Multiple monitors suck your productivity away
-
There have been countless studies that show the human brain is physically incapable of true multitasking and more to the point many, many studies that show that context switching kills productivity big time. Having more than one monitor itself isn't damaging it's how people use them which, every time I've brought this up, pretty consistently turns out many people have something in one monitor that is a distraction they have no control over like instant messaging or email or possibly as bad they have a browser window open in the other and jump to it from time to time which I bet almost inevitably leads to a little break here and there to just take a quick look at something unrelated. In any case anyone can learn to alt-tab so at it's heart it's a non issue for 99% of developers save the 1% who do actual real time debugging and need to see the output simultaneously with the debug which I think is probably two developers here over the years that actually need this. What it really comes down to is a childish infatuation with the coolness of having more than one monitor for most despite the proven harm to productivity, the additional expense and the harm to the environment from extra power being wasted unnecessarily. That being said I'm sure we'll never see an end to it until we get some kind of virtual monitor eyeglass / contact lens system. :)
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better. - Poul Anderson
John C wrote:
In any case anyone can learn to alt-tab
I know how, and it was only after about the 5th massive spread sheet of doom which needed to be translated into something that couldn't summon any dark powers that I bothered with a second monitor. when you're dealing with a lot of information, and you need to see it all at once to make sense of it, two monitors is a pretty good setup. Right now I'd like it if I could stack the two on top of each other so I could actually see this entire query I'm working on at once, rather than blowing time on scrolling up and down every five seconds, because it takes me considerably longer to move the mouse than my eyes, and I then have to find my place back in whatever chunk of the query I had been in.
-
There is a huge disconnect between the article and your headline. The article asserts people cannot multitask very efficiently and therefore lose productivity, which is true to a large degree. However, what you implied with your post is that multiple monitors decrease productivity, which is entirely different thing and is patently false. There are numerous situation where using multiple monitors to do a single task can vastly improve productivity. For example you completely ignored Trollslayer comment about spanning VS on two monitors, which is exactly what many people including myself do. My main monitor is all code all the time, my right monitor has various supplementary windows depending if I'm coding or debugging. If I'm coding it's solution explorer, properties, output, error list, task list, find results, find symbol results windows, if I'm debugging it's various watch windows to monitor variables, call stack and output windows mainly. This layout lets me view a lot more code at once while still being able to quickly browse solution, properties, and see variable state, it saves me time having to constantly juggle a bunch of windows I need on a single monitor. Heck, sometimes I wish I had 3 monitors, because I need to google/read example as I code and switching windows is a pane, or what if I need to watch SQL profiler as I execute code? Once again, two monitors are invaluable in this situation, 3 would be even better. Hate to say it because I have an impression that you're a very knowledgeable person, but in this case, you're dead wrong. Not only you're wrong, but you're trying to justify your position using irrelevant examples as is with this article. The article is about multitasking, not using multiple monitors for one task.
Jesus man don't you read through the thread before replying? :) I've already addressed your first point at least twice and countless times over the years that this discussion has come and gone here. Strange how vehemently people defend their multiple monitors. Definitely a raw nerve thing with people. Perhaps you're a member of the 1% who can justify this though by your description I firmly believe not. I previously only knew two people here who could really use multiple monitors, Elaine is one of them because of the specific nature of her work. In your particular example it sounds like what you really need is a larger monitor, not more monitors. The multiple monitor problem *is* a multi tasking and context switching problem for most. It may feel cool to think you're at the helm of the enterprise with all those monitors but in reality it's cheating yourself, your boss and the environment for the vast majority of developers.
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better. - Poul Anderson
-
John C wrote:
In any case anyone can learn to alt-tab
I know how, and it was only after about the 5th massive spread sheet of doom which needed to be translated into something that couldn't summon any dark powers that I bothered with a second monitor. when you're dealing with a lot of information, and you need to see it all at once to make sense of it, two monitors is a pretty good setup. Right now I'd like it if I could stack the two on top of each other so I could actually see this entire query I'm working on at once, rather than blowing time on scrolling up and down every five seconds, because it takes me considerably longer to move the mouse than my eyes, and I then have to find my place back in whatever chunk of the query I had been in.
