Multiple monitors suck your productivity away
-
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
Overengineered frameworks are doing the job just fine.
-
It looks to me like your contention is that while using multiple monitors not necessarily be bad in and of itself, it can lead to behavior that is bad, i.e. attempting to multi-task when it's not appropriate to do so, sort of a "gateway drug". You also believe that using one large monitor is better, for a variety of reasons, including power usage, than using multiple smaller ones. Are those fair statements, of have I completely misunderstood you?
Currently reading: "A Desert Called Peace", by Tom Kratman
Yes, fair statements. Whenever people mention using multiple monitors and describe what they actually do with them, more often than not it's to save having to type ctrl-alt (which is just lazy) and worst of all they have some kind of interrupting application running in another window like email or chat or web surfing etc. My thinking is a single monitor is most efficient because you make make a single app large properly, you can't do that with multiple monitors, however with a single monitor you really can tile your windows if you wish. And a single monitor doesn't lead as easily to tiling multiple interrupting windows.
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better. - Poul Anderson
-
Where in the world did you get that conclusion from this paper? The paper is about multitasking, NOT the use of multiple monitors to extend the work-area.
You took the time to read the article but not the discussion here first before posting? For the *very* last time I'll repeat myself to say that multiple monitors lead very naturally to people multitasking with interrupting applications in other windows. Every time this comes up people confirm that's often how they use multiple monitors, as a way to dividing their focus. My contention as always is that dividing your focus in an attempt to multitask destroys your productivity. Development (at a professional level anyway) is all about efficiently maintaining the mental context of what you're working on. Anything that causes you to switch context even for an instant such as looking over at your email monitor causes a loss of focus and productivity. A single, large, monitor means less wasted electricity and manufacturing resources, it leads to working properly on ONE THING AT A TIME and you can still split your windows out *when necessary* and tile them for the very limited amount of justifiable work that requires more than one visible window.
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better. - Poul Anderson
-
Anyone who considers themselves a professional should take every opportunity to assert their need to focus on a single task at one time. Anything less is robbing the company of our valuable time. Back in the day developers used to assert their authority in many areas that have slowly eroded away over the years and we have no one to blame but ourselves for this.
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better. - Poul Anderson
John C wrote:
Anyone who considers themselves a professional should take every opportunity to assert their need to focus on a single task at one time. Anything less is robbing the company of our valuable time.
You're kidding right? This goes against everything that we're constantly told is acceptable. Hell, when I was a Microsoft employee we were constantly being forced to juggle multiple tasks simultaneously. That's why they keep getting rid of the older folks and hiring younger folks. Older folks realize the falicy of this while younger folks just keep trying and burning themselves out working days, nights and weekends.
Mike Poz
-
Have to agree with the reply here. I was a bit surprised, actually, when I clicked the link and it opened an article about multi-tasking. For me, having multiple monitors helps me single-task. When I first came to work here, 16 years ago, they gave me two monitors, and it was a "luxury" that quickly started to feel like a necessity. I didn't have any sort of internet distraction at that time. Having a window for the code and another for the process that the code is running, especially when it requires interaction, is very valuable. It's also very useful to have data structures visible while you're working on a section of code, and yes, a web browser can be handy if you're looking at a code example relating to the code you have open on the other monitor. Before multiple monitors, I would have had a print-out of some of the data structures, and perhaps a book or two open. The monitors just replace the paper. (Although I still sometimes wish for continuous forms!)
WHS!
-
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
Very large monitors are, even today, relatively expensive: ie twice my current desktop area costs nearly four times as much as the two monitors currently hosting it. The only reason I use two monitors is to have more 'desk' space, so I don't need to keep refering to paper printouts, reference books, tabbing between output and edit windows etc etc When I have to (because I'm travelling) I can do all my dev work on my 13in laptop screen, but it takes much longer because I cannot view as much without context switching, which breaks concentration etc! Multi-tasking bad, multiple monitors (not multi-tasked) good!
-
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
John, You're misinterpreting the study. The study only shows that people who multitask using multiple screens are less productive overall. This is not a commentary on the use of multiple screens, it is a commentary on the price of multitasking. Many of us use multiple screens to be more effective at a single task. For example, I frequently run an app on one screen while debugging in another. This saves me from flipping back and forth and helps me keep my mind focused on the task at hand, rather than repeatedly having to remember where I was either in the app, or in the code. They're both right there. My preferred setup has a third small monitor for debug output. Everything in front of me shows me exactly what I need to complete a single task. I know from considerable experience, that I can code and debug about 1.5 to 2 times faster using this setup than I can on a single monitor. This is not what I "think". I worked for years where I had to keep close track of my time, so I know this for a fact. To argue that the use of multiple monitors always resulted in decreased productivity, one should, by extension, argue that the larger the monitor (or higher the resolution), the less productive a person would be. After all, the larger the monitor, the more information you can see at one time. Effectively, you are arguing that the more you have in front of you, the less productive you are. Again, this is not what the study is showing. Granted, if you have email on one monitor, code on another, and a memo you are typing in another monitor, of course you are going to be less effective. This is simply a matter of how one manages ones workflow. Though I have 2-3 monitors most of the time, I have generally have only one task going on at a time. When I am designing software, I am just doing that. When I am coding, I am just doing that. When I want to check my email, I am just doing that. My brain is just not organized enough to multitask and I know it. Even just a coworker stopping by and saying, "I know you're busy, but when you have a minute can I ask you a question" - even that brief interruption of thought can cost me 15-30 minutes of productivity if I am really into something complex.
-
WHS!
-
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
-
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
... and you don't see how the use of multiple monitors lends to uninterrupted concentration? Let me use an analogy. Every once in a while, when refactoring some code, I will just go ahead and print out all of the relevant code. (I print on the back of used paper, so don't freak.) Then, I find a big open space and layout all of the code and go to work with a handful of highlighters. I do this because it helps me to see everything laid out in front of me. If I had to look at only one sheet at a time, I would quickly get lost trying to juggle the overall concept in my mind. For me (and nearly every programmer I have ever met), having multiple monitors is similar. I could Alt-Tab to flip back and forth between programs. However, each of these "flips" carries a bit of mental overhead. Each time, the brain has to switch from what it was doing in application A to what it needs to be doing in application B. There is a short period where the eyes and brain reorient themselves to the screen. However, when applications A and B are both right there, I can see out of the corner of my eye if something has changed in application B that even needs my attention, saving me from checking just in case. Likewise, my place in application B is at exactly the same point in space as it has always been, so my brain and eye don't need to refind it. In essence, applications A and B become parts of the same task. Really, what you are arguing is that I should have a single gauge on the dashboard of my car, and that I should have a button that toggles between speed, tachometer, fuel, etc. Or really, that I should pull over if I want to check my speed.
-
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
I have to say that multiple monitors increases my productivity and I've seen it work well in many situations. Switching windows reduces productivity - so any task that requires multiple windows (programming, data entry (i.e. copying data from one program/search into another program), and many other uses) - how can you claim the user would be more productive having to Alt-Tab, or click between windows is going to be more productive than having both windows up and available? And why the on-going 3 year battle against multiple monitors anyway? Have you done any of these studies yourself? What is the root of this obsession you claim to have?
-
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
I did read thru the posts from your very first one (in this thread) where you incorrectly associated multiple Monitors with multi-tasking as has already been pointed out and NO you have not addressed that at least not within this thread. If you have addressed this in other threads that’s fine but I'm not going to search down every post you’ve made in any thread before replying to this thread you started. While I personally agree with the study and your take that multi-tasking does not equal improved performance but in fact can decrease performance your initial post implied that multiple-monitors equals muti-tasking and that’s dead wrong. I have 2 monitors and would have 3 if I could get another at my job. I use 2 monitors NOT to do to 2 tasks at once but to increase the size of the workspace of the single task I am working on. Dual monitors means less scrolling up and down, and switching between windows. At my prior job with a software company I caught a lot of grief for NOT being able to multi-task and not matter how ward I tried to convince them that it is better to focus in on and deal with 1 task at a time no one in management would listen. The business world has been sold the idea that good workers can multi-task and if you have someone not multi-tasking then they are either lazy or incompetent and that’s just a load of BS. At my former job I developed a reputation amongst our clients and other co-workers at the same level as I that if you wanted something done right then go to X (that’s me). And even though I’ve been long gone from there for over 5 years I still find my work being used by people who have never heard of me (they we’re hired after I left). I know this thru friends who still work at my former place of employment. It is the combination of “You deserve More for Less” and “You should be able to Multi-task” that has destroyed the level fo quality and craftsmen ship that used to permeate every trade in our country. Your right on multi-tasking but dead wrong to assume all multiple-monitors users are trying to multi-task.
-
John, You're misinterpreting the study. The study only shows that people who multitask using multiple screens are less productive overall. This is not a commentary on the use of multiple screens, it is a commentary on the price of multitasking. Many of us use multiple screens to be more effective at a single task. For example, I frequently run an app on one screen while debugging in another. This saves me from flipping back and forth and helps me keep my mind focused on the task at hand, rather than repeatedly having to remember where I was either in the app, or in the code. They're both right there. My preferred setup has a third small monitor for debug output. Everything in front of me shows me exactly what I need to complete a single task. I know from considerable experience, that I can code and debug about 1.5 to 2 times faster using this setup than I can on a single monitor. This is not what I "think". I worked for years where I had to keep close track of my time, so I know this for a fact. To argue that the use of multiple monitors always resulted in decreased productivity, one should, by extension, argue that the larger the monitor (or higher the resolution), the less productive a person would be. After all, the larger the monitor, the more information you can see at one time. Effectively, you are arguing that the more you have in front of you, the less productive you are. Again, this is not what the study is showing. Granted, if you have email on one monitor, code on another, and a memo you are typing in another monitor, of course you are going to be less effective. This is simply a matter of how one manages ones workflow. Though I have 2-3 monitors most of the time, I have generally have only one task going on at a time. When I am designing software, I am just doing that. When I am coding, I am just doing that. When I want to check my email, I am just doing that. My brain is just not organized enough to multitask and I know it. Even just a coworker stopping by and saying, "I know you're busy, but when you have a minute can I ask you a question" - even that brief interruption of thought can cost me 15-30 minutes of productivity if I am really into something complex.
Tom Foswick wrote:
Granted, if you have email on one monitor, code on another, and a memo you are typing in another monitor, of course you are going to be less effective.
And time after time I hear that is what people are doing. A single very large monitor tends in my opinion to lead to focusing on a single task with all the secondary attendant benefits of being better for the environment, less expensive, more flexible in what you can do with it, always useful even during times when you don't need more than one window visible or are running a single app. The underlying principle here is that as a small independent developer I fully realize and utilize every scrap of efficiency I can find and care deeply about being efficient. Stuck in a big cubicle farm with dozens of other staff working on a minor piece of some huge project and getting constantly interrupted in all manner of ways I'm sure I would care very little about how efficiently I was executing my job and far more about how cool it would be to have a whole bunch of monitors like some kind of security overseer or captain of a spaceship, something to make me feel like I have any kind of control over my working life. ;)
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better. - Poul Anderson
-
Does anyone actually have a choice about this though? While I'm working on task A I'm constantly being asked for an update on task B from my boss behind me and while giving it getting a phone call asking about task C while simultaneously seeing an email arrive saying task D is now the highest priority. And this kind of thing was even worse in my last job. Regarding monitors, everywhere I've worked everyone has had at least 2 monitors, sometimes more.
I agree that multi-tasking is less efficient than working on a single task with dedicated focus, but I don't believe that means multiple monitors suck your productivity away. If you're using your second monitor to copy text from, or to compare a second set of source, or hold a design diagram or documents which you would have to refer to repeatedly anyway, or just to minimize the amount of window management you have to do to switch between applications then I think multiple monitors will still improve your productivity (I know I am much more productive with two monitors than one). The problem is when your second monitor has something irrelevant to your task, or seriously distracting on it. For example, having a 'visualisation' from your media player on one monitor while you code isn't a great idea, and likewise twitter, social media sites and so on are also unnecessary distractions for almost all tasks. That doesn't mean the second monitor can't be used effectively though. It's a matter of using both monitors for the same task and not splitting your focus.
-
I did read thru the posts from your very first one (in this thread) where you incorrectly associated multiple Monitors with multi-tasking as has already been pointed out and NO you have not addressed that at least not within this thread. If you have addressed this in other threads that’s fine but I'm not going to search down every post you’ve made in any thread before replying to this thread you started. While I personally agree with the study and your take that multi-tasking does not equal improved performance but in fact can decrease performance your initial post implied that multiple-monitors equals muti-tasking and that’s dead wrong. I have 2 monitors and would have 3 if I could get another at my job. I use 2 monitors NOT to do to 2 tasks at once but to increase the size of the workspace of the single task I am working on. Dual monitors means less scrolling up and down, and switching between windows. At my prior job with a software company I caught a lot of grief for NOT being able to multi-task and not matter how ward I tried to convince them that it is better to focus in on and deal with 1 task at a time no one in management would listen. The business world has been sold the idea that good workers can multi-task and if you have someone not multi-tasking then they are either lazy or incompetent and that’s just a load of BS. At my former job I developed a reputation amongst our clients and other co-workers at the same level as I that if you wanted something done right then go to X (that’s me). And even though I’ve been long gone from there for over 5 years I still find my work being used by people who have never heard of me (they we’re hired after I left). I know this thru friends who still work at my former place of employment. It is the combination of “You deserve More for Less” and “You should be able to Multi-task” that has destroyed the level fo quality and craftsmen ship that used to permeate every trade in our country. Your right on multi-tasking but dead wrong to assume all multiple-monitors users are trying to multi-task.
YSLGuru wrote:
The business world has been sold the idea that good workers can multi-task and if you have someone not multi-tasking then they are either lazy or incompetent and that’s just a load of BS.
Sadly I think developers themselves are culpable entirely. I've been at this long enough to remember a time when we were as gods and catered to in every manner possible to ensure we did the voodoo that we do. Sure most of us were probably assholes about it at the time and things swung too far that way but over the years as business has attempted to commodotize what we do so it can be turned from a craft into a factory compatible method of manufacturing we've embraced nearly everything they've thrown at us, in fact some of our best are the head weasels that have promoted all these things as we moved into management. Oh well, as with most things the truly good who respect their profession and treat it as one and respect their own time will continue to make the most money and do the most interesting things and to be honest there are a lot of crappy apps that someone has to write, might as well be a bunch of monkeys in a cubicle farm somewhere. ;)
YSLGuru wrote:
At my former job I developed a reputation amongst our clients and other co-workers at the same level as I that if you wanted something done right then go to X (that’s me).
Good for you! Every developer worth the name should develop that same reputation over time. The best of us are craftsmen, not factory workers.
YSLGuru wrote:
Your right on multi-tasking but dead wrong to assume all multiple-monitors users are trying to multi-task.
Well thank you for the first and for the second I keep my eyes peeled and notice that a great majority of people who *claim* they work as you suggest very often have something highly distracting and pre-emptive displaying in another window and I think a single large monitor leads quite naturally to a better focus on a single task with the added option of being able to window it out for those rare times two things need to be visible at precisely the same exact moment.
“If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people together to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea” - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
-
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
I agree with what others have pointed out and what that article is really about...multi-tasking. Having two monitors doesn't mean you're multitasking. That's like saying if you use both legs to walk (rather than hop) then you're multi-tasking. You're doing one task that uses multiple interfaces. So with that I have a few questions... Does a document holder clipped to the side of a monitor, so that you can view a spec or do data entry, reduce efficiency? Does using a mouse and a keyboard reduce efficiency?
