Multiple Monitors Increase Productivity

eggoeater writes "An systematic study conducted by NEC-Mitsubishi, ATI Technologies and the University of Utah has concluded that the use of multiple monitors in the workplace increases productivity. The study is discussed on Tom's Hardware, EE Times, and there's a detailed press release on NEC-Mitsubishi. For those of us who use multi-monitors, this is not shocking. But maybe now that it's official, IT managers will view it as a good investment and not just for gamers."

Comments

Gamers?

[aliens]

I don;t know any gamers that use multiple monitors other than those who play flight Sims.

And as far as having multiple monitors at work, it rocks. Find a cheapo 15" CRT or something and you'll be amazed at how restricted you feel if you go back to one monitor.

What about multiple desktops?

[oneself]

I use 64 in my KDE. So I'm _really_ productive.
Although I sometimes lose applications for days on end.

Re:What about multiple desktops?

[chiasmus1]

I found that when I am programming, having a large monitor helps me organize code. I am able to program better and quicker. I have also noticed that the virtual desktops really help me get more done at once.

Sometimes these studies seem like a bunch of people getting together to study what the programmers already consider to be common sense. You have to wonder if someone decided that they could get money if they did a study that they already knew the results of.

Duh

[The One KEA]

My father has two DVSam 17" LCDs connected to a Matrox Millennium G450. He absolutely loves this setup because it makes it much easier to work on larger tasks like copying files using Explorer or viewing multiple Web pages or viewing a Web page while typing an e-mail.
I wish I could have a dual-monitor setup.

Another study

[Bull999999]

Another study shows even greater productivity if you use NEC-Mitsubishi monitors with ATI Technologies video cards and the user has one or more University of Utah degrees.

What about widescreens...?

[Sodakar]

It's a shame that the study didn't include replacing a standard 4x3 aspect-ratio display with a wide-screen display. In my personal experience, I've found that the extra width is what really helps -- not so much the ability to have two desktops visible at once. Two 17" displays are better than one 17" display, but one 24" widescreen display is even better still. (no break in the middle, consistent color correction across the entire width, great for wide photo-editing, long code that wraps, and of course, ultra-long syslogs)

Of course, two standard displays are far more economical than one widescreen display... :(

Though the results of the study are undoubtedly true, I find it amusing that this study is put on by a display company, graphics company, and a university that most likely got freebies or kickbacks.

News at 7: "Dell Computer, Intel, and UCLA have found that multiple processors can increase productivity."

Re:What about widescreens...?

[Phil John]

The only problem with this is that you then have to precisely [sic?] resize the windows so that stuff is aligned well, whereas on a dual monitor setup, if you had an IDE open in one window and some documentation open in another, they can both just be maximised at the click of a button into their fullest sizes on their respective monitors.

For the same effect on one large monitor you'd have to resize one window to half the screen by using the resize zones on the edges of the window, then resize another to the other half of the screen, it would take longer and thus negate some of the benefit you were trying to get in the first place.

Re:What about widescreens...?

[gaj]

... I've found that the extra width is what really helps -- not so much the ability to have two desktops visible at once.

I disagree strongly. Though I agree that width (and the ablility to have either long lines or multiple side-by-side terms) is of major benifit, I've found the ability to independently switch two monitors through multiple workspaces to be a much bigger win.

Re:What about widescreens...?

[Kombat]

Two 17" displays are better than one 17" display, but one 24" widescreen display is even better still.

I disagree. I use 2 17" monitors at work, and I would vastly prefer this to a single, wide monitor. The reason is simple. Sure, if I had one, 24" wide monitor, I could fit quite a bit of stuff on the screen (almost as much as my pair of 17's). However, I'd have to manually manipulate the window sizes in order to make the most of that space.

With 2 monitors, each monitor is its own desktop. If I have an app on one screen and I maximize it, it instantly and automatically fills that entire, single monitor, leaving the other monitor untouched. I can then do the same thing to another app in the other window with another app, and with two easy clicks, I now have both my apps each making maximum use of my viewing space, without having to carefully drag window borders around manually.

This may sound like a small thing, but the few seconds you waste clicking on window borders and resizing quickly becomes an irritating and unnecessary annoyance.

But the tasks I found benefitted most from dual monitors was when I was learning something new. I could open up the API/User Guide/Tutorial/Examples in one window, while having another entire 17" monitor available to actually run the app I was learning, and follow through the tutorial without having to constantly switch virtual desktops, minimize/maximize, or ALT-TAB around.

I can't imagine going back to a single monitor, regardless of its size.

dear slashdot....

[smd4985]

it was my birthday recently - obviously you posted this story in order to convince my boss that buying me that extra flat-screen LCD is a cost-effective decision. happy birthday to me and thanks very much :).

(please don't mod this up, don't want the boss to see it :) )

Re:dear slashdot....

