|
I have been using multple screens for about 8years now (i Think, actually my first forray was back in 1994 when i attached a Hurcules mono monitor to me vga based system and used it to show debug information) my first setup was a 20" + 17" crt. I have now progressed to 2 x 20" lcd's.
I have found dual monitors for programming to be a great boon as I can run Visual studio full screen on one monitor and have the help, firefox (with Code project of course!) on the other and when debugging i would have the application under debug on the second monitor which is quire handy esp if you need to see the what the application does when stepping through code.
The other senario that I find makes dual monitors usefull is if you need to refer to other source code files while editing another, here you can have a second text editor (e.g. Ultra Edit or Notepad++) running on the second monitor.
|
|
|
|
|
Robin Imrie wrote: I have found dual monitors for programming to be a great boon as I can run Visual studio full screen on one monitor and have the help, firefox (with Code project of course!) on the other
Nope, not convinced that it's better to clutter up your desk and get a sore neck because you can't be bothered to press alt-tab on the keyboard sorry. 
Robin Imrie wrote: on the other and when debugging i would have the application under debug on the second monitor which is quire handy esp if you need to see the what the application does when stepping through code.
*That's* the classic argument for multiple screens and in my experience it's required about once a decade to actually do that and there are other ways to do it.
"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."
- Walter Bagehot
|
|
|
|
|
Been using dual screens for development for nearly ten years now. The telling moment is when I have to use my laptop when I'm out of my office - back to a single small screen (albeit widescreen) and I really find things take longer to do - forever using alt-tab to switch.
It's really a question of screen real-estate - more is better, which is how we've progressed over the years. Whether it's big screens or multiple monitors is a choice of how you achieve it.
I prefer multi-monitor because it's easier to arrange windows - maximize app A in one, then app B in the other is easy. Plus you get more pixel real-estate for your money with multi-monitor - two 17" screens will cost less than one 24". Twice 1280x1024 is 2.6M pixels, but 1920x1200 is only 2.3m pixels.
I keep email, help files, documents e.g. data I'm working on, on the right-hand screen (the one I'm typing in now) and Visual Studio in the left hand one.
'Howard
|
|
|
|
|
I (and most research studies) find that switching mental context while working is a horrible killer of productivity, having your email pop up at your visibly on one screen while working on another or simply seeing out of the corner of your eye something unrelated to what you're working on is a killer of productivity, besides being common sense when you think about it, it's been confirmed in many studies, there's no doubt any more about it.
It may be what you're used to and that's fine but don't for a second think you are more productive with it.
One very large monitor with only apps running that are absolutely required for the job at hand and all windows maximized is the de-facto most productive way to work.
"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."
- Walter Bagehot
|
|
|
|
|
Some people can play music, have 10 people screaming at each other in the background, be in the middle of an earthquake while the garbage man is doing his thing outside and a car alarm going off and still not get distracted.
But then some people are more easily distracted than others.
I use 2x24 at work and home and been dualing it up since it was first introduced in windows 95 (or was it 98 god I'm getting old).
Todd Smith
|
|
|
|
|
Depends, if email is your companies primary communication tool, and not answering it within allotted time frames causes you to get penalized in your wallet, you'll realize that being interrupted is a good thing.
Not to mention, when again, email is the primary communication tool, you want the person at the other end to see when you send them an email, so you can get the response and finish your work.
And why do you argue that what's on the other monitor is "unrelated to what you're working on" when nearly everyone here has mentioned the other monitor is often used for reference material which IS related to what they are working on.
|
|
|
|
|
GibbleCH wrote: Depends, if email is your companies primary communication tool, and not answering it within allotted time frames causes you to get penalized in your wallet, you'll realize that being interrupted is a good thing.
Email *is* our primary communication tool. I shut it down for periodic intervals, get work done, then move to email and focus on it for an interval. No man can fully do a good job at any task when interrupted at it and programming is perhaps at the top of the lists of all tasks that requires absolute concentration to be effective at it.
GibbleCH wrote: And why do you argue that what's on the other monitor is "unrelated to what you're working on" when nearly everyone here has mentioned the other monitor is often used for reference material which IS related to what they are working on.
That's a fallacy and they all know it. Aside from a couple of absolute requirements for multiple monitors which are edge conditions and don't apply to the vast majority of programmers the most common reasons given were debugging and referring to reference material. Debugging is absolutely not required to have multiple monitors with the *extremely* rare exception of debugging a UI control while running the app, i.e. looking at windows messages etc. Something which I've personally done without any problem on a single monitor many times over many years and I don't buy it as being a real need at all. Looking at reference material? That's what alt tab is for.
If I ran a shop full of programmers you can be certain I'd ban multiple monitors as a huge waste of productivity, not my opinion only but something backed up in multiple studies regarding context switching. In the end except in rare cases it absolutely boils down to an affectation.
"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."
- Walter Bagehot
|
|
|
|
|
You'd ban them? Wow, jump to extremes much?
"If you ran" being the key words. You're also mixing "context switching" with how people have been explaining they use multiple screens. If you have to repeatedly Alt-Tab to get the info, you're not context switching, you're jumping hoops to do your job.
