
Why I Stopped Using Multiple Monitors - henrik_w
https://medium.com/@housecor/why-i-stopped-using-multiple-monitors-bfd87efa2e5b#.mee4fysjf
======
deepaksurti
>> to display multiple things simultaneously? If my email or social media
feeds are available at a glance, then I’ll check them constantly

Just had no desire to read further, I started with the impression that there
will be some strong arguments against multi monitor setup. May be for the
author's needs a single monitor suffices, he earlier had a multi monitor
setup, so he ended up using the excess which made him unproductive. That is
not a multi monitor setup being useless problem, it is a problem of you not
having a use case for multi monitor setup.

Of course if one is using a multi monitor setup to do multi tasking, that is
not really recommended. But there are many tasks where a multi monitor setup
makes you feel how you lived without one for long? Sample: When I work on an
Xcode app, I have one primary 25" monitor fully dedicated to Xcode (IB,
editor, inspectors etc) and the second 22" monitor dedicated to Xcode docs,
browser with relevant docs/tabs (no email etc), terminal all arranged with
Moom. Trying to do this on a 13/15" real estate will make me work at a snail's
pace or even negative pace for the constant switching.

>> Deep work is becoming increasingly hard in our distraction

I think Cal Newport must be having a free healthy daily dose of laughter given
every Tom is referring to Deep Work when talking about Focus!

~~~
reitanqild
>>> to display multiple things simultaneously? If my email or social media
feeds are available at a glance, then I’ll check them constantly

Actually, what is this social-media-at-work thingy?

Is this accepted in US? Elsewhere in Europe? Should it be?

~~~
jimbokun
Now you know why people are at work for so many hours in the US.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Europe too. I'm guilty of that myself; I always keep at least Messenger tab
open (for communication with my SO) and I check HN frequently.

Let's be honest here: rare is a person who can do cognitively demanding work
8+ hours a day for longer stretches of time. Especially when that's a job, and
not one's true life calling.

I also personally find it hard to completely ignore distractions just because
of _other people_ \- it seems rude to tell them all to stop calling / mailing
me during work hours, even though I try so hard.

~~~
Delmania
> Let's be honest here: rare is a person who can do cognitively demanding work
> 8+ hours a day for longer stretches of time. Especially when that's a job,
> and not one's true life calling.

No one is capable of doing a full 8 hours of cognitively demanding work. I
think Cal Newport detailed it out, but the most dedicated and focused people
can achieve 6 hours of productive work. Most people can average 4. The 8
hours/day, 40 hour work week is a relic from manufacturing work that has
carried over into the office. Between cubicles, open office layouts, meetings,
the belief you have to be on premise to be productive, and the execs deluding
themselves into thinking they're working the hardest, the US corporate area is
not set up for productivity.

------
lexicality
I disagree heavily - Having a secondary monitor with documentation / work
plans on it is enormously useful as you can glance at it without having to do
anything more special than turn your head.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that three monitors is optimum since you
can have your code on one, the output of your code (continuous tests/hot
reload/etc) on another and documentation on the last allowing you to see all
aspects of your work without a single keystroke.

~~~
quasse
I don't program in Android as my main focus at work but have been doing to
quite a bit lately and I have to say _thank god_ for my three monitors.

The Android ecosystem is such that you are going to want documentation up at
all times, and alt-tabbing back and forth would drive me insane. My monitor
layout ends up like this:

[emulator][docs][code]

and it works really well. That picture of the author's virtual desktops looks
like a nightmare to me. I like using window snapping to put one thing per
monitor and having it be big and static from that point on. No context
switching, no keeping a mental index of which virtual desktop has that damn
Gradle documentation hidden on it.

------
klodolph
There's a raft of articles where people share their forays into minimalism.
Minimalism is mostly a way to show cultural value, like wearing black
turtlenecks or making your children take piano lessons. We add maxims like
"less is more" to justify these things but "less is more" is such a vacuous
justification you can discard it without thought.

Yngwie Malmsteen's pithy thoughts on "less is more" (very short):
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHZ48AE3TOI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHZ48AE3TOI)

If you want data, there are a few usability studies on the use of multiple
monitors. The general consensus is that bigger monitors are better and two
monitors are better than one, three or more monitors _might_ be too many.
These studies are easy enough to find on Google so I'm not going to link them
here. Data will always beat maxims.

On a personal note, I find it easier to work with multiple monitors rather
than one larger monitor, possibly due to software support. I'll want two web
browsers up, side by side, on one monitor, and then the other monitor can hold
editors and terminal windows. There tends to be pretty good software support
for dividing a monitor in half, which supports this workflow very well on two
monitors, but dividing a monitor in four is a bit rare. Stuff I don't really
need like mail, music players, and the like get relegated to other virtual
desktops.

------
linsomniac
Hey, great that a single monitor works for you. It doesn't for me though.

I have 3 monitors and can't imagine going back to one. Different people work
differently, but for me I see a significant benefit to being able to glance
somewhere to check a job I'm running, e-mail, chat, reference a browser... It
reduces the overhead of the context switch, so I can do it and be right back
to where I was.

In the past I would change virtual desktops to check e-mail or chat, and once
I was in that isolated desktop I would find it much harder to get back. It was
better when I was able to set up a hotkey to "switch back to the last virtual
desktop I was on".

At the moment I have two 32" displays and a 24" in portrait. I have my
terminal sessions on the center 32", 2 browsers on the right 32", and slack
and e-mail on the left 24" portrait. I came to this from using a 15" laptop
all the time for 15 years.

Caveats: I use i3wm and use keyboard navigation a lot. I'm also a sysadmin, I
could easily see programming being different.