[lordvdr]

You're boss reads slashdot?

I am confused. How can this be? Ahhhh, my head is spinning!

I'd have to agree

[Bush_man10]

I'm typing this up right now on a multi-monitor setup. I can honestly say it is one of the best ways to organize your windows and screens. I don't nearly alt-tab as much as I used to with one monitor. It's just so handy to be able to glance with your eyes and read some documentation while your code is on the other monitor, or look at a header file while you code the cpp....you get the idea :)

A single monitor?

[Kidbro]

[...] has concluded that the use of multiple monitors in the workplace increases productivity.

Yeah, I hate it when all developers have to share a single monitor. Sucks.

Re:A single monitor?

[Greyfox]

That's one aspect of Extreme Programming I never liked. Though the Really Extreme Programming (XXXProgramming) where one developer sits on another developer's lap does show some promise...

This just in...

[bunyip]

NEC funded study shows that multiple monitors are good for you.

MS funded study shows that Linux is bad for you.

Phillip Morris funded study shows that smoking is good for you.

I think I'm beginning to see a pattern...

Separation of tasks

[TiMac]

Just like a Dual Processor machine--but rather than assigning a thread to a CPU, you're associating a thought process with a visual/spatial location.

I replaced my dual monitor setup with an 20 inch Apple Cinema Display when I got my new G5...but I am finding myself missing the twin screens, even despite the size and aspect ratio of the gorgeous new screen...may have to find a way to get another Cinema...and a bigger desk!

Interesting

[JediTrainer]

Personally, though it sounds odd, I had an easier time convincing my company to give every member of my team a second computer, rather than a second monitor.

So we each now have our Windows boxes for running Outlook and doing tests with IE and such, and our Linux boxes for actually doing the coding. Since the app is in Java (some server, some client), it doesn't matter much which machine it runs on. I can say that our productivity has definitely gone up quite a bit since we've gone to this setup.

Well, duh.

[Pope]

Sorry, but I was using dual monitor Macs back in 1994-6 for Director projects, and having the stage on one screen and the score and cast on the other was the only way to go. Everytime I had to go troubleshoot a project on a PC with one dinky 14" monitor, it was painful as all hell. Macs have had this support since 1987 with the Mac II.

Re:Any excuse is a good excuse....

[mwood]

Yeah, until some PHB decides that, if 2 monitors = productivity gain, 4 monitors = 2x productivity gain, and I wind up with more monitors than I can attend to. Like the famous Western Electric study where they kept tinkering with the lights until they discovered that the productivity gain came from workers feeling more appreciated because somebody was always coming 'round to adjust the lights, and was not correlated to the experimental parameter at all.

That said, I'm not surprised at this result. One monitor simply can't have eight or ten pages usefully viewable at the same time, which is the way I work when I'm deep in the coding and a major reason that I still prefer paper documents for serious creative work. I've often said that what I need is not an ugrade from 17" to 19" and 1024x768 to 1280x1024, but one to 4'x3' at 10240x7680. (Or VR goggles and gloves that can simulate a wall-sized display and the keyboard to drive it.... :-)

Re:what's the use?

[pla]

I've never "gotten" dual head. I guess two 17" monitors running at 1400x1050 are somewhat cheaper than a 21" monitor running at 2048x1536, and they both display about the same # of pixels, but doesn't the seam running down the middle of the dual-head setup really suck?

You think about it the wrong way. Don't think in terms of "cheaper", think in terms of "on the screen but not in my way". (I'll write the rest of this from a Windows point of view, but all the ideas apply equally well to X)

Consider what you normally use a computer for at work... Perhaps you code, or use Word/Excel, or whatever. But most likely you have some primary app open most of the time, to which you want to give as much screen real-estate as possible.

But, having other programs open at the same time, such as Winamp, task manager, a graphing calculator, perhaps a small notepad window for jotting things down - All of those you would normally need to switch back and forth with your primary screen-sucking app. Personally, I usually have some development environment filling my primary screen, and find it very annoying to keep finding my calculator, plug in some numbers, switch back, repeat 200 times a day.

Well, a second monitor makes all of that a non issue. I have my 21" primary monitor taken up with the dev tools, and the 15" secondary keeps what I mentioned (Winamp, taskman, graphcalc, notepad, and usually one or two other random programs) instantly accessible, without having to minimize anything or go searching on the taskbar.

So try thinking of dual monitors in terms of dual-but-separate desktops, rather than a single large desktop (where yes, the line down the middle would drive most people nuts).


I'd like to see this study conducted with a constant amount of $ invested in either a 2-head or 1-head rig, and see which comes out on top. I'm betting on 1-head.

Given a choice between a 19" and a 15", or a single 21", I'd gladly take the former over the latter, hands down.

