I agree. Two is not ideal. I'm very happy with my three 27" setup (though I wish they were 30" and Retina-quality). I never liked two monitors because I like (1) symmetry (2) no borders in the center; and you can't get that with two (unless you stack them on top of each other).
Oh, and the distraction point mentioned in the article has nothing to do with the number of displays, per se, so the article is BS in my book.
The author lacks sufficient self discipline to not set himself up for distraction by running "Twitter, email, chatting" on the second monitor, and finds that by having only one monitor, with no room for windows for "Twitter, email, chatting" along with work, that he can focus better.
I.e.: Removing distractions enhances focus. (really short tl;dr)
The only distraction I have is HN which is efficiently managed with the maxvist and minaway options. I don't read my work email constantly since it's not that busy of a communication medium.
At work I have two 30" monitors and they are awesome. I spend almost no time managing windows or having to switch between 'virtual desktops'. There's always a comfortable amount of space to keep a browser and it's dev tools open without comprising on what I need to see.
What a crap article. Just because this guy can't focus on his work, doesn't mean multiple monitors are bad.
When I work, I don't like getting distracted. And I certainly don't fill my other screens with Twitter and whatever the author is implying, unless it's work related. End of discussion.
Ha! I just noticed he actually wrote a column for Slate entitled "Stop calling me a troll". I guess that's how you get to be a tech columnist for the NYT. Well, that and writing songs about your iPhone, like Pogue.
Classic iconoclastic column--take a known good, perhaps even supported by research, assert the exact opposite, and then write about it.
No actual substance required; just the act of contradicting known wisdom will get plenty of pageviews from people clicking through to see if it's true.
Oh, and the distraction point mentioned in the article has nothing to do with the number of displays, per se, so the article is BS in my book.