Distind wrote:
when you're dealing with a lot of information, and you need to see it all at once to make sense of it, two monitors is a pretty good setup
Um...a very large single monitor is a far better setup in my opinion. Every argument for multiple monitors I've seen comes in four flavours: 1) a person works on some kind of real time video output system that needs debugging simultaneous to watching the output. That's two developers out of all the ones that post in the lounge over the last few years that I know of. 2) "I need more space to see stuff" - Get a bigger monitor, your eyes and brain will thank you by being less stressed. 3) "I need to refer to stuff while working" - Alt tab is your friend, invest the money in a super sized monitor instead which is useful 100% of the time and learn to alt-fricken-tab like the flying spaghetti monster and Microsoft intended. 4) "I need to monitor email / play games / instant message etc" - Needs no explanation really but if you really think this you are not being a professional developer or are not allowed to be one and are not forceful enough about explaining why your time is valuable to the company and why they are cheating themselves by not allowing you to focus on work exclusively when needed or are utterly clueless about productivity and multitasking and context switching. Or are not really a developer at all, that's more of a sideline and so your productivity isn't really an issue anyway because you're not important enough to anyone to treat like a real developer.
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better. - Poul Anderson
-
Jesus man don't you read through the thread before replying? :) I've already addressed your first point at least twice and countless times over the years that this discussion has come and gone here. Strange how vehemently people defend their multiple monitors. Definitely a raw nerve thing with people. Perhaps you're a member of the 1% who can justify this though by your description I firmly believe not. I previously only knew two people here who could really use multiple monitors, Elaine is one of them because of the specific nature of her work. In your particular example it sounds like what you really need is a larger monitor, not more monitors. The multiple monitor problem *is* a multi tasking and context switching problem for most. It may feel cool to think you're at the helm of the enterprise with all those monitors but in reality it's cheating yourself, your boss and the environment for the vast majority of developers.
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better. - Poul Anderson
John C wrote:
Strange how vehemently people defend their multiple monitors. Definitely a raw nerve thing with people.
I'm thinking this is more how the study is completely unrelated to your claim, and in my opinion a fairly lousy way to examine the subject in general. That, and it's Friday, if it doesn't look like work it'll get someone's attention.
-
Hey believe what you want but clearly as the article shows people *think* they are more productive multitasking and objectively are most definitely not.
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better. - Poul Anderson
-
It's been my experience despite howls of protest here when I bring it up and here is yet another study that explains why: http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2009/multitask-research-release-082409.html[^]
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better. - Poul Anderson
After reading the other responses, I would have to agree with the premise of the article, but disagree with the multiple monitors. There are some places where multiple monitors definitely are an advantage. Let me tell you of two in my case: Right now, I am working on a multimonitor application - this app shows one UI on the main computer screen and a totally different UI on all other screens. The reason this is done is for bingo - the caller stand needs one set of information and a totally different set of information is shown to the players on either big screen TVs or projectors around the bingo hall. While I could potentially work on this on a single monitor using VMs and Maxivista to show the UI on the secondary computers, this would make things very overly complicated when multiple screens work (I use 3 at a time for this). The second one is back from 1996-1999. I was working on antilock brakes for semi trucks at the time. Our controller had 2 microcontrollers on it, communicating with each other. The in circuit emulator (ICE) for these micros took two full ISA slots in a computer. Because of some stupid corporate edicts, we were not allowed to have anything but a certain brand of PC which only had 2 ISA slots in it. So, we had to have multiple machines. In my case, I had 5 total machines in order to fully work on the system (all running at the same time). One PC for each microcontroller, one PC for the ABS simulator software (more slots), one for RS232 type communications, and one for the data acquisition software. Some of these ran 95, and some could only run Win 3.1! So there are cases where multimonitor setups (and multiple PCs) are worthwhile!