Additionally, consider the cost from another angle - Most people working with a computer 8 hours a day will have at least a 19" monitor, frequently even a panel rather than a CRT, often connected to a high-end video card. You can easily blow a grand just on getting a decent primary display for a workstation-class machine (and far more for a high-end graphics oriented system - The CAD guys at my last employer had systems where the display hardware alone cost over ten grand).

So, if for another $100, a tenth the price of the primary display, you can boost productivity by a significant margin, would you skimp on such a small amount?

Re:Any excuse is a good excuse....

[Frymaster]

Yeah, until some PHB decides that, if 2 monitors = productivity gain, 4 monitors = 2x productivity gain,

well, you're actually pretty close. not four monitors though, but four vitual desktops.

where i work there are coders with dual monitors and there is me with one monitor and (as the only linux user in the company) 4 desktops. while they maximize all their windows and spend time poking around the taskbar and moving things from monitor to monitor, i race around virtual monitors with the alt-Fx keys.

i have a very simple layout for the four desktops:

code i am working on

remote sessions

email and second remote session if needed

browser if you build for the web, the write/test cycle is as fast as alt-f4 ctrl-r. focus is transfered automaically when you switch desktiops so there's not fritzin' about with the mouse!

less monitors (to a minimum of one, obviously), more virtual desktops.

Re:Neck strain?

[ChrisDolan]

It's not an issue for me. I find I just do an occasional eye flicker to the secondary monitor and work mostly on the primary monitor.

I use two identical 17" Sony E200 monitors at 1280x1024, side by side with about a 10 degree angle between them. Left is Mail, Mozilla, iTunes, and Dock. Right is Menubar, Terminal, and iChat and any other apps. I spend almost all my time looking at Right, with an occasional glance at Mail on Left. Left is AGP Radeon, Right is PCI Radeon.

A few ideas that helped me:

• Use identical monitors
  Any difference between the two (size, resolution, color) is grating
• Speed up your mouse settings (MouseZoom prefpanel on Mac)
  Moving horizontally across 2560 pixels takes times
• Choose one to be your primary and do all focused work there
• Put low-attention apps (mail, browser) on the other
• Choose a dark colored desktop unless you want a tan
• Sit back in your chair when reading mail and surfing Lean in when coding
• Turn off animated GIFs!!!!!! Otherwise the corner-of-the-eye flicker will kill concentration

A few problems (likely all Mac specific):

• VNC server can only see Right (the primary monitor)
• Booting with one monitor off may forget window placement
• Windows are only allowed to be as wide as the width of one monitor.
  Grr.

Screen space == short-term memory

[alispguru]

Of course developers are more productive with more screen space. If I can have more windows open at once without overlapping them, I'll spend less time raising/lowering/rearranging them, with less disruption to my thought processes while I'm coding/testing/debugging. More information in front of me with less effort to get it keeps me in flow, which is where I want to be.

I used to have a 17" Apple monitor that I ran at 1600x1200 for development, solely to keep as much text as possible in my field of vision while working. My favorite monitor of all time was a Sun 20" monochrome 100 DPI screen - ran at something like 2000x1500.

Screen space is an extension of my short-term memory - it lets me deal with more complex things with less effort.

Re:Any excuse is a good excuse....

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

"(as the only linux user in the company)"

Having multiple desktops is an option that Windows users have with a minimum of hassle. In fact, the video card I bought to facilitate my two-monitor setup came with the software to allow this to happen. What I think you fail to realize that multiple desktops have their place and multiple monitors have their place. The situation you describe is all well and good but when working, I often need to work on multiple files at the same time, or at least have a file open for reference, and being able to view that file while working on another is useful. Your statement about maximizing and minimizing windows is merely a suggestion that the employees you speak of don't know how to best utilize a multiple monitor setup.

Tell me which is quicker. I am working on file_A, which is dependent on some work in file_B. I can either:
A) Constantly switch back and forth between virtual desktops everytime I need to check something in file_B, process that information, and then switch back to the desktop with file_A to begin work on that file again. OR
B) Have both file_A and file_B open at the same time on different monitors where if I need to check a dependency in file_B, all that's required is a slight headturn.

So which is faster? Multiple monitors and multiple desktops is what I use and I find they compliment each other nicely BUT if I had to choose one, I'd take multiple monitors.

Hey, this is cheaper than headcount!

[Syberghost]

It's the perfect solution; since an extra monitor makes you 18% more efficient, 5 of them must make you almost 100% more efficient.

So, instead of hiring 100 employees, I'll just hire one, and get him 495 extra monitors!

Re:what's the use?

[pla]

How is this faster than using alt-tab to bring windows to top?

Because you don't have to press alt-tab? They already have a visible spot on the desktop.

