Hacker News Reader

Comment by can16358p | Hacker News Reader

Am I the only one (fullstack programmer + designer + hobby photographer) here who's perfectly okay with a single laptop monitor? Maybe it's to do with I love being mobile, maybe it's that I use UI and text very small, but I can perfectly fit either 3 Vscode tabs, or website + PIP video, a few terminals, many views in Sketch or a combination of those in a screen (16" MBP). I'm also okay with working with Photoshop or sometimes DaVinci Resolve or After Effects too.

Honestly I don't understand why so many screens are needed, haven't felt any need for more than one in 15+ years (though I've always used max possible resolution + very small UI scaling). I even don't use multiple desktops.

Not a rant or criticism in any way, just trying to see an actual need for multiple (or rotated) monitors.

View on HN

"Needed" isn't the right word to use here, because you don't really need very much in software development.

Use a non-visual text editor without highlighting, like ed. Compile your React by hand. Skip TypeScript, you don't need the computer to check your work. /s

Programmers use tools and automation because it makes them more efficient, not because they're needed, and I believe that having multiple monitors (and larger ones? I'm reading [1] right now and it suggests that, which makes sense - if a larger fraction of your field of view is consumed by the same monitor, that's less effort for your brain to parse stuff you see, and fewer distractions; also see [2]) does that. I hypothesize, although I haven't been able to find empirical evidence, that having multiple windows spread across multiple monitors is cognitively superior to alt-tabbing between them.

Additionally, laptop are really bad for you ergonomically. Use a small screen if you must, but your back is not going to be happy after 5 years of programming on a laptop - I know mine isn't.

[1] https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA461180.pdf

[2] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/...

I totally agree with ergonomics and back. I try to stay active physically, stand and walk a lot, to compensate to some extent. So far so good for about 13 years on laptops, though I'm relatively young so maybe that's just my body tolerating the negative sides.

Though sometimes I put a box on the table and put the laptop on top, effectively turning into a standing desk a work a few hours like that. It really helps not to be sitting the whole day.

My 45 year old back is just fine after using only laptop displays for 9 years now. That said, I am pretty physically active and have led a healthy lifestyle since forever. Maybe the latter part is key.

it definitely helps a lot. i have horrible pain using a laptop for long periods, but when i was more active it really helped with the pain and soreness.

ed is the standard!

Didn't get the answer I was looking for when searching for 'ed'. Well, I found it after adding a word, but got a chuckle first.

Yep, I can relate to why you find it curious, I do too, from the other end of the spectrum.

I, for one, feel _very_ unproductive with a laptop. Personally for me I think the reason is lack of a mouse. For a long time people told me its because I was not using a MacBook (and hence its touchpad), but I tried that for ~5 years too and it didn't make much of a difference.

I guess at the end when I'm using a laptop it feels like I'm "converging" or "constraining" my body (eyes, hand coordination) into the laptop. In contrast, connecting to a dock with a full size keyboard, mouse and monitor (1) makes my body feel more stretched and relaxed. While doing this, I rarely use my laptop (I might even just close the lid, if I weren't lazy).

This is to the point where I will decline to work if I am not allowed to use a monitor+keyboard+mouse setup.

Agree. For me, I always preferred the ‘nub’ present on some laptop models over the trackpad (despite their sad tendency to wear and drift over time).

It's hard to conceive a working device that is less ergonomic than a laptop. They're really not made for human anatomy. From the screen that makes you crane your neck, to the staggered terrible keyboards.

While there are certainly posters here with people that have developed for 10 years without any issues, carpal tunnel is a lot more common than people think. It's very easy to cause irreparable damage to the body when using these devices that have about zero consideration for the human body.

During my wfh phase of the pandemic, I used a laptop exclusively without major issue. The one problem that I had was working with large pdf engineering drawings and other page based layouts. In those cases switching virtual desktops didn’t come close to being able to glance back and forth between different applications. As a workaround for this, I found myself using a printer much more than in the office. Once I took the time to print the documents, having the traditional physical copy was sometimes better than a second monitor, as I was able to more easily markup and add comments on documents.

For strict programming this is less of an issue and I’ve found that I can keep the documentation in a split screen without issue. Most sites are responsive nowadays which really benefits having smaller windows.