-
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
Depends what one is doing, but for anyone doing engineering CAD two monitors is a minimum (and preferably both full HD 24" or bigger) and three is preferred. Example: Schematic and PCB layout, where one monitor has the project overview plus any data sheets etc needed for the current task, the second has the schematic full screen and the third has the PCB layout, again full screen. Anything less than this setup hinders productivity, trying to do all this on just one monitor kills one's work flow and one is at very best only 50% efficient, and probably less. See Altium Designer pages for examples - all their promo stuff shows three monitors, and this is because one really does need three monitors. And yes, part of the integrated Altium environment is embedded C code as part of the project. Maybe writing code one can do it all on a iPhone size screen, personally I don't believe it (but then I started out with 80 column punch cards and paper tape so perhaps I am being short sighted on this issue). N.B. I am not an Altium user. I use Mentor PADS and DxDesigner, and for hobby stuff (to publish) RS components DesignSpark - http://www.designspark.com/home - which is well worth looking at for anyone who needs to do a bit of Schematic PCB work for their embedded projects. BW, Susan.
-
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
Only if you lack self-control.
-
YSLGuru wrote:
The business world has been sold the idea that good workers can multi-task and if you have someone not multi-tasking then they are either lazy or incompetent and that’s just a load of BS.
Sadly I think developers themselves are culpable entirely. I've been at this long enough to remember a time when we were as gods and catered to in every manner possible to ensure we did the voodoo that we do. Sure most of us were probably assholes about it at the time and things swung too far that way but over the years as business has attempted to commodotize what we do so it can be turned from a craft into a factory compatible method of manufacturing we've embraced nearly everything they've thrown at us, in fact some of our best are the head weasels that have promoted all these things as we moved into management. Oh well, as with most things the truly good who respect their profession and treat it as one and respect their own time will continue to make the most money and do the most interesting things and to be honest there are a lot of crappy apps that someone has to write, might as well be a bunch of monkeys in a cubicle farm somewhere. ;)
YSLGuru wrote:
At my former job I developed a reputation amongst our clients and other co-workers at the same level as I that if you wanted something done right then go to X (that’s me).
Good for you! Every developer worth the name should develop that same reputation over time. The best of us are craftsmen, not factory workers.
YSLGuru wrote:
Your right on multi-tasking but dead wrong to assume all multiple-monitors users are trying to multi-task.
Well thank you for the first and for the second I keep my eyes peeled and notice that a great majority of people who *claim* they work as you suggest very often have something highly distracting and pre-emptive displaying in another window and I think a single large monitor leads quite naturally to a better focus on a single task with the added option of being able to window it out for those rare times two things need to be visible at precisely the same exact moment.
“If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people together to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea” - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
I should have been cleare on the thrid item about multiple-monitors. This may no longer be true but up until very recently it was much cheaper to get 2 monitors then 1 very large one and so instead of many large monitors we see many multiple-monitor setups. Even when you can opt for a single monitor a dual monitor can still be the better choice. I do development work that uses a SQL Server database for the back end. It is far easier and more productive to trace what our vendors application is doing (via SQL Servers Profiler tool) in monitor A while watching the application itself in Monitor B. This is because when the application tries to take control and burying oither windows in teh back ground it is unable to over throw those windows in the other monitor.
-
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.
I echo a lot of your ideas. My main monitor is also code all the time (although occasionally some non-programming windows will be on this monitor). My right monitor has Breakpoints, Class View, Error List, Find and Replace, Find Results 1, Find Symbol Results, Output, Properties, and Solution Explorer when I'm not debugging. When I am debugging, my right monitor contains Call Stack, Locals, and Watch, among other things. The windows XP taskbar on my machine is on the far right and is at the minimum visible width. I strongly believe my work day is more productive than if were using only 1 monitor.
Regards, Mike