worst.

------
anton_tarasenko
Portrait orientation definitely solve some problems. Reading is easier as text
is narrower. Coding also seems okay if you're not a fan of long lines.

------
velox_io
Having one monitor or three makes little difference if you aren't focussed.

Saying that, I love the amount you can get done when you're 'in the zone'. I
just wish I could sustain it..

If you haven't tried the Pomodoro technique, I highly recommend it. It's a
great tool to be able to pull out when you're feeling lethargic.

------
drivingmenuts
I have one 27" monitor that I _could_ attach to my laptop, but right now it
functions as a privacy screen from people walking by my office.

I'm just used to a 15" screen with multiple workspaces.

At home, my iMac has a second screen, but I can take it or leave it. I usually
just keep a browser open on that one.

------
matobago
Three monitors works great for me, one for log and terminal next for code and
the last one for testing environment, and my laptop for reference and
documentation. I never have my email up, that is a distraction and I put my
phone in DND. I'm more productive this way than any other setup.

------
lotsofmangos
Depends on the problems.

Anything to do with video or 3d graphics and it can help a lot.

------
aerialcombat
Maybe you should reconsider keeping the team you have.

------
Tiksi
This seems like a needless widely sweeping generalization. Maybe 3+ monitors
won't solve _your_ problems, but they certainly help mine. The main issue I
see people having with multiple and/or large monitors is the window manager. I
must admit I find it extremely frustrating to use multiple (large) monitors
with anything but a tiling window manager. The Windows partition on my home
desktop sits idle basically for that reason alone. I tried Mosaico
([http://www.soulidstudio.com/](http://www.soulidstudio.com/)) for a while,
but even with the paid pro version, it's a poor imitation at best.

I suppose my view on this might be a bit different since the majority of my
work is sysadmin/devops, but I do a fair amount of dev work as well, and am
far, far less productive without my setup. I pretty much live on the cli so I
suppose that might also be a factor. I like having all necessary information
out in front of me, just a glance and possibly a keypress away.

At work I have 2 30 inch 1600p monitors stacked in landscape, and 2 24 inch
1080p monitors in portrait on either side:

    
    
              _________
             |         |    
         ____|         |____
        |    |_________|    |
        |    |         |    |
        |    |         |    |
        |____|_________|____|
    

The left monitor I have 8 terminals open, middle top is
monitoring/graphs/alerts, middle bottom is irssi (slack, irc, gtalk, etc),
firefox, and another terminal, right monitor is 4 wide terminals.

At home its a bit simpler, 1 39 inch 4k with a 1440 27" in portrait to the
left. My setup isn't nearly as static as my work setup, and I change my
column/row layout and size depending on what I'm doing.

Any time I get on a computer with a single, small monitor, like a laptop, I
find myself barely productive compared to my desktop setups. I tile on my
thinkpad and chromebook as well, but it's far more restrictive and mostly in
separate tags/workspaces instead of all out in front of me. Although not
having a full keyboard probably contributes to that as well. I have
keybindings set up in awesome to move/swap/resize the windows and layout and I
can get everything perfectly positioned much faster than in a normal window
manager. Moving between windows is a matter of Super + hjkl and changing where
I'm looking. No messing with alt-tab and trying to find the window I need. I
pretty much have keybindings for every operation possible, and rarely move
from home row. I honestly don't know how I used to manage to using floating
window managers without constant frustration. Awesome has probably been a
bigger productivity boost for me than anything else I've done.

Apologies for the rant, but articles and blanket statements like this just rub
me the wrong way. "This doesn't work for me/I can't get used to this/I wasn't
willing to try the available tools, etc. therefore this is bad and you
shouldn't do it" comes off very arrogant and dishonest to me. Not everyone has
the same workflow, not everyone focuses the same way, and your way of doing
things is not the One True Way.

~~~
osi
My workstation is 4 30" screens is this layout as well. It was hell getting it
to work under Linux, but after getting the correct NVidia card with enough
VRAM, it has been good.

(I'm a developer but also manage the production deployment of my stuff)

~~~
Tiksi
It was pretty painless for the first three for me, all run off one gpu, nvidia
270 iirc so nothing crazy. My setup is pretty lightweight even with compton
running so it's never been an issue. Awesome handles multiple monitors really
well imho and they're basically independent from each other, except for moving
windows between them. When I added the fourth was a bit of a pain, as it's a
separate X screen, and separate instance of awesome on a second GPU, but I put
dualscreenutils on a keybinding so that alleviated the pain, except I can't
move windows to/from that screen, but it's not really a pain point.

I'll have "enough" screen area once I have a setup that covers my entire field
of vision ;)

~~~
osi
ah. if you step up to a Quadro card, you can drive all 4 off of one. They use
that to differentiate the products.

agreed on "enough" being full field of vision! :)

------
chris-martin
For a lot of web development work, three is the perfect number. Terminal, IDE,
browser.

------
lurkinggrue
I know I need a 4th monitor.

------
Arrygoo
Or maybe minimize skype.

------
bitJericho
I used to use 3 monitors but now I use 2 (one is the size of 2 monitors, 32").
On the left side of one I have the ide and on the other side usually whatever
references or document I need to work with, and then on the second monitor
half I have for skype and half I have for the debugger/console.

PROTIP: Windows 10 makes it exceptionally easy for a multimonitor setup due to
the new snap behavior.

I can't imagine developing without 3 screens worth of real estate. If I had
room for another I'd probably put it to very good use.

------
Lancey
3 monitors might not solve your problems, but switching to Linux sure would.

~~~
sz4kerto
Well, multi-monitor handling is something that Windows is very good at
(compared to OSX or common Linux WMs). It correctly remembers window
positions, etc., you don't have ridiculous limitations of cross-monitor window
positioning like OSX. Windows 10's is going to be a big jump forward in that
as well. Exotic (tiling) WMs under Linux can be very good if someone takes the
time to set them up, however, standard Gnome, KDE, XFCE, Cinnamon are all
inconvenient.

~~~
snassar
"standard Gnome, KDE, XFCE, Cinnamon are all inconvenient."

I work and travel with Kubuntu and part of my routine is hooking up god-awful
monitors, projects and whatnot and for the most part, I don't see a problem
with convenience.

I haven't particlularly looked at issues of Window position because I expect
it to change from site to site.

