This guy came to his senses about multiple monitors
-
I have one monitor with a VS2010 open to a blank file and the other monitor with my browser opened waiting for people to reply to all my urgentz code requests. I also have two keyboards. One will be used to Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V once the replies come in (which I know they will). The other one I have one of those birds things whose head goes up and down pressing the F5 key.
Brad Deja Moo - When you feel like you've heard the same bull before.
modified on Wednesday, June 1, 2011 2:25 PM
-
I disagree... I've worked with one, two, three, and briefly four (Currently three), and I've found three to be the most comfortable. The left monitor is for communication-type things (E-mail, company chat) and a few other misc things (Yes, they can blink in the taskbar, but if they're visible, it takes half a second to glance over and see whether it's something I need to respond to)... The middle monitor is where I do most of my coding, and the right monitor for reference material that I have to constantly look at while coding (Spreadsheets, usually). And sometimes, when I'm working on my client and server at the same time, each one gets its own monitor. The only caveat here is that my screens are only 20" or so (Not sure exactly), and 4:3... I think two large widescreen monitors would be almost as good, though it can be annoying to have a vertical bezel in the middle. At home, I'm usually happy with my one 23" widescreen, but I don't do much programming outside of work these days.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
The left monitor is for communication-type things (E-mail, company chat) and a few other misc things (Yes, they can blink in the taskbar, but if they're visible, it takes half a second to glance over and see whether it's something I need to respond to)...
You're describing *precisely* the scenario under which I think a second monitor is the worst possible distraction. People have replied that there are a lot of other things that can distract and I agree and they should absolutely be eliminated as well but those other distractions are not in your field of vision like a second monitor which is the worst possible place for a distraction to be (other than a spider on you or something I guess :) ). The reason why I think it hurts productivity is programming, perhaps more than most any other occupation, is utterly reliant on keeping a large amount of information in short term working memory and the costs of task switching are well known to anyone who has ever been under pressure to get some very complicated code out the door as quickly as possible and been interrupted repeatedly when deeply into it. One of the reasons why I think people disagree with me so quickly is that there are a lot of developers here who have *never* worked in a completely distraction free environment to have any kind of basis for comparison in their personal productivity. Maybe it's just me, perhaps I have worse concentration or something but I like to focus on one task exclusively to do it well with zero distractions and good on anyone who is capable of working under distracting conditions but I can't do it properly.
There is no failure only feedback
-
Since the original "Matrix" movie was released, the presence of multiple monitors on one's desk has become the sine qua non of technical prowess.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The left monitor is for communication-type things (E-mail, company chat) and a few other misc things (Yes, they can blink in the taskbar, but if they're visible, it takes half a second to glance over and see whether it's something I need to respond to)...
You're describing *precisely* the scenario under which I think a second monitor is the worst possible distraction. People have replied that there are a lot of other things that can distract and I agree and they should absolutely be eliminated as well but those other distractions are not in your field of vision like a second monitor which is the worst possible place for a distraction to be (other than a spider on you or something I guess :) ). The reason why I think it hurts productivity is programming, perhaps more than most any other occupation, is utterly reliant on keeping a large amount of information in short term working memory and the costs of task switching are well known to anyone who has ever been under pressure to get some very complicated code out the door as quickly as possible and been interrupted repeatedly when deeply into it. One of the reasons why I think people disagree with me so quickly is that there are a lot of developers here who have *never* worked in a completely distraction free environment to have any kind of basis for comparison in their personal productivity. Maybe it's just me, perhaps I have worse concentration or something but I like to focus on one task exclusively to do it well with zero distractions and good on anyone who is capable of working under distracting conditions but I can't do it properly.
There is no failure only feedback
Well, we don't all have the luxury of working with zero distractions. I'm a front office developer, so I'm a one-man development team... Requirements, design, coding, testing, and support... All me. So the e-mail that pops into my box may be some useless company-wide broadcast, or it may be an urgent bug report from my users that needs to be patched RIGHT NOW... Or it could even be "We decided we want it to work THIS way instead", requiring me to stop mid-function and backtrack. So I can't just ignore that kind of stuff... Fortunately I've gotten to the point that if I see an e-mail pop up that doesn't require my attention, I can glance at the subject line, make that determination, and jump back to the code in a second or two, without getting pulled "out of the zone", so to speak. If I had to actually bring up another window, that might not be the case.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
And the damage they do to productivity which you are all now free to mock me about once again and tell me how wrong I am when secretly you all know I'm right but won't admit it because you think it's just cool to have multiple monitors and the loss of productivity doesn't come out of your own wallet. * ;) http://jacquesmattheij.com/productivity+tips+for+the+easily+distracted[^] * Of course the usual disclaimer that there are at least 3 of you that I know of who actually legitimately need multiple monitors.
There is no failure only feedback
I got £50 for suggesting developers have 2 monitors. Since I got my shiny new PC and monitors a couple of weeks ago I have one in landscape and one in portrait. The one on its side has outlook and various monitoring programs running on it, and anything I need to refer to whilst doing most of my work on the other. I could do with a third though, as I am constantly remoted onto at least one other machine and it would be useful to be able to keep that separate.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The left monitor is for communication-type things (E-mail, company chat) and a few other misc things (Yes, they can blink in the taskbar, but if they're visible, it takes half a second to glance over and see whether it's something I need to respond to)...