I'm sure you're not the only one, but I find multiple monitors invaluable particularly for front-end work.

I might find myself rapidly switching between framework documentation, developer tools, a preview pane, and a similar piece of code that I'm using as a template. I'm infinitely happier when each switch is an eye movement and not a jarring keyboard stroke that redraws the entire screen.

I'm curious if you're unphased by constant cmd-tabbing.

It's unfazed but yeah I for one am. Or swiping on the trackpad. I've never liked fiddling around with window sizes and arrangements, it's easier to just drop everything on a full screen and flip around. I do the same on my 27". The only thing that's painful is when app developers still think drag-and-drop-only is good UX.

> Am I the only one

Nope. Pretty much anytime you ask yourself this question the answer is always no whatever the context. You are reacting to a single anecdote. People like lots of different things.

'Needed' is too strong a term. I function OK on a single screen laptop... But I've got a second screen in my laptop bag for when I'm going to be sedentary for several hours. I work in 6x10 font on my emacs at my main workstations, so I'm moderately small text. I stopped using 5x7 some years ago. But somewhere in there, you start using mental effort to resolve the smaller features.

The big reason I prefer more real estate is that it's desperately more mentally efficient to e.g. trace through multiple levels of abstraction with your eyes, than with eyes plus fingers plus reorient on the new desktop configuration.

Just having "the usual" fullscreen editor setup on one screen, and "the usual" browser or mail setup on the other is a huge improvement.

> Am I the only one (fullstack programmer + designer + hobby photographer) here who's perfectly okay with a single laptop monitor?

A nice display is nice. I feel way more productive on a 27" 5K imac than a 16" MBP. But I find multiple monitors to be annoying, better to have just one that is good (e.g. a 5K 27" LG or an 8K 32" Dell that I won't be able to afford anytime soon).

After doing the exercise of going from 3 displays -> 11" MBA (no external), I'm maximally productive on any reasonably sized laptop monitor.

16" is great, but I'm probably 95% on my new 14". It's all about optimizing your workflow, utilizing workspaces, tiling, etc.

I mean, sure, you are probably going to be 80-90% on any monitor that doesn't hurt your eyes (crappy refresh rate) and can support bitmapped graphics (not just a TTY terminal display). But having lived through multiple iterations of displays starting from plain old TTYs (4 inches at that!), I really appreciate display advancements and getting access to better/bigger ones.

I'm 45 and have been programming professionally for 26 years - not some kid trying to be controversial. I feel there are distinct advantages to improving your workflow and working w/ a smaller and/or fewer displays. The main issue is scan time for your eyes and neck.

As well when you have a more focused presentation, you are more deliberate about your workflow. Do you need to see five columns of code simultaneously? I'd argue hardly ever, and trying to maintain that layout with what is optimal or useful is extra cognitive overhead or simply wasted space that is not helpful to being more productive.

Last time I was in an office about 3 years ago, they gave me a 34" widescreen. I only occasionally hooked it up where that width could be helpful, but most of the time I opted to use my 15" laptop display as I'm simply more effective in that mode.

I used to feel this way, and then I got old

And monitor aspect ratios got shitty.

Same. At one point I could easily read 4pt fonts. Now everything is a blur.

get glasses?

Glasses which focus at your computer distance (which varies by personal preference; measure it and take that number to your optometrist) help with presbyopia.

However, there are many other eye ailments which tend to appear later in life and which glasses alone cannot correct: cataracts, macular degeneration, corneal dystrophies, etc. Some are treatable through other means such as surgery.

The majority of people who lose visual accuity as they age don't get macular degeneration or cataracts during their working years, they just need reading glasses.

It's a bit like saying 'my head hurts' and someone says 'take some tylenol' and you say 'some people have flesh eating brain viruses or prion diseases'.

You're not technically wrong but those aren't the things that affect most people complaining about font size.

I agree with you that most people only need reading glasses — or more precisely computer glasses, which are typically set to focus at 20-24 inches rather than 16 inches as is common for reading glasses.

