

Manage Pixels, not Monitors - mgunes
http://infovegan.com/2010/08/18/manage-pixels-not-monitors

======
Groxx
Multiple monitors are often _significantly_ cheaper than one large one. You
can also aim the two at you more accurately, so you don't have to change what
distance you focus at as much. The productivity study was short-term; how
about long-term? Certainly having things _too_ wide means you spend more time
mousing to those edges, but how about eye strain due to viewing angle?

> _That optimal number, for the vast majority of people is about 2500x1400._

Programmers are most definitely not the vast majority of people, when your
study covers "people" as a whole. Programmers handle huge amounts of data and
tend to have documentation and/or testing at-hand frequently, which takes up
what would otherwise be usable space. I also don't see _any_ info on how many
people were used for the study, though I've only seen the slides, and have to
get going...

~~~
Retric
I just got a 25.5" 1900 x 1200 screen for 280$.
(<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001LYPNFQ/ref=oss_product>) So, I don't
think there is much money to be saved by getting a screen much smaller than
that.

IMO, the real question is using widescreens appropriate for a dual monitor
setup. My work setup is two 4:3 aspect ratio monitors which I think works much
better than two widescreen monitors because it reduces the time it takes to
move the mouse. For text editing I suspect three 4:3 ratio monitors is more
useful, despite providing a similar number of pixels as two widescreen
monitors, based on how maximizing windows operates and the pain of trying to
split a window across two screens.

However, when working with images, having a large unbroken screen is extreamly
useful. So a 2560 x 1600+ monitor paired with a lower resolution scratch space
seems to work better than two evenly sized monitors.

~~~
Groxx
True, though you're a fair distance below their "optimal" of 2500x1400 (by
pixel count). About 1.5x. Getting a monitor with that many pixels and larger
than 26" will make that price go up further.

I generally prefer 4:3 if I'm going for more than one. Extra width is handy
for programming, but that tends to make the screens short, so you can't see as
many lines :\

~~~
Retric
Yep, my comment was cost is really only an issue when looking at 30" screens
or really high quality displays. Below that the question is not simply get
more pixels but what layout is most effective. One option I have seen many
people use is 2 or 3 widescreens tilted on their sides so you can increase the
numbers of lines shown without taking buying huge monitors.

However, the best setup I have seen was a widescreen in the middle flanked by
two smaller screens on the sides. (1200 X 1600) (2560 x 1600) ( 1200 X 1600)
but that’s still pricy and takes up a lot of space.

~~~
Groxx
I like the sound of that one... would probably be good for gaming too. Nice
wide field of view on the main monitor, and other views / meta-info on the
sides.

Now I want that, so I can play Descent ][ and see 270 degrees.

------
ajscherer
I have a problem with his conclusion after looking at the methodology slide:

 _This study compared 26-Inch MultiSync widescreen (MS LCD2690 at 1920x1200
resolution), 24-inch MultiSync widescreen (MS LCD2470WNX at 1920x1200
resolution) and 20-inch MultiSync traditional format (MS LCD2070NX at
1600x1200 resolution) monitors._

There was no 30" monitor involved in either of the studies, nor was there any
monitor with a resolution above 1920x1200. The slide with a graph showing a
drop-off from 26" to 30" is an estimate based on the 4 configurations they
tested (the 3 listed above and dual 20" standard monitors).

As far as I can tell the findings of the study were:

1\. The 24" and 26" widescreens outperformed the dual 20" standards on a text
editing task. 2\. The dual 20" standards outperformed the single widescreens
on a spreadsheet task, but by a lesser margin. 3\. The 26" widescreen
significantly outperformed the 24" widescreen on the text editing task at the
same resolution.

How do you conclude from this that 2500x1400 is the optimal resolution for the
vast majority of people?

~~~
cjoh
After a re-read, it's clear my transition was ambiguous. My point was: the
whole study is pretty bogus. It's an excuse to get you to buy more, more
expensive monitors. therefore here's my take: there's some optimal number of
pixels you want-- not an optimal number of monitors, but a number of pixels.

------
terra_t
Users of Microsoft Windows have had to put up with weak facilities for
managing large numbers of windows for a long time -- I remember having 60-70
windows open on an AIX workstation back in the 90's and never feeling lost,
but it's pretty easy to feel lost managing 6-7 windows on a Windows machine.

Multiple issues are involved, for instance, the way that window application
processes are responsible for moving themselves, the way focus works, the way
cut-and-paste works, etc.

(To be fair, Microsoft has been steadily improving matters, and Win7 is a step
forward)

Anyhow, I find things easiest in Windows if I run with windows maximized much
of the time, and a multi-monitor rig is a good way to do that and still be
able to see more than one thing at a time.

Some Windows apps are very well designed to work w/ multi-monitor rigs too.
Visual studio, for instance, makes it very easy to split the VS across
monitors 1 and 2 and have the application you're running on or your web
browser on monitor 3.

------
moxiemk1
I am surprised about the conclusion that pixels matter more than monitors.

I've found that the (admittedly, somewhat arbitrary) boundaries of monitors
let me organize my windows as "one active window per monitor". This keeps
separation of functions of the monitors easy to keep track of subconciously.

The tri-monitor layout of editor-requirements/research-build/testing has
worked wonders for my productivity. I'm not sure I could easy translate that
to one ultra-dense monitor in quite the same way.

------
CodeMage
_My take: there’s an optimal number of pixels you need to complete the tasks
you need to complete. Worry about that number, not the number of monitors you
have._

A bit more than a week ago, I would've agreed with that. My opinion changed
after a visit to my ophthalmologist. He helped me realize that my eyesight was
not deteriorating in general, but that my eyes were getting tired under
certain circumstances, namely when I was working from home.

At home I use my company laptop and I hook it up to my 37" HDTV, with
resolution of 1920x1080. The doctor explained that the combination of the
resolution and the screen size made it impossible for my eyes to cover
everything I need without doing lots of little "lookup movements". As a
consequence, my eyes would get tired and I would have trouble reading stuff.

The suggested remedy was to either use a smaller screen or a lower resolution.
Since it worked out really well for my problem, I'll keep believing that it's
better to have two or more screens with not-so-high resolution, than one
screen with huge resolution.

------
loup-vaillant
The second part (the one about _managing_ pixels) looks like a good case for
tiling window managers. It's surprising the author didn't mention them at all.

~~~
moobot
It sounds as though the author uses OSX. Are there any tiling window managers
that aren't limited to Linux/X11?

~~~
loup-vaillant
Xmonad can be used on OSX:
[http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Xmonad/Using_xmonad_on_Ap...](http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Xmonad/Using_xmonad_on_Apple_OSX)