Additionally, if you need to do a series of calculations, it takes a LOT less effort to just run through it all without even changing focus from the calculator, than to go through "get a number from app 1, alt-tab, enter in calc, alt-tab, get another number, alt-tab, enter in calc, alt-tab, get another number...".

And that only deals with interactive tasks such as a calulator. How about something passive but informative, like the task manager (or top, in the *nix world), where you need it visible to make use of it? I can't even count how many times I've avoided a crash because I noticed the CPU use suddenly spike as some app began behaving poorly. If I didn't have that window always visible, I'd never see the usage spike until the machine started to crawl, by which time the opportunity to kill the offending process may have passed (Windows Media Player does that on occasion, just brings the machine to a crawl and leaves no choice but to reboot - But if you catch it within about five seconds, the machine hasn't totally stopped responding and you can kill it).

I don't claim you can't do things almost as well with a single monitor. But once you've used a dual, you'll never go back.

Re:Any excuse is a good excuse....

[laklare]

Too bad this study is tainted by the fact that monitor manufacturers did it.

Monitors are so cheap now and you can find them abandoned all over the place (Goodwill, my basement). Since all you need to set up multiple monitors on a PC is an AGP card and a PCI card (for two monitors), it's very easy. PCI video cards are old and cheap. Two PCI cards won't work I think because they both try to be the primary video card.

My PC is set up now with three monitors because I have a dual output AGP card and a PCI card w/TV out. The PCI card I use only for output to my TV (for movies, simpsons, etc.). Now that I have a faster machine, I can work on two monitors with the third (TV) showing a full screen movie. Or, I could have the left one show the Milkdrop plugin for winamp, the middle one for "work", and the right (TV) for a movie. What was this article about...oh yeah...productivity.

Bottom line is, I haven't done any work in my bedroom for months. I'm not sure I could with any number of monitors. Usually I have to use my laptop with a tiny screen in a secluded space with no distractions to accomplish anything. Even though I agree that multiple monitors COULD increase my productivity (if I didn't use them for distractions), they actually generate distractions mostly. If I'm doing something simple, I'm annoyed at how much desktop space i have to manage. If I'm doing something that needs space (like taking notes in one monitor from a web page in the other), all that monitor is very overwhelming. It's a lot of electromagnetism...I just want to shut them off (I recommend using black wallpaper on your desktops). Sometimes I feel inclined to put stuff on the second monitor just because I can. Then I feel inclined to look at it.

Bottom line:
Multimonitors is a cool thing to have. It's very useful if you're doing research, comparing documents, or if you need to know exactly when something finishes and you don't like switching tasks just to find out. Be warned, however. It is easy to block out everything outside the computer (real world) when you're at a computer. It's a lot harder to ignore what's going on on one monitor on the computer when you're staring at the other one.

My short list of computer productivity improvements I'd be annoyed to work without:
multimonitor
dvorak
left hand mouse
low keyboard
head-height monitors
low brightness, high contrast
background lighting
well-placed speakers
foot rest
good adjustable chair
pad for kneeling when you're tired of sitting
house plants
window outside with far-away objects
hand exerciser/stress ball
a door (doesn't in a cubicle)

It' just bandwidth

[Phat_Tony]

Of course it raises productivity, it raises the most important bandwidth limitation in the whole system: the one between the user & the machine.

Hands using the keyboard & mouse going one way, and eyes watching the monitor going the other way, is a pretty limited interface. (Yeah, I know there are speakers and printers and such, but most of the information channel is keyboard, mouse, monitor.) Not a lot has happened on the keyboard/mouse end to raise input bandwidth since around 1984, but the output bandwith had grown a lot, from hopeless 10" VGA monitors (or TV's) to having things like 2 21" 1600 x 1200 monitors.

Higher monitor resolution (that's total resolution, not just screen density) makes a huge difference in how fast and how well you can obtain and comprehend information from your machine.

The GUI helps with this too- GUI's are just compression algorithms to compress information in order to pump it through the narrow bandwidth of the screen-eye-brain pipeline. It uses more machine resources in order to present things in a manner that lets your brain recognize things faster, because brains are better built for dealing with graphics than text in many ways.

More monitor space also increaeses input by compressing it (or eliminating useless steps)- if you can see more windows at once, you spend less time using your narrow input pipeline to rearrange things, and more time inputing directly where you want.

See Edward Tufte, who is always upset about people tossing out bandwidth in stupid interface design. Notably, he bashes web browsers, which usually use screen space up on
1- the OS's menu bar & other widgets
2- the web browser's menu bar, toolbar, link bar, & other widgets
3- the sites' title bar, ad banner, navigation bar, sidebar, etc.

This often leaves a couple of square inches of screen space to cram in the information on the site you're actually trying to get too, mostly wasting huge portions of your bandwidth, especially on lower resolution monitors, because all the other widgets stay the same size, and it's the content space that shrinks down to the size of a pea.