However, I think you are understating the problems posed by other conditions. The prevalence of cataracts by age 64 is in the neighborhood of 15-20%.

https://www.nei.nih.gov/learn-about-eye-health/outreach-camp...

It's a good bet there are some people reading this who have been treated for cataracts.

> you say 'some people have flesh eating brain viruses or prion diseases'.

Dismissive attitudes like this among the visually acute are one reason website accessibility is generally so poor.

> The prevalence of cataracts by age 64 is in the neighborhood of 15-20%.

But what is the lower bound where it starts to get that common, is the question? Does it affect people in their careers that often? probably not.

>Dismissive attitudes like this among the visually acute are one reason website accessibility is generally so poor.

Sorry you disliked my analogy but it has nothing to do with website accessibility, merely the way you structured your argument/post in reply to my reasonable response of 'get glasses' to jumping to macular degeneration.

> But what is the lower bound where it starts to get that common, is the question?

This data is available at the NIH link I posted earlier, which breaks things down into 5 year spans.

The lower bound is 10%, since that's the prevalence by age 59.

> Does it affect people in their careers that often? probably not.

The data makes this assertion obviously wrong. A huge number of people get cataracts during their working years.

Fortunately, surgery to treat cataracts has a 95% success rate. Unfortunately, it's not 100% (and anecdotally I know multiple individuals in the lucky 5% whose vision has not improved after cataract surgery.)

I have them, and have had them since I was maybe 4. They work up to a point. This is more along the lines of need bifocals.

Wearing glasses for 12 hours a day after never wearing them can be a difficult adjustment to make.

Wearing glasses for 12 hours a day after just wearing contacts most of the time for a few months can be jarring. I always forget how tiny it makes everything look!

an easier adjustment than not being able to see.

But it's not the only option. Another option is a bigger screen with bigger fonts. And that's a lot easier to adjust to than glasses. I know because I tried glasses first and then went to a bigger monitor.

In a sense, yes - but even after adjusting to glasses for 20+ years I still find it far more fatiguing than working without glasses.

I’ve tried all kinds of things but my eyes are bad at working through glasses.

>who's perfectly okay with a single laptop monitor?

I do feel awfully constrained on a laptop monitor. My perfect setup is a laptop and 32" 4k monitor. Email and chat live on my laptop, split screened, and my ide and terminal or web browser live on the big screen.

Honestly? Half of my problem is that window management sucks on os x, but IT doesn't feel comfortable with me running linux.

Amethyst helps with window management.

I just don’t find laptop monitors very ergonomic. I use a 27” 4K screen and put it so far away that 200% scaling is ideal, then have the desktop disable the laptop monitor when it’s plugged in. If I’d have the office space I’d use a 65” TV as a monitor and put it many meters away, that’s just my preference.

I can upgrade your claim: laptop monitors are not ergonomic, period.

Laptops force you to place your hands close to your monitor, which is really bad ergonomics - either you place the laptop low and kill your neck (looking down for long periods of time can cause spinal fusion and back problems in your 30's - careful with how you hold your cell phone:), or you place your laptop at head height and kill your wrists.

If you value your body at all, you'll keep your keyboard and display in their appropriate places and well separate from each other. Laptops should only be used in case of emergency, or while docked.

You can also put some books under the laptop and use it as a screen while connected to an external keyboard at desk height.

For years I worked on a single 16" laptop screen, because I was constantly on the move. It was fine. Then the pandemic started and I was stuck at home, so I started using an external 27" monitor instead (single monitor) and then I picked up a second 32" monitor.

Now I use 9 desktops across two screens, and it's a lot better. I'm much more productive when I can see everything at once.

I suspect I'll readapt to a single screen as travel picks up again, but I really do enjoy my two big screens.

Not unlike my situation -- Loved working on a 13" laptop screen (with 4 virtual desktops to help with organizing), but a change in my duties at work had me working with 2-3 large spreadsheets at once, so I went to two large external monitors side-by-side and it's a god-send. I'd still prefer a small computer in my lap, but sometimes the job is easier with a different tool.

When doing web development, I usually need the webpage + browser console open on one screen, and IDE on the other. I don't see how you can test all resolutions while keeping your code on screen otherwise.