-
John C wrote:
Strange how vehemently people defend their multiple monitors. Definitely a raw nerve thing with people.
I'm thinking this is more how the study is completely unrelated to your claim, and in my opinion a fairly lousy way to examine the subject in general. That, and it's Friday, if it doesn't look like work it'll get someone's attention.
Distind wrote:
I'm thinking this is more how the study is completely unrelated to your claim
It's perfectly related to my claim, perhaps people are too distracted trying to work and read their cp messages at the same time to really take the time to *think* about stuff before posting. Luckily I don't start work for a few more weeks after a summer off so I have plenty of time to devote to thinking about things. ;)
Distind wrote:
That, and it's Friday, if it doesn't look like work it'll get someone's attention.
Actually this is part of an ongoing series of discussions going back at least 3 years probably more which is where I'm coming from with this however I guess I should consider my audience better, there are a lot of new members who haven't been privy to the other hundreds of posts about this topic in the past. My argument against multiple monitors has always been about productivity lost due to multi tasking and context switching. People here argue that the ability to look at two things at once overrides the losses of productivity by saving time. My point is that people are undervaluing their own time and concentration and overvaluing the gains of multitasking which is exactly what this article was about.
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better. - Poul Anderson
-
"People who are regularly bombarded with several streams of electronic information" The key word is "streams". Please read the article again. My operations are not with streams.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
Peace Elaine, I was just messing with you, in fact you are one of the two people I have in my mind from here when I say perhaps 1% of developers here have an actual need for more than one monitor.
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better. - Poul Anderson
-
After reading the other responses, I would have to agree with the premise of the article, but disagree with the multiple monitors. There are some places where multiple monitors definitely are an advantage. Let me tell you of two in my case: Right now, I am working on a multimonitor application - this app shows one UI on the main computer screen and a totally different UI on all other screens. The reason this is done is for bingo - the caller stand needs one set of information and a totally different set of information is shown to the players on either big screen TVs or projectors around the bingo hall. While I could potentially work on this on a single monitor using VMs and Maxivista to show the UI on the secondary computers, this would make things very overly complicated when multiple screens work (I use 3 at a time for this). The second one is back from 1996-1999. I was working on antilock brakes for semi trucks at the time. Our controller had 2 microcontrollers on it, communicating with each other. The in circuit emulator (ICE) for these micros took two full ISA slots in a computer. Because of some stupid corporate edicts, we were not allowed to have anything but a certain brand of PC which only had 2 ISA slots in it. So, we had to have multiple machines. In my case, I had 5 total machines in order to fully work on the system (all running at the same time). One PC for each microcontroller, one PC for the ABS simulator software (more slots), one for RS232 type communications, and one for the data acquisition software. Some of these ran 95, and some could only run Win 3.1! So there are cases where multimonitor setups (and multiple PCs) are worthwhile!
Yes, congratulations you are the third person here to *ever* illustrate any real use for more than one monitor. I'll amend my mental map to include one more person bringing to the total to three of the thousands who have posted here about what they do since the CodeProject lounge came into existence. You, Elaine and Jeffrey are an elite club. :)
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better. - Poul Anderson
-
It's been my experience despite howls of protest here when I bring it up and here is yet another study that explains why: http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2009/multitask-research-release-082409.html[^]
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better. - Poul Anderson
Just because I have three monitors doesn't mean I'm multi-tasking any more than you do with one. It's just more screen space. I could have one 30" monitor and have just as much screen space as I have now with three monitors. I could line up application windows on that single, large monitor to work the same way I do now too. So the question is, do you, with your one monitor, ever have more than one visible program running? If you do, then you're working the same way someone with multiple monitors does, and it doesn't mean you're multi-tasking any more or any less. Ultimately I think your beef against multiple monitors is misplaced. Perhaps your beef is really with having too much screen space? Cheers, Drew.