If you're answering questions from a textbook in a workbook do you read the question, Open the workbook place it on top of the text book, and then keep lifting the one you need to read/or write in and placing it on top? Of course not, you set them BESIDE one another because you are working with both at once.
You could argue that you could tile the documents on your computer, but then how is that any different than extending your desktop. It's not. It's the exact same thing.
You make it sound like an extra monitor is going to break a budget. You can get a decent 19" for $200-250. Heck, that's one toner cartridges. And the LCD will outlast it easily.
If you don't like it, that's one thing, but claiming it's a waste of productivity because of research is only valid if the research you are using actually is refuting what you claim it is. And it isn't. Context switching is not the same as looking at reference material or other pertinent screens.
Not to mention, it's kind of nice when you can get a database/object model to fit on your screen AND still be readable so you can actually digest it as a whole (or at least enough pertinent tables to be useful).
|
|
|
|
|
GibbleCH wrote: You're also mixing "context switching" with how people have been explaining they use multiple screens. If you have to repeatedly Alt-Tab to get the info, you're not context switching, you're jumping hoops to do your job
Aside from that fact that out of all these replies I think only one person has made even a semi justifiable resason for multiple screens for their particular line of work I'm saying that programmers who don't focus on one task at a time to the exclusion of all else are not productive programmers.
GibbleCH wrote: If you're answering questions from a textbook in a workbook do you read the question, Open the workbook place it on top of the text book, and then keep lifting the one you need to read/or write in and placing it on top? Of course not, you set them BESIDE one another because you are working with both at once.
It's not the same thing at *all* a notebook isn't going to flash in the corner of your eye or distract you when you need to focus.
GibbleCH wrote: You make it sound like an extra monitor is going to break a budget.
No, monitors are dirt cheap these days but the lost productivity in a small shop *will* break the budget. In a big cubicle farm apparently they don't mind wasting the productivity, in a small shop these things actually do matter.
GibbleCH wrote: Context switching is not the same as looking at reference material or other pertinent screens.
Looking at other screens is by definition context switching but may be necessary, not really the point though, it's pretty hard to argue that you need a second screen to look at reference material because you're too lazy to press alt-tab.
So far I'm more convinced than ever that multiple screens are just an affectation with no useful purpose sorry. A big screen I can fully get behind and if I ran a shop full of programmers I'd spare no expense in that department but they'd have to make a damn good case for multiple screens and on a temporary basis only would I allow it. If a programmer had been used to it then that's one thing but I'd be very sure they were at least as productive as everyone else or it would be gone immediately.
"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."
- Walter Bagehot
|
|
|
|
|
What is the difference between one screen at a crazy resolution with multiple windows open, or multiple smaller monitors, each with a window maximized?
You haven't given one valid reason for the difference.
You keep falling back on "context switching" arguments. When, if used properly, a person isn't context switching, they are using multiple documents all at once.
Code in one window.
References all open in another (css, diagrams, models, specs, mockups, etc)
Once you actually start using two screens, and doing so properly, your productivity DOES increase.
Your "context switching" argument also fails, since not everyone who context switches is slower. The majority of people aren't great athletes, but we still have 1000s of pro athletes.
Sounds to me like you really need to try using two monitors for a few months, and honestly, if you use them properly, you will work faster. And curse when you don't have that second monitor, and are once again stuck alt-tabing for information, OR printing it out, OR trying to resize and tile windows "just right" so you can see what you need to while you work.
|
|
|
|
|
GibbleCH wrote: What is the difference between one screen at a crazy resolution with multiple windows open, or multiple smaller monitors, each with a window maximized?
I've never said once I advocate a huge screen with multiple windows all visible at once, that's no different. I'm talking about one screen with one visible window at once. I personally *loathe* any window not being maximized on screen. I paid for all that display space, why in the world would I waste it by fiddle faddling around arranging windows. About once a year I actually need to compare two things side by side and it's useful for that only. Beyond that they could take the feature of resizable windows out of Windows entirely and productivity would go up the world over instantly.
GibbleCH wrote: You keep falling back on "context switching" arguments.
I'm not falling back on anything, that, aside from a minor waste of money for hardware, is *the* definitive reason not to have multiple screens all vying for your attention as a developer at once.
GibbleCH wrote: Once you actually start using two screens, and doing so properly, your productivity DOES increase.
The opposite has been proven in many studies, perhaps there's a study I missed that proves your point, I'd like to see it because it's counterintuitive and goes against not only common sense but every thing modern research has shown recently.
GibbleCH wrote: Sounds to me like you really need to try using two monitors for a few months, and honestly, if you use them properly, you will work faster. And curse when you don't have that second monitor, and are once again stuck alt-tabing for information, OR printing it out, OR trying to resize and tile windows "just right" so you can see what you need to while you work
I've worked many times with multiple computers surrounding me for testing and other purposes and I know exactly what it's like to have more than one monitor vying for my attention and for programming it can't be anything but counterproductive.
As I've said before if a programmer feels the need for multiple screens and their boss allows it then go for it but don't fool yourself for a second you're more productive. There are many, many inventions in hardware and software over the years that have made programmers more productive, simple things like intellisense or a better font. Multiple screens just isn't one of them.
