Comment by d-lisp | Hacker News Reader

Comment by d-lisp | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Having more monitors doesn't make me more productive, it makes me lazier. If I have the possibility to show a lot of lines of code, then I don't feel the necessity of caring a lot about the way my source is structured, the way my code is written and the way elements of the source are grouped. Sometimes when I code on a 13" screen, I feel like I am more naturally inclined to write better, easily maintainable code (all subjectivity apart, I am pretty sure that better code exists objectively, not just in our cyber-tales; not just in clean code articles). I feel like less screen implies more brain, and that more brain means the source is second nature; and because you have to compensate the lack of vision with internalization, you can projectile-find-file eyes closed and never break out of focus like when you do when you have four screen, nerdtree, lsp-symbols floating around, multiple ide panes open and having to touch your mouse just for the sake of clicking all around your squared kilometer of screen space. That's of course an exaggeration; still I feel well more productive with small screen space exactly like I felt when I traded my mouse for a generalized vim and spacemacs-like keymap : awkward at first but cheap and effective in the end.

Must be nice to be primarily concerned with writing code. Personally, most of the time I need to be working in multiple windows at once, such as debugging in one window, performing actions in the program in another window, and often referring to a description of an issue from QA in another window.

There’s no better way to handle all of this than to have multiple large monitors from my experience.

Shortcuts, tiling window manager and virtual desktops solves this. I noticed that I live in my IDE and then from time to time need to travel for a few seconds to something else, 95% -5%

Sure, I can do work with only one screen, but it absolutely takes longer and is more grinding than having enough screen real estate to have the important stuff up front and center at all times.

> Sometimes when I code on a 13" screen, I feel like I am more naturally inclined to write better, easily maintainable code

I'm not sure what to call this - an unnecessary superstition? Self flagellation? I've never needed a constraint like this to write better, easily maintainable code. YMMV, I guess?

I'll set up as many monitors as I can fit on my desk. I've had up to 9 before which was equivalent to approximately an 83" curved screen. Currently I have three 32" 4k monitors in portrait which are equivalent to one big 55" 6k screen (6480 x 3840). It does help with my productivity, a lot.

Having only one screen means switching between many windows constantly, it's inefficient and a real pain when I need 8 or more windows open for different things - front end code, back end code, front end debug window, back end debug window, several different browser applications for testing, dozens of Google results and API document pages, terminal(s), and more. Nothing beats having all the important stuff visible at the same time.

I have a laptop. It has 2 screens. I'd add a third screen but it would get in the way of the TV when I'm on the couch in the evenings.

>Nothing beats having all the important stuff visible at the same time.

But those aren't visible at the same time since you can't fit your whole 9 monitors in your field of view and focus on them at the same time. You can only focus and work only on a monitor at a time, and so you need to constantly switch monitors, meaning the monitors you aren't looking at each moment are basically a redundant waste.

I don't judge, whatever floats your boat. But I managed to replace multi monitor setups with virtual desktops and shortcuts. Way cheaper and more space efficient, and more ergonomic since I don't need to keep my neck at an angle all the time to the monitors on the side, but always to the one and only in the middle.

Really? You can’t set up more than one monitor in your field of view?

Or turn your head and track faster than you can jump back and forth between several overlapping windows?

That’s also bit like saying you don’t need a monitor bigger than your fovea, because you can only read in your fovea.

Eye movement, head movement, and internal tracking a good part of a sphere of awareness around ourselves are what our visual system - physical and mental - were designed to be extremely fast at.

>Really? You can’t set up more than one monitor in your field of view? &

Just because we can see movement on the outer ends of our field of view to see predators, doesn't mean I can also comfortably stare at code via the side of my eyes. Filed of focus != field of view. Yeah, I can see nearly 180 degrees, but I can only comfortably focus for work on what's in the center of my FoV.

>can also comfortably stare at code via the side of my eyes.

This is not what I suggested. I never suggested coding in your peripheral vision, and to suggest it is just trolling.

I have long-running tasks in windows open around and I need to know when they update. Peripheral vision works extremely well for this, but having the window submerged under the code I'm working on behind dozens of other windows, I would never see it. then I'm forced to have my code at half the width of a tiny screen so I can see the long-running task progress in another half of a tiny screen? No Thank You. I'll take multiple screens all day long for the complex development work I do.

But sure, go ahead and invent whatever you want out of what I said to win a pointless internet argument, I don't care. I just won't be replying anymore.

I know exactly where each bit of info is, and I just dart my eyes to the appropriate monitor, or tilt my head slightly, which is far, far easier and faster than switching through dozens of windows to find the one I need. The windows I need are already open exactly where they should be, I always know where they are, and the latency between me and the data I need is practically nothing, zero.

My three 32" 4k screens are equivalent to 6 pretty big 24" screens, essentially one big 55" screen and sitting with my head against my chair's headrest I my eyes can see every corner of all of it without having to move my neck one millimeter, my eyes effortlessly move around and I can see all the data. Maybe you have some kind of problem with your eyes that prevents that, but it's absolutely easy to find the data I need with zero additional effort.

It's way more efficient than having 1 screen and locating the data required constantly. The difference in friction is very noticeable and painful when I'm only on one screen because it does slow me down, and there's no way around that for anyone, one screen always means more cognitive load and higher latency to getting the data in front of your eyes. Shortcuts and virtual desktops don't change that. And, often things happen that I catch in my peripheral vision, like console logs I'm expecting to happen, that I wouldn't be able to catch if the window isn't visible.

Sorry but you'll never convince me that 1 monitor is in any way superior to multiple monitors, it just does not compute.

Well, I don't even have to turn my head, <super + ]> and the screen for the web browser appears in front of my eyes. To be fair, on my keyboard super + ] is right thumb + right index finger. I have shortcuts for every program that I use, and every program that I use has its virtual desktop binded to some key combination on what is a very weird keyboard. And I maintain that a small screen is perfect for redacting code (and I had a similar setup of yours in the past).

>Well, I don't even have to turn my head

NEITHER DO I. I don't know how much clearer I can make that, yet you still refuse to understand.

><super + ]> and the screen for the web browser appears in front of my eyes. To be fair, on my keyboard super + ] is right thumb + right index finger. I have shortcuts for every program that I use, and every program that I use has its virtual desktop binded to some key combination on what is a very weird keyboard.

None of this is relevant to me in the least. I don't have to do any of it, because all the info I need is already in view of my eyeballs >>without moving my head at all<<, as if that's even some kind of manufactured inconvenience.

>And I maintain that a small screen is perfect for redacting code (and I had a similar setup of yours in the past).

Sure, if all you do is interact with one single text editor, and not any of the many other screens that modern development requires.

Having this conversation with you is pointless, enjoy your mediocre computing experience.

That's not mediocre by any mean, it's highly probable my setup virtually covers more screen area than yours.

I use virtual desktops with my huge monitor real estate, so no, you don't get to claim that.

And I can see more going on at the same time. It's absolutely more efficient than a single screen for my complex development needs.

There's just so many workflows that are so much better with multiple displays, but you really just can't see it? I'm sorry, but you have a mediocre computing experience, and I know it, because I have a laptop and I know what using one screen is like vs. efficiently being able to see more data at the same time. I know all the tricks, I've been computing for 40+ years. I also know that hardware is cheap, and my time is not cheap, and more information being displayed definitely does increase my efficiency.

I was just developing a 3d model using OpenJSCAD with code in one window, and a view of the 3D model in 2 perspectives in 2 other windows. I write code, hit save, and see the 3d model update, and it's a very visual oriented thing, switching windows so I can see the result would remove my ability to see the updates happen, which informs me that the model is updated correctly. I also have a debugger window open and other windows that I always need to see all the time. You just can't do this with a single screen, it's not possible without cutting the screen up into tiny sections or constantly flipping between them which is DX friction. It's simply an excruciatingly cramped experience to get what I have within a single screen, and no mental gymnastics you could do would change that.

Well, I honestly do such things on one monitor and I don't need more, I don't know what else to say; switching virtual desktops seamlessly is second nature and from this I fail to see the point of having multiple monitors when there is a clever approach to the problem. Shader editor, game engine, IDE, debugger, all of this can fit on a single screen, be peeked when needed to, you can layer stuff, make use of transparency, whatever you want given the appropriate window manager and keybindings server, I prefer to invest on this than on monitors as it seems a clever way to get informations from the computer. You can develop a 3d model by not looking at it when you code, because you are coding and not drawing or sculpting and because what you do is deterministic.

>"Microsoft researchers found that switching to multiple monitor configurations could boost productivity between 9 percent and 50 percent2. Tech consultant Jon Peddie Research reported that *users of multiple monitors estimated productivity gains averaging 42 percent3*."

>"98% of users preferred a dual monitor configurator to a single monitor."

https://www.ie-uk.com/blog/how-multiple-monitors-affects-pro...

>"FAIRLY INEXPENSIVE PRODUCTIVITY BOOSTER Purchasing another display is a fairly low investment when looking at technology. Monitors range in price based on size and specification but typically a suitable one can be purchased from £200. And with a 42% average productivity boost, it can provide a great ROI. Even an ultrawide monitor with a built in dock to reduce desk clutter only costs around £600."

https://itfoundations.com/are-two-monitors-really-more-produ...

>"A study in 2017 by Fujitsu Siemens Computers analyzed whether multiple monitors boosted productivity. The company found that two monitors increased productivity by 25 percent compared to single-monitor setups. Workspaces equipped with three displays can increase productivity by 35.5% >This study was further backed up by scientists from the University of Utah have shown with their studies on the subject."

https://www.graphicdesigneire.ie/graphic-design-blog/multipl...

>"Over 15 years, Jon Peddie Research conducted three separate studies on the effectiveness of a two-monitor setup compared to using just one monitor. >It found that the overall average productivity boost was 42% when users added that second monitor. >The firm also found that between 2002 and 2017, there’s been a significant rise in the use of two monitors, with a compound annual growth rate of 10%. The company’s namesake put it simply saying, “The more you can see, the more you can do.”"

https://www.cloudavize.com/dual-monitor-setup-productivity/

> 1. Increase Productivity

> 2. It’s More Enjoyable!

> 3. Excellent for Meetings

> 4. Make Fewer Errors

> 5. Reduces Switchtasking Time

> 6. Cutting & Pasting

> 7. Better for Team Work

> 8. Helps Maintain Focus

> 9. Sharing Data

https://www.cloudavize.com/dual-monitor-setup-productivity/

But sure, you're right and everyone else is wrong.

I wonder if you consider an "ultrawide" to be one monitor?

My dream actually is to have one monitor. A single 65" curved 8k screen, sectioned off into about 8 different virtual screens. It's not really about how many screens you have, it's about how many pixels and viewable surface area (screen real estate). I stopped counting my setup in "screens" years ago and count it in megapixels for a long time now. Right now I have 24 million pixels across a 55" area. It's pretty fantastic. I think big, and do big things. I don't know what you do, but you're doing it - according to research - 42% slower than you could be.

These studies show how people with mediocre window manager and that doesn't know how to manage their windows benefits from a second screen. That's not my case and I am pretty sure I could show that one monitor is the fastest and most productive environment. I am pretty sure that tiling window managers, clever keybindings that never makes you need to move from the home row, replacement of the mouse by a keyboard based solution and vimification of the desktop are faster on a single monitor, and that they are faster than normal desktop on several monitors.

Are you baiting me into calling you delusional? Because that's exactly what I have to think from all your nonsense comments.

Enjoy your trolling elsewhere, this conversation is over. I've supplied very relevant information proving you are wrong, and you've provided nothing but your feels. Enjoy your sub-optimal computing experience. Goodbye.

Well, actually the informations you provided are unrelated to what is discussed here, and I shown why by the previous message. My message are perfectly meaningful and I exposed why I think my setup is more productive and efficient than yours, and that 9 monitors are not necessary by any mean.

>Well, actually the informations you provided are unrelated to what is discussed here

Only in your trolling mind. You lost this pointless internet argument but you simply cannot accept it.

>My message are perfectly meaningful

Only to you. Your messages are anecdotal and I provided studies that prove most people want multiple monitors exactly because it makes their jobs provably easier than whatever virtual desktop nonsense you have to deal with.

> I exposed why I think my setup is more productive and efficient than yours, and that 9 monitors are not necessary by any mean.

That doesn't mean you aren't completely wrong, because you are completely wrong.

Enjoy your sub-optimal computing experience. Goodbye.

You only ignored my claims, and ignored the fact that your "studies" are unrelated and don't take efficient window managers into account, and ignored the fact that I was using a similar setup than yours in the past before finding this current solution, whose productivity is superior. Anecdotes do matter, unrelated studies don't. Now, I do hope microsoft will publish a study taking powerusers of i3/awesome/bspwm into account, because otherwise it seems your pride will force you into cultivating a taste for uneffective and expensive solutions, which wouldn't be a problem if you weren't at the same time showing signs of interest to the subject of what constitutes a good work tool. I wish you the best in life.

Enjoy your sub-optimal computing experience. Goodbye.

Hi, this answer feels immature and unconstructive to the discussion; I don't understand how and why you continue to treat my setup as "sub-optimal" when I described why it was that great, and you treated me as a "troll" while sourcing unrelated information. Could you please explain what is going on with you, and why you seem that upset by this discussion ?

Enjoy your sub-optimal computing experience. Goodbye.

> one monitor is the fastest and most productive environment

Okay, but ... how big of a monitor? Consider that a 50" 4K monitor is a bit like four 25" 2K monitors. Except that space is undivided.

I agree that it's better to whip around virtual desktops with a hot key than to twist your neck between two monitors. But we have to agree on the monitor size first.

Is it better to have a 24" 2K monitor with a 4x4 virtual desktop, or a 50" monitor with no virtual desktop?

There is one special application that benefits from multiple monitor: when you have to monitor numerous real-time events and respond to them.

If an alarm starts blinking on an object on one of your screens, you notice, even if that screen is in your peripheral vision.

For things that your attention is riveted on, switching virtual desktops is fine.

>I agree that it's better to whip around virtual desktops with a hot key than to twist your neck between two monitors. But we have to agree on the monitor size first.

I have 3 32" screens in portrait, which is the equivalent to one 55" screen. I'm not sure where this "twist your neck" nonsense comes from. I can assure you I never, ever have to "twist my neck" to any degree to see the entirety of my 3 screens. My eyeballs might have to move half a centimeter in either direction, if that much, but no, my neck never has to move at all.

>Is it better to have a 24" 2K monitor with a 4x4 virtual desktop, or a 50" monitor with no virtual desktop?

Why not have a 50" monitor with virtual desktops. I do it all the time, and it's an amazing thing, far better than a single small monitor with a fraction of the pixels/real-estate.

>For things that your attention is riveted on, switching virtual desktops is fine.

Multiple screens is even better.

> My dream actually is to have one monitor. A single 65" curved 8k screen

How far from your face, and how many degrees will you turn your head?

About 4 to 5 feet, and I will turn my head 0 degrees. "Head turning" isn't a thing with large/multiple monitors. It's a manufactured problem by people who think multiple monitors are somehow bad or evil or just have never used them.

I have a comfortable chair with a headrest, my head sits against the headrest and my eyeballs do all of the moving, my neck doesn't need to move a millimeter to view the entire area of the screen(s).

Neck strain is simply not a thing with multiple monitors unless you have so many monitors that some sit behind you - but that is not what we are talking about. We're talking about 2 or 3 screens or an ultrawide or a large 55" or 65" curved screen sitting in front of you on a desk. None of these scenarios requires turning your neck at all, unless your eyeballs are permanently fixed dead ahead and you cannot move your eyeballs at all due to some serious neurological problem, and then you should go see a doctor.

It works for you but many of us can cope with a single screen.

"cope with" is not the same thing as "enhanced productivity"

Indeed, what I mean is I don't personally see a huge productivity boost compared to virtual desktops, and have spent a lot of time working abroad with a single laptop. An external usb-c monitor is occasionally useful but people who swear they need a minimum of 3-4 monitors obviously have a very different brain to mine!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com