That's not mediocre by any mean, it's highly probable my setup virtually covers more screen area than yours.
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.
>"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.
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.
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.
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 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.
How far from your face, and how many degrees will you turn your head?
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.