It's not a new debate, it's age old: you simply can't concentrate fully on two or more things at the same time (it's such a fact that there are countless truisms and old sayings that echo the fact) and programming effectively requires an intense level of concentration that non programmers never fully understand. The brain simply isn't wired to multitask effectively and particularly in men. I know a *lot* of people will disagree with me because it's a geek fetish to have more than one monitor, again, don't get me wrong, people can do whatever they want but they should take a serious self examination of their work and take note of how often their concentration was broken by that other monitor.
Self delusion is never a good thing and we programmers are *supposed* to be logical about things but it turns out in the end we're all often just as illogical as everyone else in the world. 
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it."
-Sam Levenson
|
|
|
|
|
John C wrote: It's not a new debate, it's age old: you simply can't concentrate fully on two or more things at the same time (it's such a fact that there are countless truisms and old sayings that echo the fact) and programming effectively requires an intense level of concentration that non programmers never fully understand. The brain simply isn't wired to multitask effectively and particularly in men. I know a *lot* of people will disagree with me because it's a geek fetish to have more than one monitor, again, don't get me wrong, people can do whatever they want but they should take a serious self examination of their work and take note of how often their concentration was broken by that other monitor.
You keep making this fallacious argument over and over.
MULTIPLE MONITORS DOES NOT MEAN MULTIPLE TASKS.
I can't believe you are still arguing context switching.
|
|
|
|
|
GibbleCH wrote: MULTIPLE MONITORS DOES NOT MEAN MULTIPLE TASKS.
I can't believe you are still arguing context switching
Ok, how about this, you sit at your computer, start working and two guys stand on either side of you and periodically shine a flashlight in your face and ask you questions. How productive are you then?
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it."
-Sam Levenson
|
|
|
|
|
Like I said, your arguments make no sense.
What does actual distractions unrelated to your task, have to do with multiple monitors to give you more space to work on?
Do you work on a desk that only holds one book? Or do you have one large enough for a couple...I mean, you could keep putting your books back on the shelf and only look at one at a time, but when you are writing a report, you often reference multiple sources. Hence, multiple books open.
Programming is no different.
|
|
|
|
|
GibbleCH wrote: What does actual distractions unrelated to your task, have to do with multiple monitors to give you more space to work on?
That is the heart of my argument and I've said it too many times to bother once again. Believe what you will, do what you want, it's nothing to me. Enjoy your multiple monitors.
GibbleCH wrote: Do you work on a desk that only holds one book?
Books don't blink at you out of the corner of your eye while you are working.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it."
-Sam Levenson
|
|
|
|
|
Neither does a monitor...it's just one large workspace.
And for that matter, if something IS blinking, it is probably more important than what you are working on...that's normally the point of something blinking...because you NEED to have your attention diverted from whatever you are doing because something bad has happened. Most likely costing you money while you don't tend to it.
|
|
|
|
|
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it."
-Sam Levenson
|
|
|
|
|
Would you be opposed to one of your developers bringing in their own monitors so they can run a dual monitor setup because they personally find it more productive?
Todd Smith
|
|
|
|
|
In a case like that I'd buy them as many monitors as they want (this isn't about saving money on hardware) and tell them the second their productivity goes down below what it used to be or below what everyone else's average is that monitor is being yanked and fully expect a yanking in short order but if they are more productive in measurable reality then they can keep it.
Anything that anyone brought to me that they wanted that would measurably increase their productivity after a testing period I'd happily pay for. Absolutely nothing is more valuable to a code shop than developer productivity.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it."
-Sam Levenson
|
|
|
|
|
So how do you accurately measure productivity when someone isn't doing the same task day-to-day?
Todd Smith
|
|
|
|
|
Any developer that claims their productivity can't be measured in any meaningful way would have bigger problems with me than a second monitor.
And before you say it, I think lines of code and other metrics are absolute bullshit in terms of measuring anything but you can certainly tell when someone is or isn't getting as much done as they normally do if they've worked for you for a while and you take your job as a manger seriously and aren't an incompetent fool. I've yet to work *anywhere* where everyone halfway involved in a team effort didn't know intimately whether everyone else was pulling less, equal or more weight on any task.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it."
-Sam Levenson
|
|
|
|
|
For those of us who work on database apps, particularly with non-MS db's, there's a constant need to have some other tool open to deal with/view the database, and for me a second screen has probably been the most helful hardware advance in years.
|
|
|
|
|
That knocking at the door is the SWAT team coming to take back your geek card.
|
|
|
|
|
Honestly when you have your own business and the roof over your head relies on being uber productive you very quickly winnow away affectations and get to the heart of what absolutely works and is required. If I was a cubicle jockey working for a big corporation I'm sure I'd have dozens of monitors if I could convince anyone to buy them for me. 
"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."
- Walter Bagehot
|
|
|
|
|
Monitor 1;
* vs2008
Monitor 2;
* debug IE, other web content for researching problems, Outlook
Montor 3;
* Code Project, split screen between the lounge and soapbox.
MrPlankton
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