------
luma
This is very much dependant upon use case. If you're in the business of
managing loads of systems, being able to have console sessions open to all the
various places you need to touch as part of your current task is invaluable.
If you're a programmer working on a single thing at a time, that's great. If
you're in operations, a "single task" may involve dozens of separate
interactions with separate systems, and being able to have everything
presented to you at once is a huge benefit.

~~~
chousuke
I'll second this.

I mostly work with operations, and I use a two-monitor setup for most of my
work. It's setup so that my second monitor is left for my main focus or large
applications, like the web browser or editor sessions, and my other screen is
for "miscellaneous stuff" or multiple terminals when I need to follow multiple
things at once.

I also use a tiling window manager (Awesome) because honestly I couldn't keep
track of all my windows otherwise. I also very much like having separate
virtual desktops for each screen, so that I can control each individually.
With a tiling window manager it's also very easy to "banish" everything else
when you need to focus on a single thing.

------
addicted
Well, my productivity has risen dramatically. The choice argument fails for
me, because I use 2 monitors for the applications I use most frequently, and
the 3rd monitor is a catch all for everything else.

So, for example, when doing front end programming, 1 monitor contains my
terminal windows where I am programming in VIM, running commands, etc (I
usually have 4 open in each corner) while the other window contains the live
reloading browser window.

The 3rd monitor has everything else. No paradox of choice, and seeing the
results of my actions is a glance.

The physical spatial arrangement of my work tools is of tremendous value.

Personally, I've seen a much greater productivity improvement by getting rid
of laptops, and only working with desktops in a specific work area with
multiple monitors and a desk laid out in a way that helps with my
productivity.

I am working less hours, and doing a lot more in those fewer hours.

------
deathanatos
> _Virtual Desktops For the Win_

There's a few things about virtual desktops on OS X (the OS I use at work)
that just absolutely kill them for me:

1\. OS X will re-order keyboard inputs when the inputs contain virtual desktop
commands. That is, if you have two terminals open, one in one desktop, and one
in another, and you type ^→¹ "hi", where "hi" ends up _depends on how quickly
you type the command_. If you know the desktop on the right has a terminal,
and you know what you want to run in that terminal, you have to switch, wait
for the animation to complete, and then type the command; it's an artificial
limitation on your speed.

2\. OS X will re-order desktops. Which means I never know _where_ , in this
virtual space, the desktop I'm seeking is. The latest version of OS X made
this even more annoying, because now if you do an exposé, you don't get
thumbnails by default, so you can't even _see_ where the desktop might have
gotten moved to. (You have to grab the mouse and hover over the darn things.)

Compare this to the rather simplistic multidesktop functionality in MATE:
desktops don't move. The switch is instant and keyboard input order is
maintained. The space is 3D, not 2D. There are small thumbnails in your tray.
(I could wish for some things from MATE, in particular, I don't know how/if
it's possible to reorder whole desktops.)

[1]: (change to desktop to the right)

(Also, OS X will occasionally just get stuck in the middle of a desktop
switch. As in, I'll have no hands on the mouse/keyboard, and I'll be looking
at the left half of one desktop and the right half of another.)

Edit: I forgot 3. OS X will combine desktops if the set of attached displays
changes. I really wish I could have it just move the desktops to the laptop,
not combine them. (Also, I really wish that when the external display was
reattached, that the windows would restore the size and layout they had; as it
is, today they all get resized to the size of the smaller laptop screen —
which makes sense while they're there, but once the external is back, I want
the sizes back too.) I have no idea how MATE compares here.

~~~
crymer11
FWIW, you can disable the "Automatically rearrange Spaces based on most recent
use" option in the Mission Control Preferences panel.

~~~
gurkendoktor
Frustratingly, when you disable this option, new fullscreen windows will
always be appended to the END of the list. If you have 3 spaces and click the
green pill on a Safari window on space #1, it will become space #4, after all
the others, instead of space #2.

Reported to Apple, "works as intended". One more reason to never use macOS'
built-in fullscreen mode.

------
randallsquared
_On my Mac, I can 3 finger swipe to quickly switch between multiple virtual
desktops. This takes less than a second and it doesn’t require me to turn my
head and refocus my eyes on content in a different spot._

This reveals something odd about me, or about the author. Not sure which. It
seems obvious to me that it's less context-switch overhead to glance at
something that's already physically in my peripheral vision than it is to swap
out what's physically in front of me for some different content. The latter
means I have to take a moment to understand what I'm looking at, then find
what I need. The former doesn't seem to have this "wait, what is this" part
before looking where I need, which I suspect is because it was already in my
field of vision and some part of my brain that would otherwise be keeping
track of the patterns on the wall is keeping track of placement of things on
that second monitor.

~~~
developer2
The truly monstrous users like myself use both systems: 3 monitors, with
multiple virtual spaces on each. I can't have it any other way. The primary
spaces on each monitor are a) IDE, b) Chrome, c) Terminal. The secondary space
on monitor 1 is database tool, monitor 2 is Postman for API testing, monitor 3
is a split-screen of email and Slack.