You're describing *precisely* the scenario under which I think a second monitor is the worst possible distraction. People have replied that there are a lot of other things that can distract and I agree and they should absolutely be eliminated as well but those other distractions are not in your field of vision like a second monitor which is the worst possible place for a distraction to be (other than a spider on you or something I guess :) ). The reason why I think it hurts productivity is programming, perhaps more than most any other occupation, is utterly reliant on keeping a large amount of information in short term working memory and the costs of task switching are well known to anyone who has ever been under pressure to get some very complicated code out the door as quickly as possible and been interrupted repeatedly when deeply into it. One of the reasons why I think people disagree with me so quickly is that there are a lot of developers here who have *never* worked in a completely distraction free environment to have any kind of basis for comparison in their personal productivity. Maybe it's just me, perhaps I have worse concentration or something but I like to focus on one task exclusively to do it well with zero distractions and good on anyone who is capable of working under distracting conditions but I can't do it properly.
There is no failure only feedback
I'm with you on the distraction front - easily dis - ohhh shiny! sorry - what was I saying? Oh, yes - but the issue is that I don't WANT to work head-down bum up for eight hours a day, I like to be able to reach a point in my current sprint where I can sit back and check my emails, browse, or whatever. it doesn't matter if I am using one or five monitors - it's the content that will distract me - so I shut down email and web browser, get the job done, then start 'em up again for a chillax break. My two monitors 9at work and home they are one and the same) will have VS2010 on one, code editor open pretty much full screen. The other will have SQL Management studio and the property and solution explorer - and sometimes some reference material. I also have a small Skype window 9as that's how I communicate with the other devs) The bottom line is it is distraction that distracts you (duh!) and takes you off task - but multiple monitors are only a distraction if you use them for distractive purposes. And before anyone asks, Yes I am between tasks just waiting for a reply skype from the boss - and will be closing down the browser as soon as I am done here
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
:laugh: Hans, you spent who knows how much time writing this to tell me I don't read and my link in that original post was irrelevant (which it most certainly was not but you sound to me like the sort of person that would criticize Jesus for walking on water: "Pffft! Doesn't know how to swim!") then you go on to link to an article which mirrors my exact argument and casts doubt on multiple monitors (hint, it's your second one and thank you for that, I'll add it to the growing evidence for my argument.).
Hans Dietrich wrote:
But please try to keep this multiple-monitor drivel out of the Lounge.
To call this discussion "drivel" after all the mindless crap that is posted here daily is ludicrous. I'm sorry if you're day is not going well, that I struck a nerve that upset you so greatly and prompted this ill considered diatribe, I'm having a great day and I wish you could as well, but let me be absolutely clear: there is no way in hell that I'm self censoring a well considered and heart felt opinion for you or anyone else. Hans, it's what I believe but I full well know I won't convince anyone who isn't responsible for their own income to even consider the negative side of multiple monitors used irresponsibly and I know people get great fun ribbing me about it so I posted that only out of a sense of humour. The humourless need not reply.
There is no failure only feedback
John C wrote:
negative side of multiple monitors used irresponsibly
Thats the relevant part of the whole discussion and has nothing to do with the number of monitors, if a person has a tendancy to waste time an extra monitor won't make a difference. I like my 2 monitors and anyone taking one away risks being maimed if not physically thencertainly verbally.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
And the damage they do to productivity which you are all now free to mock me about once again and tell me how wrong I am when secretly you all know I'm right but won't admit it because you think it's just cool to have multiple monitors and the loss of productivity doesn't come out of your own wallet. * ;) http://jacquesmattheij.com/productivity+tips+for+the+easily+distracted[^] * Of course the usual disclaimer that there are at least 3 of you that I know of who actually legitimately need multiple monitors.
There is no failure only feedback
-
You'd only need a 40 to do that (an 80 would have the area of 16 20's), unfortunately the only consumerish screens in that size are low resolution TVs. A 30" 2560x1600 display can do 90% of what 2 20's are capable of though. the main limitation is that you're only able to open 2 apps at once in portrait mode and not all apps work well in that layout (eg too narrow for VS unless you autohide everything X| ). Also you loose the 2 apps at once benefit on apps that do benefit from the big screen. eg outlook with message and preview panes side by side.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
Ultra High Def TV [^] 85" (7680 x 4320) :omg: - too bad it won't be in production for another 9 years - hopefully by then there will be a video card that can drive it :sigh: and then there is this bad boy: Panasonic 152" Ultra HD 3D TV (4K x 2K) [^] - that would look nice hanging on replacing the wall :-\
Steve _________________ I C(++) therefore I am
modified on Thursday, June 2, 2011 2:27 AM
-
1-voting tool compensated.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
Dan Neely wrote:
Having parents who're unwilling to let the quacks drug their kid into a stupor with a vague resemblance to normal is really helpful in learning to do the latter
Those parents are heroes! Drugging kids to fit some sense of "normal" is robbing them of their whole future and is most heinous.
There is no failure only feedback