And when working on tricky pieces of software or technology I'm not so familiar with, I find it convenient to have the documentation on one screen, and the IDE on the other.

Of course, YMMV.

It's possible to not know what you're missing until you try it.

In the past, I could code using a 10px font size on a laptop. Now I'm only 30 and have to use 18px and 22px to be comfortable along with a pair of eyeglasses.

My current setup for optimal comfort and productivity is three large 4k monitors, one of them rotated.

Accessibility is also a reason for using multiple monitors.

No, you're not alone. I tend to get lost in a screen as large as the 27" iMac I used for a few years. I usually ended up keeping my windows small and sticking them somewhere in the middle of the screen. For work (IT admin) I have a Surface Pro with a 10.5" screen docked to a 24" monitor at my desk, but I tend to only use the docked monitor for remote desktop or documentation. I often end up just ignoring the big screen and working right on the Surface's tiny screen.

At home (programming, hobby graphics/illustration)I use a 15" ThinkPad and have never felt the need to add another display. It's nice to have the option for some workflows but the reduction in mobility is a definite trade-off. (It's hard to use a second screen on the couch, etc.)

I had this problem when I first got a 30" monitor - I was constantly losing my mouse cursor, it took forever to move over to things, etc. To solve it I wrote a program for storing and restoring mouse cursor positions (along with focusing the app under it) and it really helped.

It was nice being able to have multiple windows visible at once when I was doing things, and to be able to switch between them quickly. Mobility was basically not a problem since the mouse instantly moved to the location I expected it to.

Nowadays I mostly use the keyboard and just use standard hotkeys to switch the app, mostly because I've been too lazy to see if my program still works.

I also lost the mouse cursor fairly often. I turned up the size and acceleration and got into the habit of throwing it into the top left corner which either opened the applications overlay (in GNOME shell) or fanned out all the windows (in Mac OS).

For me, depends on task and context. Working on my own code, distraction free, laptop in a library is heaven. Trying to troubleshoot stuff failing in prod right now, keeping multiple plates spinning, the more CPUs and screens the better.

PWM Flickering would be one reason? On M1 Air there is pwm flickering which makes impossible to work with it ... thanks Apple. [0]

I would connect external monitor but it has flickering issues with them too. Thanks Apple again. [1]

[0] https://www.notebookcheck.net/PWM-Ranking-Notebooks-Smartpho...

[1] https://piunikaweb.com/2021/01/08/apple-investigating-mac-mi...

I’ve found turning the brightness up all the way to help with that immensely.

I've found it too but then the usage of it brings some limitations you know and basically makes it unusable as laptop.

> On M1 Air there is pwm flickering which makes impossible to work with it

According to table you linked M1 Air has PWM frequency of almost 120 kHz, which very high and well above headache and eye strain inducing frequencies.

According to my doctor and my eyes state since I've started using M1 air it doesn't matter which frequency was used by the idiot who decided that PWM is a good idea to regulate brightness of the monitor.

Also there is 60Hz flickering that doesn't go away with any brightness level.

I think it is especially bright idea to design a working monitor and then spoil it with PWM rendering it unusable. I personally consider it as a fraud and the essence of disrespecting people.

Nope, me too. I tried 2+ monitors and it is so distracting + you have to literally rotate your head, and then there is a window auto-positioning issue (mswin “helpfully” tries to show dialogs/etc on an empty screen). Extended mouse movement is also an issue.

I prefer to tile/overlap windows with fancy zones and to switch between apps by alt-tab. Virtual desktops may be helpful, but I’m really fine with just one desktop and many windows. Conemu builtin tiling helps with fullstack tracing. 2k or 4k, 27" with a 3d mount is ideal. The diagonal really depends on how close you are, and how much ppi it has (angular size/resolution).

I don’t understand 3+-monitor guys, it feels like hax0r overcompensating sort of.

I tried a huge "wraparound" dell screen and after 3 months I never got used to turning my head: I kept centering a window that was roughly 4:3 aspect ratio, just enough to fit 80 columns of text and a sidebar in VSCode/Sublime, or a typical browser session.

The biggest problem I had was switching between laptop screen and giant monitor. It sucked, I would constantly have to fix the desktop whenever I went to a conference room and returned to my desk.

I think if you work in exactly one desk, and simply need auxilliary screens that you don't look at frequently, big monitor or multi-monitor helps, but I don't know what situation would call for that when you can just swipe to a new desktop.

> Honestly I don't understand why so many screens are needed, haven't felt any need for more than one in 15+ years (though I've always used max possible resolution + very small UI scaling). I even don't use multiple desktops.

I feel the same way, but I use the "medium large" scaling that macOS offers in Displays under Preferences. I do use multiple desktops, however, and using Cmd+Tab to switch between them.

I don’t think I could use my usual IDEs on a laptop screen for too long without going nuts. Even VS Code with its various unhidable UI elements is pushing it. For long term laptop usage I’d need to be writing code in something like Sublime Text or vim where extraneous UI is kept to a bare minimum.

And as others have noted, having a second screen for documentation and work chat (which can be the laptop display, don’t need a second 27”) is essential for me.

That's interesting, I use Vscode too, with 3 tabs perfectly fine, but maybe that boils down to style. For example I don't have documentation open (and if I get stuck I just Google/SO/GH) and Cmd+Tab'ing to switch to Slack easier than turning to a different screen.

It probably boils down to getting used to and muscle memory.

I'd lose a lot of productivity in without the external monitor. I can work without the extra, visible space, but I'll start losing things or having to bounce back and forth between virtual desktops/spaces/etc. A whole lot more. It just slows me down enough to be painful if I have to do anything beyond toy/trivial work.

With Mac OS 13 inch display was quite comfortable for me (MacBook Air 2011). After that I tried 15 inch ubuntu ThinkPad and it was a lot less comfortable even when I set up virtual workspaces and hot keys for switching between them.

For me MacBook touchpad gestures for managing virtual desktops/workspaces is what makes the difference.

I'm another dev who works off a 15/16" laptop. I've always thought it was because all OSs make switching back and forth between more than two applications without losing mental focus, difficult. Instead I've added utils and cfgs to help with that in OSX.

Nope. I have actually found that the less monitor space I have the more efficient I am forced to be.

I work in vim and often have multiple tmux panes. Sometimes I can literally be writing code in a pane that’s only a handful of lines tall.

I have a nice monitor setup, but I am now ok on my MBP 16” alone, if necessary, when coding ever since I switched my coding font to Pragmata Pro for increased horizontal density so that I can do side-by-side with comfort.

If you are doing Front-End, 4 monitors can actually help (I use three, but have one split into two)

Monitor 1: The actual website I'm working on.

Monitor 2: IDE (editor)

Monitor 3/1: Terminal

Monitor 3/2: Documentation

Is that why so many websites suck on high resolution 4k screens? Because developers are looking at these websites on their tiny screens, lol makes so much sense

You’re not alone, I use the 4K monitor on my laptop exclusively and it works just fine. More space for me just means I keep to much stuff open anyway

Same, I do a lot of my work on a 13 inch macbook air ;p

Some tasks I like to be able to have more monitors, but that's becoming less and less.

With all due respect comments like this are why hacker news needs a downvote button.

Try a decent monitor setup before knocking it.

Hacker news has a downvote button, unlocked after a certain amount of karma, but it's not to be used simply because you disagree with someone.

what? why would this be worth a downvote? also, what is with this attitude that nobody who has tried a "decent monitor" would be fine with a laptop? i have 2 high end monitors on my desk at work and i rarely use them because i prefer being comfortable on my shitty laptop so that i can be as productive on the go as i am in the office (or at least not be crippled by wishing i had a "decent monitor setup")

Comments like this are why the Hacker News downvote button is restricted.

I did try it multiple times in the past, I actually have a 32" 4K collecting dust right here. I just ended up not using them, ever.

I didn't make a statement like "multiple monitors are useless", which would probably deserve a downvote.

I genuinely asked, with all the respect to everyone who prefers multiple monitors, why they needed them as I might really be missing something that I haven't realized yet.

Can you please describe such decent setup and your workflow with it? Anything I tried was too uncomfortable, and I noted that a combination of software, “desktop tools”, and actively used windows may play a big role in it. Pros and cons, tradeoffs and balances.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com