A benefit of this system are that email and Slack are on a dedicated screen,
but on a _secondary_ space of a _secondary_ monitor. The distraction of those
communication tools is completely out of the way; I specifically switch to
that screen when I am willing to switch out of "real work". Yet it's not
complicated at all - a single 3-finger swipe to the left on monitor 3.

~~~
andylynchnz
In our office we have six screens on most desks. Are first we thought it was a
little over the top but it's hard to imagine cutting back now; you can lay out
everything at once and it's just there - no switching. The only odd thing is
we need water cooling in the desks to keep the heat down, but it works nicely.

------
ACow_Adonis
Don't know what the guy is doing, but at my previous workplace one of the most
frustrating things was that due to hot desking and a policy of everyone works
with laptops, they didn't believe that analysts required multiple monitors.

At home, if I've got the repl, a terminal, only one code file open, and some
documentation/stack overflow, I'm already at 4 windows.

At work, have rstudio, a database, a word and excel file with some
documentation and suddenly one monitor feels minuscule.

You took away my office walls on which I printed out and hung up cheat sheets
and reference materials, then you took away my cubicle walls on which I did
the same, please don't put out articles that will make them take away my
monitors!

------
massysett
Next, he should cut down his desk so that he can only fit one piece of paper
on it. After all, it's better to focus on one thing at a time.

~~~
degenerate
Also there's too many drawers. How can you find anything when there are so
many storage bins to choose from? One giant laundry basket, or a bathtub, if
you have lots of stuff, should do just fine...

------
tboyd47
I prefer a single monitor not just because it's more convenient, but because
it really does improve focus. My screen represents my train of thought. I
don't have 3 applications and 4+ files splattered in front of me. I have a
single application, with no more than 2 files, that represents exactly where I
am at that moment in my thinking. And I move from screen to screen fluidly
with Spaces. I also use a large font size so I don't see more than 40 LOC on
the screen at a time.

This is not some sort of self-imposed hipster handicap like a fixed gear
bicycle- it really does feel more comfortable. I get so frustrated looking at
coworkers' screens with 4+ files open, all in tiny text. I think, how can they
work like that? No wonder that when someone interrupts them they lose all
context.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> _And I move from screen to screen fluidly with Spaces._

> _I get so frustrated looking at coworkers ' screens with 4+ files open, all
> in tiny text. I think, how can they work like that?_

That's what I think when I see someone working like you, flipping through
multiple spaces, scrolling up and down files. To me, spaces add more overhead
- I have to remember in which space various running applications or their
windows are open.

And as far as 40 lines per screen, I often have to track through multiple
files to figure out how things fit together - there are times when I've got
IntelliJ split into three columns as I'm trying to follow some logic. Maybe
this indicates that we've just abstracted things poorly, but it's hard to see
how things could be significantly simplified.

~~~
tboyd47
I just have three Spaces at a given time: browsing is #1, chat is #2, code is
#3. VMs are optional #4.

But yeah, having to trace through abstraction layers is one area where my
system does break down. My own code has gotten lighter and lighter on
abstractions as the years have gone by, while others' code seems to grow
heavier and heavier. Maybe it's my workflow influencing my coding style.

------
tptacek
I won't even use a single external monitor, for the simple reason that
acclimating myself to a bigger monitor would, I'm pretty certain, make me feel
less productive in the common case where I only have a laptop screen to work
on. I'd rather invest effort into making myself more productive on the laptop
screen than on things that make me more productive in the specific case where
I'm at my desk.

------
msimpson
> Many developers believe multiple monitors improve productivity.

That's simply because it does. You cannot tell me, or others for that matter,
that a tiling window manager arranged across multiple monitors keeping
everything relevant just a glance away is a useless feature and offers no real
improvement in productivity.

> Humans can only focus on one thing at a time. So why are we spending money
> to display multiple things simultaneously?

Because utilizing even keyboard shortcuts to switch virtual desktops is slower
than glancing left or right. Also, if you wish to compare the contents of two
applications having them both displayed at once is a huge advantage.

> I ran a 34" LG ultra-widescreen monitor for a month. At first, I loved it.
> But after a few days, I was surprised to find my opinion soured. It was far
> too wide to maximize my windows, so I found myself spending too much time
> fiddling with windows.

If this was really a concern for most people, how have tiling window managers
managed to flourished in recent years?

> Both Mac and Windows support virtual desktops now.

Which is why in my case I can still be very productive on my Windows laptop,
but even more so on my multi-monitor desktop running i3.

> But I don’t waste cycles on this arrangement either. The far left virtual
> desktop is always my browser, the one to the right is my editor. So I treat
> virtual desktops like physical screens that reliably present the same
> content.

Wait. So why did you have so much trouble arranging applications before on a
single wide screen? Why couldn't you just arrange the applications contained
within these virtual desktops across a wide screen in the same manner?

You know what? New title: "Why I Stopped Reading About Someone Who Stopped
Using Multiple Monitors"

------
hinkley
I remember when two monitors were a new thing that someone did a productivity
study and found that getting 50% more real estate (i.e., half again as many
pixels or a few more inches diagonal) on your single monitor was as effective
as having a second monitor the same size as your old one.

Personally, I thought having multiple wide aspect ratio monitors was a
complete waste. I don't turn my head that far when I work normally. But my
latest trick, adapted from a coworker, is to put the second monitor in
portrait mode. My CI build window is the top 2/3rds of the screen, and the log
tail for the code I'm running or the build script I'm running are the bottom
2/3rds, which leaves enough visible in each window to discern when the other
needs my attention. I'm getting a lot more use out of that monitor now.

~~~
CodeWriter23
Heh, I run two 30", one landscape, one portrait. I have 6 code windows open on
the landscape and I can run a browser with the viewport set to 1280x720 and
have a crapload of space below for the debugger/console. Below that, a term
used for transferring my current iteration to my test server. On the other
side of the landscape monitor I have an old 20" 4:3 rotated to portrait mode,
two term windows, one tails and the other is in psql.

------
noshbrinken
Someday I'm going to write a Medium article titled: "Why I Don't Care About
What You Started or Stopped Doing."