-
Distind wrote:
I'm thinking this is more how the study is completely unrelated to your claim
It's perfectly related to my claim, perhaps people are too distracted trying to work and read their cp messages at the same time to really take the time to *think* about stuff before posting. Luckily I don't start work for a few more weeks after a summer off so I have plenty of time to devote to thinking about things. ;)
Distind wrote:
That, and it's Friday, if it doesn't look like work it'll get someone's attention.
Actually this is part of an ongoing series of discussions going back at least 3 years probably more which is where I'm coming from with this however I guess I should consider my audience better, there are a lot of new members who haven't been privy to the other hundreds of posts about this topic in the past. My argument against multiple monitors has always been about productivity lost due to multi tasking and context switching. People here argue that the ability to look at two things at once overrides the losses of productivity by saving time. My point is that people are undervaluing their own time and concentration and overvaluing the gains of multitasking which is exactly what this article was about.
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better. - Poul Anderson
John C wrote:
It's perfectly related to my claim, perhaps people are too distracted trying to work and read their cp messages at the same time to really take the time to *think* about stuff before posting. Luckily I don't start work for a few more weeks after a summer off so I have plenty of time to devote to thinking about things.
I'm having trouble getting the study to load here, however if this is the same study I've gutted previously all it managed to do was confirm people can't do more than one thing that is fairly new to them at once. Which I'm sure comes as a surprise to us all. It's not a matter of the simplicity of a task, it's a matter of if you know how to do it or not. Something the study completely fails to account for or even consider. And to expand the idea that people cannot do two separate things at once, even assuming the study is correct in it's implications and say that people cannot use two monitors faster than they can sit there and hit alt-tab, simply doesn't work. It's not a given that it is two separate tasks being done on the different monitors, it is not a given that there are simply two windows to alt-tab between quickly(the monster files I was referring to earlier generally needed to be broken down into at least three files and then combined into a four, requiring all three originals be referenced and combined. So I split my screens so that I effectively had 4 or more visible windows and kept focus on my output file, and only interacted with the others to move them along through the file. Lots of crap, just one task that requires a lot of screens pace), and it's not particularly given that all people think the same was as those presented in this study. If my memory serves they were random normal people, not techies, which itself is often a fairly large difference in how people process information.
-
Distind wrote:
when you're dealing with a lot of information, and you need to see it all at once to make sense of it, two monitors is a pretty good setup
Um...a very large single monitor is a far better setup in my opinion. Every argument for multiple monitors I've seen comes in four flavours: 1) a person works on some kind of real time video output system that needs debugging simultaneous to watching the output. That's two developers out of all the ones that post in the lounge over the last few years that I know of. 2) "I need more space to see stuff" - Get a bigger monitor, your eyes and brain will thank you by being less stressed. 3) "I need to refer to stuff while working" - Alt tab is your friend, invest the money in a super sized monitor instead which is useful 100% of the time and learn to alt-fricken-tab like the flying spaghetti monster and Microsoft intended. 4) "I need to monitor email / play games / instant message etc" - Needs no explanation really but if you really think this you are not being a professional developer or are not allowed to be one and are not forceful enough about explaining why your time is valuable to the company and why they are cheating themselves by not allowing you to focus on work exclusively when needed or are utterly clueless about productivity and multitasking and context switching. Or are not really a developer at all, that's more of a sideline and so your productivity isn't really an issue anyway because you're not important enough to anyone to treat like a real developer.
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better. - Poul Anderson
John C wrote:
"I need more space to see stuff" - Get a bigger monitor, your eyes and brain will thank you by being less stressed.
Can you can tell me where I can get one 3200 x 1200 monitor for the same price as two 1600 x 1200?
-
Just because I have three monitors doesn't mean I'm multi-tasking any more than you do with one. It's just more screen space. I could have one 30" monitor and have just as much screen space as I have now with three monitors. I could line up application windows on that single, large monitor to work the same way I do now too. So the question is, do you, with your one monitor, ever have more than one visible program running? If you do, then you're working the same way someone with multiple monitors does, and it doesn't mean you're multi-tasking any more or any less. Ultimately I think your beef against multiple monitors is misplaced. Perhaps your beef is really with having too much screen space? Cheers, Drew.