------
enobrev
I can hardly imagine being productive on a single monitor anymore. After
having three 19" monitors for a couple very productive years, I tried
switching to two 27" monitors. It added up to more space, to be sure, but I
spent way too much time managing windows.

And then I took a job with a startup and bought a laptop since they wanted me
to show up in the office on occasion, and working with one monitor was like
driving with one eye open. I started to get better at it, but there was so
much extra effort involved in context switching. Even as it became muscle
memory, it didn't come close to beating a simple glance to the left or right.

They offered a separate monitor, but I chose to go back to working from home
and switched to three 22" monitors, which has been perfect for years (though I
want at least one more now for testing non-linux apps).

Focus has nothing to do with monitor layout. I have three monitors, but only
one thing is happening at any given time.

When I'm coding, email, slack, etc, are all off. It's a terminal on my left
with git, and logs, a fullscreen IDE in the middle, and documentation and test
application on the right.

When I'm shopping, it's reviews in the middle, shopping cart on the left, and
search on the right.

When I'm catching up on slack / email, they're both open on separate screens
with an extra for research (Github, etc).

When I'm editing photos, its the collection on the left, editor in the middle,
research (editor docs, etc) on the right.

Focus is all about strictly doing one thing at a time. Multiple monitors is
about switching contexts without losing focus. The only problem I have now is
that I don't blink often enough.

Also, to the point about "Same Workflow When Remote", I just choose not to
work while traveling any more. I'm not as productive, nor do I want to learn
to be more productive while on the road. That used to be a dream for me; And
then I _really_ tried it; And I _really_ sucked at it. I'd rather have my
sit/stand desk, comfortable chair, and tea pot - all optimized for focus -
than try to drive uncomfortably with one eye open.

~~~
zokier
> After having three 19" monitors for a couple very productive years, I tried
> switching to two 27" monitors. It added up to more space, to be sure, but I
> spent way too much time managing windows

That seems bit odd (in this specific case); half of a 27" display should have
almost exactly the same screen-estate as a 19" screen (1280x1440 vs
1280x1024), and even Windows can do half (and quarter) screen layouts easily
these days. So I don't really see why windows managing with 2x27" would be
worse than 3x19"

~~~
enobrev
For me, the larger screens made for either more wasted space or more effort to
figure out placement of windows on each screen.

With my three wide screens, I'm almost always running one window per screen -
not necessarily full-screen, but still, one-per. With two larger screens, I
constantly found myself trying to tetris my screens into an "ideal" layout.

~~~
adwf
Yeah I'm much the same. If I've got one monitor, give me 32" with as many
pixels as you can get. Two monitors, give me 2x24"; Three monitors, 1x24"
central, 2x22" side panels.

I use a tiling window manager. If I have a single monitor I'll split it
evenly, but I'll need as much space as I can - whilst using virtual desktops
to avoid clutter.

If I have two monitors I'll tend to use full screen apps rather than split,
but may occasionally split open a terminal or small chat window. By small I
mean, a narrow vertical tile rather than a wide horizontal.

If I have three monitors, the extra width of large monitors starts to get
annoying with how far around you have to look to see the farthest extent to
left or right. It's easier to have smaller monitors (although still as high
definition as you can get) and run them with full screen applications.

The big problem though with the large monitors is that you have to do too much
window management. On a 22" screen a horizontally designed app at fullscreen
is great. At 32" you start feeling like you wasted a ton of space off to the
right. So you use your tiling WM to do a vertical split. At that point the
horizontally designed app at 3840×2160 is now a vertical oriented app at
1920x2160, which is not at all what you want, so you adjust the tiling to make
the 2nd frame smaller. But if the 2nd frame should also be horizontal, you
have to move it to a different monitor... Thus ending up doing a load of
annoying window management when your WM is supposed to do it for you.

So really, big monitors are just a tad annoying unless it's the _only_
monitor.

------
richardboegli
Try a decent size 4k screen. I find a single one to be enough as it gives me
effectively 4 1080P screens.

In windows 10 I snap each window into its own corner.

When doing Game Dev in Unity, it gets left half of screen (1920x2160) so I can
see scene and preview comfortably simultaneously, Pale Moon top right, Visual
Studio bottom left.

If I need to look at long file in Visual studio, then it'll take whole right
side of screen.

Outlook and MS Project in 4k is great with 2160P height for looking thru inbox
or looking at a lot of tasks.

------
SZJX
This is actually a really interesting topic. My laptop screen broke down a
while ago and I moved so I'm now forced to use only one monitor for now after
a long period of using multiple (mostly 3) monitors. It feels like I am
actually able to focus better and am less strained by unnatural monitor
positions and the constant switching between monitors. I guess your focus is
always only on one thing, and whenever you need to switch focus you can just
bring that into the foreground instead of switching your eyes to look at
somewhere else. This actually doesn't cost that much productivity. In most use
cases one monitor is really enough.

Though I guess programming, compared with other cases, does have a legitimate
claim to using multiple monitors, especially when you're performing constant
documentation lookup or running a live preview of the program, both of which
can exist side-to-side with the code itself. I think the positioning of
monitors is really key here. If you have to accommodate them such that all of
them are in an unnatural position instead of the natural position that one
single monitor can occupy, it can actually hurt your productivity. If their
positions are mostly ergonomic, it should be much better.

------
erikpukinskis
Why can't this be a matter of preference? A lot of people in this thread
saying "you're wrong, it DOES increase productivity!" and others saying "no,
it DOESN'T increase productivity!" It seems obvious to me that it's not
necessary or sufficient for max productivity, but if it's part of your
productivity strategy (or not) then great.

I use a single monitor, mostly because I like being able to move around, from
the desk to the couch to the coffee shop to my yard. I'm not going to bring a
spare monitor into my yard.

I also program in 40 character width, so that helps a lot. I can have a
console, debugger, and a browser all open side by side on a single screen. If
I want 6 pieces of open open side by side on my laptop I can do it easily,
although I pretty much never need more than 2.

I find workspaces work just as well as monitors. I have three, and I four-
finger-swipe to move between them. I don't see why four finger swiping would
be slower than turning my head or my eyes.

------
VLM
The prevailing assumption is multiple monitors equals one computer with
multiple outputs but I've usually run multiple machines. Financially its a
rounding error WRT cost, I get more use out of old systems before the
environmental damage of recycling them. I can run different architectures
simultaneously. If the new machine fails on burnin testing the old machine is
literally on its left side so I can keep right on working.

Evolution in hardware and software is very slow now compared to the
80s/90s/00s. My wingman PCs are perfectly adequate at displaying data sheet
PDFs or acting as SSH terminals or normal web browsing.

If you're worried about electrical power my son has a raspberry pi desktop and
that works fine. It can do everything we did with a computer in the 00s, which
is pretty much unchanged today... Mostly he types school reports because the
real keyboard is better than any ipad keyboard.

------
dade_
It depends on what you are doing. I find programming on one monitor to be
fine, but I have a schedule with email, excel workbooks to compare with Visio
diagrams / Word docs, Web conferences, a soft phone, and my Surface happens to
be touch/tablet with OneNote. Virtual desktops with multiple monitors works
great on Windows 10, but other than when I am running a VM, I never use them.

However, one major gripe I have with Windows 10 is how stupid it is with
multiple monitors. If I click on a link, open a file, or open an app with the
Start Menu, I expect it to open in the same window. Not Windows 10, I swear it
has an algorithm developed just to pick the least expected monitor. It is
practically a game of whack-a-mole. This alone is a huge unnecessary UX
productivity loss that doesn't exist with a single display.

------
SippinLean
Alt-tab causes me to lose focus much more quickly than glancing to the left.
As a front-end developer I ALWAYS have my text editor, test browser, and Web
Inspector open.

Among all tasks, I've found using Web Inspector to be incredibly difficult on
a single monitor, especially on websites with deeply nested markup.

------
gyger
Having used only one monitor for every and only recently bought a second one,
I feel different. It's not about two equal monitors, but one for all the stuff
that is static. A paper to be read, a formular to be used or just the notes
that were taken before and are now used for implementation.

------
HelloNurse
I'm firmly in the multiple monitor camp because, for me, switching between
maximized windows or virtual desktop is a greater distraction than the more
intuitive gesture of turning my head and moving my chair, while fiddling with
windows is a quickly amortized setup cost that allows me to see what I want
without further interaction.

For me, the loss of adequate window resizing in recent Windows versions (you
can still drag edges and corners, but not near screen borders) is a good
reason to use the good tiled window management in Emacs as much as possible.
On a related note, Microsoft Office allowing multiple windows only with tricky
workarounds is a strong advantage for LibreOffice.

------
markbnj
I mean, this sounds fine if you are able to actually focus on a single thing.
Leaving aside for the moment the desirability or practicality of burying
social media and other such distractions, there are times when work itself
requires displaying more information than I can fit on a single screen. I
usually have a code editor, one or more tmux sessions, a cloud console web UI,
etc., and I have to move back and forth and reference different things in
those windows constantly. It's a lot less work to shift my eyes and mouse to
the left than it is to cycle through buried windows.

------
chatmasta
I used to have two thunderbolt displays. Now I only use my laptop.

The main reason I switched is because I got so used to working with the
additional real estate that it became impossible to use my only my laptop.
Since I travel a lot and work from coworking spaces, where I only have my
laptop screen, it makes sense to adapt my workflow to that constraint. Having
multiple monitors became a crutch that damaged my ability to work productively
from a single screen.

------
FiatLuxDave
Most of our user base uses single monitors. All of our developers and testers
use 2 or more monitors. We used to have bugs caused by the difference. An
example which comes to mind was an acknowledgement pop-up (something happened,
click ok to continue) which would pop up on the other screen. For single
monitor users, it would pop up off-screen. Because I'm a stubborn single
monitor user, I was able to reproduce the bugs.

------
FrankenPC
I've tried full stack programming on one monitor and it took forever and was
really frustrating. Multiple text editors/IDE's, test browsers, remote SERVER
connections, SQL server admin consoles. Heck, a few command prompts.
Constantly minimizing and maximizing. My browser had so many tabs open it was
ridiculous. I'm totally not against one massive wide screen but they don't
make them wide enough yet.

------
ungoliant
I use only the laptop monitor. Originally I did this because I did a lot of
live support, and having to undock was a slight impediment to going to
somebody's desk to work on an issue with them. The communication was more
important. Once I got used to using just the monitor, I was happy having the
same setup everywhere. Every now and then a manager tries to give me a giant
monitor, but I just pass it off to the next engineer that might want one.

There was another benefit, too. Even though I get that it's convenient to have
docs/browser/editor up at once, I can really only LOOK at one thing at a time,
and I found that I was getting lazy. If my brain can only hold things that I
am actively looking at, then I'm not thinking very deeply about them. Now
granted, I'm old. As I age I notice things like tiny short-cuts that make me a
little weaker over time. In your 20s or 30s, you have almost infinite
capacity. You may not notice the top line dropping a little bit. In my
experience, external monitors made me a little weaker. Keeping my brain sharp
allows me to keep up much better.

------
jrockway
Multiple monitors sure are a drag. This weekend I downgraded my primary
monitor from a 32" 4k display to a 27" 1440p display, for the purpose of
gaming at 165Hz instead of 60Hz (and wow, what a difference).

This has caused several annoying side effects. I used to run my 4k 32" monitor
at 125% scaling, and my ancillary 24" 4k monitor at 225%. Everything looked
fine, or so I thought. Now my 27" monitor runs at 100%, and this causes some
internal Windows flag to change somewhere, making many apps on the secondary
monitor look horrible. It just nearest-neighbors apps up to 200% instead of
scaling them correctly. If you make the second monitor the primary monitor,
then everything looks good again -- except you can't use Nvidia GSync on a
secondary monitor, the whole reason I downgraded my main monitor. Amazingly,
the mere existence of the 100ppi montior is what seems to break things. If you
run it at 200%, apps on the other monitor at 200% still look terrible.

My theory is that things looked bad before, but the 125->225 scaling didn't
look quite as egregiously bad as 100->200 does. But I'm picky about these
things and think I would have noticed. So I don't know.

Some apps, notably Chrome, work just fine. (But Discord is an offender, and
it's just Chrome, isn't it? That makes it all the more annoying.)

As an aside, everything looks pretty crappy at 100ppi. Fonts are blurry again.
You can see the pixels in every photo or illustration you view. Upgrading to
4k a few years ago didn't make much of a difference to me, but downgrading is
a huge difference. That said, Overwatch is soooo smooth. I can't wait until
technology allows us to run games at 4k@120/144/165/240, however. I also miss
the wider-than-sRGB color gamut.

~~~
jrockway
Oh, and as for the actual utility of multiple monitors, I like them. I use a
second monitor off to the side for lower-priority things. At home, music
player and Discord. At work I usually have Emacs on my main screen and a
terminal on the second screen. If I'm doing a lot with the terminal I'll just
move the window over, but most of the time I just need to press up arrow and
look at the output for a second, so it works fine. YMMV but I like having
multiple monitors. I don't know if there is any productivity improvement, but
it's enjoyable nonetheless.

------
samsonradu
I have been using a 15" laptop for dev work for quite some years now. I have
an external monitor next to it but most of the time it stays off, only using
it to test things on large resolutions.

There are a few reasons for that:

1\. It protects my eyes. I felt much more tired with 2 displays glaring at me
all day.

2\. Most of the time it's just useless information sitting idle on my second
screen. I rarely need to work with 2 windows at the same time and when I do
(fe. when coding while reading the docs) I can just fit them on one screen.
Though I usually just switch tabs in order not to copy paste and try to
understand what I'm reading first. I try to keep my mental load small, focus
on what I am doing. I for one I'm not that good at multitasking (and after
reading Thinking Fast and Slow I understand I'm not alone) so whatever is on
that second screen will steal attention from what I'm focused on.

3\. There is really not much "realtime" work I need to do so 1 min or 2 until
I check my email/Skype is acceptable.

Anyone else doing the same?

------
iblaine
Use the right tools for the right job. If all I'm doing is putting together
new code, then one monitor is fine. If I'm debugging, porting code or
troubleshooting an oncall emergency then multiple monitors is better. Also, on
a Mac I can more easily get away with one big monitor however on a PC I must
have at least 2 monitors to feel ok. Of course, YMMV.

------
Walkman
The reason I'm way more productive with multiple monitors* is not that I open
twitter and want to look at it constantly, but because I open my code from
different angles like: \- comparing two pieces of code \- opening code review
and opening actual code in text editor on the other \- opening a text editor
for commit and looking at the diff on the other \- open the documentation and
look at the code on the other So I'm way faster at switching things or way
better to compare things this way.

I tried i3m today (the tiling window manager) but I realized it not gonna fit
my workflow because I can't have 10 windows open and look at just two-three at
once because you either maximize and then you can look at only one thing at a
time or see 10 tiny windows at once.

* Having one big enough monitor with huge resolution is the same, but one with simply HD resolution is not enough for me.

------
ajlburke
I usually use one large monitor with my MacBook as a smaller sidecar for
little things like music, billing timer, notes, etc. but there's one time when
I've found two monitors come in really handy: if I'm mixing local terminal
work and server-side terminal work. The most important thing when doing this
kind of work is to ensure that you always know if you're working on your local
or on a server. I've used different terminal colour schemes, even different
terminal applications - but for me it's even better to have local on one
screen and remote on a completely different screen.

(I've sometimes dug out an old machine so I would even have to use a
completely different keyboard - but those aren't always available.)

But as a developer, I'm generally more happy with lots of terminal windows on
one big screen - but that's just me.

------
joeskyyy
I'm definitely on the one monitor train. For the longest time, I didn't even
use an external monitor, just the one on my laptop. I like having a consistent
experience when working from the office, or working remote. In this way, my
flow is _always_ the same, no matter where I'm working at :D

~~~
johnbrodie
I used to _love_ multimonitor setups, but one of my employers had an open
office with many different areas to work, including bean bags and other casual
furniture that didn't have space for monitors. After relearning to only use my
laptop, I'm loathe to switch back. Being away from your desk without the
claustrophobic feeling is nice, and with enough tweaks I think you can
minimize any negatives that come from the smaller screen.

------
bhouston
I use dual 32" 4K monitors. I love it. I do computer graphics though that
demands attention to detail. I love a full screen 3D editor (Clara.io) with
some documents/task lists open in the other screen.

Say what you will about this setup, but I'd never go back. I am very
productive in this setup.

------
jordache
my fingers did not like the constant alt+tab when I had less desktop real
estate.

Perhaps I need to get USB foot pedals.

~~~
neivin
Tiling window managers are your friend

~~~
corobo
Multiple monitors are your friend

~~~
gknoy
Best of all, multiple monitors play very nicely with both tiling window
managers and virtual desktops. :)

~~~
jeromenerf
Some tiling WMs on x11 allow to share virtual desktops between monitors, so
you can move a whole virtual desktop from a monitor to another.

Spectrwm for sure, maybe xmonad inspired it.

------
whytaka
I have an external 27" 4k monitor connected to my MBP and while I use multiple
screens at times, it's only occasionally for productivity.

Sometimes I'll have a chat window open on the laptop just because I'm waiting
on a message, but usually, I'll just have Netflix or Youtube running on it to
give me some background noise while I focus on work on my 27".

The 27" has been a huge productivity booster however. With Spectacle (which I
recommend to everyone), I'll have 3 windows neatly placed: the browser,
Sublime, and the console. It's a great setup for me. The screen is also the
perfect size. Any bigger and I would be drowning in light and craning my neck.
Any smaller, and I would not get 3 full working-size windows.

------
grandalf
Using multiple monitors is exactly the opposite of the emacs philosophy and
the unix philosophy.

If anything, it can be described as the Bloomberg philosophy, modeling one's
development setup after a Bloomberg terminal, designed for quick decision
making based on data streaming in from the periphery of one's visual field,
optimized for an OS without a good windowing system.

If you have a mouseless development workflow, multiple buffers in emacs offers
the same power as multiple monitors, and uses less electricity.

For most programmers, having a multiple monitor setup (likely connected with
gold plated Monster brand HDMI cables) is like having custom rims on your
car... a decorative adornment that conveys social status and bling and offers
little utility.

------
neals
Interesting. I bought a cinema 4k display for 2500$ and put it next to my
'old' 1920x1200 display. I find myself constantly using the smaller display
and I don't know why.

This makes me just want to get rid of the smaller one and use the large one
exclusively.

------
_ph_
The main reason for multiple monitor setups would be, that they were cheaper
than getting a single larger screen. But the general reduction in screen
prices and the new class of ultra-wide screens gives alternative options to
get a lot of desktop real estate. The only reason I sometimes prefer my dual-
screen setup is, that when I have a full-screen application (vmware in my
case) running on one screen, the other would give me additional desktop space
like for reference documentation. I would never consider putting a normal
windowed desktop application into full-screen mode. As my typical work
requires to use multi-windowed applications, I like my desktop to be as large
as possible.

------
anc84
It all highly depends on your context. Are you reading, are you coding, are
you creating some art? I am usually perfectly happy with just one monitor but
for example if edit graphics or read papers it is very helpful to have
additional displays.

~~~
camtarn
And if you're coding, are you doing something routine where you only need one
file open, or are you e.g. trying to learn a new library or integrating
unfamiliar systems, where having documentation or APIs open is essential if
you don't want to alt-tab every second line of code written?

A single wide monitor works for these cases as well, or even a single small
monitor if you're willing to squint a bit. But I think the assertation that
"single window = focus" is a massive over-generalization that ignores a whole
bunch of what some of us coders do on a day-to-day basis.

------
redeemedfadi
I just bought a 34" 21x9 ultra wide monitor and am in a similar dilemma. I use
ShiftIt
([https://github.com/fikovnik/ShiftIt](https://github.com/fikovnik/ShiftIt))
for window management since I can assign a single keyboard command to center
whatever window I’m working on. However, what I’d really like is for
command/alt-tab to automatically place the active window in the center, the
previous window to the left, and the second-most-recently used window to the
right. I might have to contribute to ShiftIt to make it happen, unless someone
here knows an app that already does that.

------
scandox
I tried multiple monitor setup for about 6 months and in the end I couldn't
stand it. I used to put certain reference data on the second monitor - like a
DB schema, or the layout of a particular communications flow etc...At first I
liked it for that purpose. Then I started to get irritated at occasionally
losing my cursor over the edge. Over time I also found myself glancing at it
for no reason. Eventually I realized a paper print out of my schema or doc,
sellotaped to the wall worked much better.

I reverted to single. Much happier. As mentioned elsewhere a tiling window
manager (I use i3) is the key to making this productive.

------
srikz
Although I never found virtual desktops to be useful for me, I can't imagine
learning new skills without a multi-monitor setup. I keep the tutorial (video,
blog, ebook) on 1 monitor open and I have the IDE, text editor, browser,
emulator open in the other monitor. For non-computer related stuff, I have
OneNote open in the other monitor for taking notes as I'm working my way
through the material. Multi monitors definitely have use, I probably can do
the same with a 35" wide angle monitor (super expensive!) but I feel its more
convenient when it is split between 2 monitors.

------
addicted
One thing I did realize is that I suspect a lot of the "1 monitor is good
enough" comments are probably from OSX users.

Frankly, inbuilt window management in Windows (especially with KB shortcuts)
is far superior to that on OS X. The Win + Arrow Keys combinations just make
multiple monitors so much easier to use.

You can get this on OS X (although it has never felt as nice to me) with
BetterTouchTool, but I wonder how many OS X users who don't like multiple
monitors have actually tried it with BTT installed.

------
lolc
I prefer multiple monitors because they allow a more physical distribution of
documents compared to virtual desktops. Having the document I'm going to refer
to already in peripheral vision makes it much easier to switch to it than a
switch to another virtual desktop and re-orient.

The article notes the problem of having your mail open on the second monitor.
There is an easy solution to that: close it. Sure if you then can't find
anything useful to put there, you don't need a second monitor.

------
mcrad
As a data business analyst in large and small companies, I find myself working
on very complex systems (people and apps), and a single monitor helps me
focus. Occasionally I switch the second monitor on, but usually use it as an
expensive document stand.

Of course all the marketing/finance/ops/pm people I support love to multitask
and hack spreadsheets and email all day. I get the pros and cons for various
flavors of developers, but EVERYONE with two monitors is total insanity.

------
virtualwhys
I've been traveling with a lightweight 23" LG monitor for several years now.

Combined with 15" laptop and i3 tiling window manager this feels like my ideal
setup, though I wouldn't mind trimming down to a 17" laptop sans external
monitor. The external monitor is probably more convenience/habit than
can't-live-without-it.

Saying that, if I ever settle down I'll probably go with 2X external monitors
-- extra screen real estate can be quite helpful at times.

------
tony2016
I don't agree. I maximize all the apps on my monitors. I like to see the max
amount of data in each app. The secondary monitor is used to look at help,
docs or something useful.

Using a single monitor means I have to position and resize all kinds of
windows on it on a regular basis. Very unproductive for me. Eventually the
Windows will be too small for my eyesight. This is a highly personal
preference with everyone.

------
ajarmst
I'm seeing a lot of self-righteous "I need the second monitor for the sheer
amount of data my programming requires I have immediate access to". Ok, but
speaking as someone who spends a few dozen hours a week in computer labs with
College CS students, the second monitor does seem to collect an awful lot of
non-task oriented material in that population.

------
trgn
I stopped using multi-monitor a few months ago, the advantages of just working
from a single laptop started to outweigh the benefits of multi-monitors.

\- the window-snapping is better on a smaller screen. Less fiddling to get the
layout just right.

\- the portability is great. Now I work from bed, couch, office, home, all in
the same way.

------
darod
I have a 2 monitor setup with laptop. One monitor for my google
searches/documentation reading, the second holds my code/spreadsheets, and the
laptop for terminal/finder/calendar. All my work is in front of me, nothing
here adds to distractions, and I get my work done faster.

------
ajarmst
I dislike multiple monitors. Part of this is going to be age-dependent. I
prefer to work from my hand-written notes and a pen-annotated paper-spec, so I
don't really have much of a need for a second monitor for my primary task, so
the second monitor is usually just a source of distraction.

------
tps5
I got used to using workspaces to expand my desktop and I've had a hard time
making use of a second monitor even though I have one now.

The advantages of a second monitor over workspaces are not totally clear to
me. It feels like the same context switch is required in either case.

My coworkers do laugh at me though.

------
kerryritter
I wish I could do single monitor, but I need at least two - one with editor,
one with browser for the app/site I'm building. Then preferably one for
database admin/documentation/email/chat. Context switching between all that
tends to slow me down I feel.

------
Overtonwindow
I also disagree. I work in government affairs, which involves a lot of
legislative research and analysis. Having three monitors is extremely useful,
particularly when I'm trying to bring together multiple ideas into one.

------
ivanhoe
Perhaps if you have one of those huge 4K monitors, but I usually keep console
on a laptop, and editor and browser on two external 24" monitors, and probably
could use another one if only I had space for it on my desk.

------
Lightbody
Another reason for just one monitor: your neck will feel a lot better!

~~~
lexicality
Try having one monitor in the centre and the second one off to the side.
You'll always be using one monitor as the primary anyway so there's no reason
to pretend they're equal.

~~~
patrickdavey
I did that for a while, but I found I was turning my head reasonably often..
ended up giving me nasty neck strain. I went back to a single monitor and it
cleared up nicely.

I am now using an ultrawide, but I think my next monitor will be smaller.

------
dom0
> Why I Stopped Using Multiple Monitors

> Too much monitor becomes a distraction. So when it comes to monitors, I
> embrace these maxims:

> Less is more.

> Quality over quantity.

> Location, Location, Location.

Good for you. Now, why do I care about your opin-- oh wait, I don't.

Seriously, this is about as subjective as it gets. Okay, maybe keyboard switch
and cap selection is even more subjective, but that's it. There's hardly a
point if any to make (apart from basic ergonomics?)

------
rodrigocoelho
Virtual desktops + Pomodoro work wonders for me, focus wise.

I still want to go back to having a secondary monitor, though.

------
shmerl
I disagree. I use multiple monitors for work (2), and virtual desktops. And it
works pretty well.

------
rodrigocoelho
Virtual desktops + Pomodoro work wonders for me, focus wise.

I still to have a secondary monitor again, though.

------
noshbrinken
"How I Beg The Question That Mac Spaces Aren't The Same As Physical Monitors"

------
phusion
Good, I'm not the only one who thought this article was completely ridiculous.

------
bpicolo
All the value in hot-loading front ends is with the multiple-monitor set up,
imo.

------
noshbrinken
"Why Everyone Should Adopt My Personal Preference"

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
TBF, i see a LOT more people in the comments here saying "you should use
multiple monitors" than not.

------
pmontra
In my case it's to have a single immutable desktop whenever I'm working at
home or at a customer site. A 15" laptop screen is enough for me.

------
_pmf_
I'm unsure whether this is satire.

------
adekok
I've used multiple monitors for years. They keys are:

* virtual desktops. This keeps each desktop simple and clean

* keyboard shortcuts to switch between desktops. This makes the cost of switching near-zero

* one monitor is used 90% of the time for 90% of the work.

* the second monitor is used for critical situations when virtual desktops don't work: more documents than will fit on the first one, writing articles (main) versus research (secondary)

With that workflow, I don't miss it working from a laptop. But it is useful
for when I need it.

------
frik
Even with a 30 inch 4k monitor, a second 2k monitor is a great productivity
boost, as one can keep windows opened (eg documentation, email app)