Drew Stainton wrote:
ever have more than one visible program running?
No, never. And my beef has *always* been with multi tasking and context switching with a minor sub beef about cost and wasted electricity / environmental issues. The problem is that people regularly state they run attention grabbing apps in the other monitors and when they don't they are doing things for which they could as easily have a larger single monitor or simply alt-tab. My real overriding beef is with software developers that place such a low premium on the value of their uninterrupted concentration and willingness to sacrifice that I guess.
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better. - Poul Anderson
-
It's been my experience despite howls of protest here when I bring it up and here is yet another study that explains why: http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2009/multitask-research-release-082409.html[^]
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better. - Poul Anderson
"People who use more than on monitor" != "People who are regularly bombarded with several streams of electronic information". End of discussion, I'd say.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
"People who use more than on monitor" != "People who are regularly bombarded with several streams of electronic information". End of discussion, I'd say.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Drew Stainton wrote:
ever have more than one visible program running?
No, never. And my beef has *always* been with multi tasking and context switching with a minor sub beef about cost and wasted electricity / environmental issues. The problem is that people regularly state they run attention grabbing apps in the other monitors and when they don't they are doing things for which they could as easily have a larger single monitor or simply alt-tab. My real overriding beef is with software developers that place such a low premium on the value of their uninterrupted concentration and willingness to sacrifice that I guess.
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better. - Poul Anderson
John C wrote:
The problem is that people regularly state they run attention grabbing apps in the other monitors and when they don't they are doing things for which they could as easily have a larger single monitor or simply alt-tab.
OK, but that still doesn't justify the complaint against multiple monitors. What you're saying is that running multiple attention-grabbing apps saps productivity - what's that got to do with multiple monitors?
John C wrote:
The problem is that people regularly state they run attention grabbing apps in the other monitors and when they don't they are doing things for which they could as easily have a larger single monitor or simply alt-tab.
I agree that email, for instance, can be a big time-waster especially if it's up and visible all the time. I usually minimize it unless I'm writing a bunch of emails. Of course even with multiple monitors, I still have the choice to do that. Other things like documentation can be a big plus to have open and visible while I'm writing code. I think what it boils down to is that just because multiple monitors can be used in a counter productive way doesn't mean they always are. Your single monitor example is no different. You could have multiple distracting apps open and visible at the same time, but you choose not to. People with multiple monitors can make that same decision. They can also decide to use the extra screen space in a way that helps their productivity. It's not an all or nothing thing. Cheers, Drew.
-
On the contrary, when I'm in admin mode for various things two monitors is invaluble - email on the left and the right monitor for other applications. Also I find with Visual Studio it lets me make good use of the right monitor for the editor and the left for class/properties etc. views plus MDSN.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
Trollslayer wrote:
the right monitor for the editor and the left for class/properties etc. views plus MDSN Code Project.
FTFY :-D
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
It's been my experience despite howls of protest here when I bring it up and here is yet another study that explains why: http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2009/multitask-research-release-082409.html[^]
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better. - Poul Anderson
He's back, folks, the tent man is back! :-D
Cheers, विक्रम (Got my troika of CCCs!) After all is said and done, much is said and little is done.
-
He's back, folks, the tent man is back! :-D
Cheers, विक्रम (Got my troika of CCCs!) After all is said and done, much is said and little is done.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Cheers Vikram! Actually not entirely back, just getting my feet wet, warming up my brain slowly to get coding again sometime soonish. Two more camping trips to go.
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better. - Poul Anderson
-
It's been my experience despite howls of protest here when I bring it up and here is yet another study that explains why: http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2009/multitask-research-release-082409.html[^]
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better. - Poul Anderson
(Without reading the study) It's the multitasking, not the multiple monitors, right?
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy