Using Two Monitors Makes You More Productive?

Double Vision asks: "In my job, I work with several software applications at once. I find that constantly switching back and forth wastes a tremendous amount of time and causes me to lose focus. My video card supports two monitors, so I found a discarded monitor in my office and hooked it up. This has made it much easier to do my job. However, we are getting ready to go through an equipment audit, which means I will likely lose my additional monitor unless I can justify keeping it. How can I make this case? Is anyone aware of studies that support my claim that two monitors makes me more productive?"

Comments

Trivial ?

[Ihlosi]

Monitors are cheap. Dirt cheap compared to the salaries of most people sitting in front of them.

If you merely spend five additional minutes on work each day that you would have had to spend on shuffling windows around, the investment in an additional monitor will pay for itself within weeks.

Re:Trivial ?

[thegrassyknowl]

Dirt cheap compared to the salaries

That really depends on where you work; there are a lot of shitbox companies around there that pay the minimum amount to put food on the programmer's table. A lot of managers don't think of "if we spend this we'll save twice that" they think "if we spend this we immediately reduce the bottom line by the same amount, fuck that!"

Re:Trivial ?

[aadvancedGIR]

Wrong, when audited, you can't compare a hidden benefit with a visible cost, no matter how positive it might eventually be.
An old french playwritter, Molière, has one of its characters say it is better to die according to the medecine than to live against it. You can also check todays post about outsourcing for more examples.

Re:Trivial ?

[Ihlosi]

A lot of managers don't think of "if we spend this we'll save twice that" they think "if we spend this we immediately reduce the bottom line by the same amount, fuck that!"

Well, that's the bad thing about capitalism today - it's been replaced by blind greed and short-term thinking. The term "investment" (the basis of all capital) is pretty much forgotten. Instead, "investing" money is considered "spending" it.

Re:Trivial ?

[cgenman]

Well, say it takes 5 seconds to switch between applications. Say you do that 10 times an hour. Add in the information that you need to see in one application vs another, with, say, 60 seconds of time to do so, which happens 4 times a day. That's 640 seconds per day, or an additional 10 minutes of productivity. With a cheap CRT costing 50 bucks, the productivity gain on the above lightest-case scenario pays for itself in the first week easily.

And if they still won't let you have it, just pick one up off the street and bring it in from home. Mark it as personal hardware, and tell the bean counters to sod off.

Re:Trivial ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead, "investing" money is considered "spending" it.

And speculating is considered "investing" -- have you seen Wall Street lately?

Re:Trivial ?

[ePhil_One]

Wrong, when audited, you can't compare a hidden benefit with a visible cost, no matter how positive it might eventually be.

Don't make it a hidden benefit. Quantify how much time it saves, you don't need big numbers. Can you demonstrate a 5 minute per day benefit? (10 seconds a windows switch, thats just 30 switches a day). Thats 100 minutes a month. In 6 months, thats 600 minutes, or 10 hours. Now your company almost certainly has an internal billing rate they use when considering your time (even better if they have an external rate), its likely at least 2x your current salary (it costs to hire you, house you, train you, etc. You are an expensive asset). Lets say you are a young average programmer, thats still a $50/hour internal billing rate. So long as your second monitor costs less than $500, it pays for itself in 6 months.

Re:Trivial ?

[MarcoAtWork]

you wish! the bean counters at most companies will frown on ANY expense for employees, ESPECIALLY if it's for one employee only, since at that point other employees might want it as well.

The way things are nowadays in terms of hardware I don't see why any developer should be expected to work on less than a dual or quad core workstation, with two 24"/30" lcd monitors, 4 gigs of ram, plenty of sata disk space in raid and ergonomic keyboard, mouse, chair etc. etc. etc. heck, even if they were given a fully loaded dual-quad-core workstation for 10 grand, it'd still be only a fraction of their yearly salary, and would very much positively impact productivity.

Instead you still see companies giving their employees pentium 4s at 2.5GHz with maybe 1 gig of ram and 80gigs of ide disk, a single 19" (if not 17") 1280x1024 crt and the absolute cheapest keyboards/mice/chair possible (often the mouse doesn't even have a scroll wheel and the chair is the local staples $100 special). Same deal with managers more often than not getting laptops, ergonomic chairs, big monitors, ... when often 'individual contributors' could use all of them more.

If hospitals were run the same way as computer companies surgeons would operate with box cutters and duct tape, and diagnose with an old x-ray machine, while the hospital managers would have MRI machines in their offices and clip their cigars with surgical grade scalpels...

Regarding the OP's problem the solution is simple: they should pony up $200 of their own money and buy their own secondary monitor, when the audit comes either they can show the second monitor is theirs or take it home that day and bring it back once the audit is done.

Re:Trivial ?

[MightyYar]

Well, if this strategy weren't the most successful, then the long-term-thinking companies would win out in the end, no? Capitalism won't allow an inefficient system to survive in a competitive marketplace.

Re:Trivial ?

[stanmann]

IBM survives, and thrives.

Re:Trivial ?

[Bigboote66]

If monitors are dirt cheap, just buy one yourself and bring it in. You'll have it for the next job where you need a second monitor. I get tired of hearing my peers bitch about how the company is "too cheap" to buy them something they need that would make them so productive. Usually these guys bitching about the company not spending an extra $150 on an external monitor think nothing of buying $400 video cards for their gaming rigs at home. If the cost is trivial, and the productivity gain is so great, just invest in yourself and buy the item. Those huge productivity gains you get can be used to justify your next raise.

FYI, in my career, I've purchased my own ergonomic office chair, keyboard, mouse, a monitor, and external SCSI drives - all of which I ultimately took with me when I went on to other jobs.

-BbT

Re:Trivial ?

[Intron]

So if you spend an hour justifying the second monitor, what happened to your savings?

At my company, the number was 5X salary, because engineering was 20% of the company budget. We didn't work on anything unless the expected payoff was at least 5X the cost of development (and usually a lot more).

Re:Trivial ?

[R2.0]

Every day I walk by HR on my way to my cube and every other desk has 2 monitors. I imagine that they would boost productivity immensely - if I ever saw anyone actually doing any work.

Re:Trivial ?

[Ucklak]

In that type of company, that monitor will be lost whan a new person fills an empty desk. In this case, it was a monitor laying around. It probably has no resale value at this point, only a replacement value for a failed monitor for someone else.

Re:Trivial ?

[MrSteveSD]

The company I used to work for had absolutely no concept of the value of employees time whatsoever. They would happily waste several thousand pounds of man time trying to fix a crappy old machine rather than spend a few hundred buying a new one.

Eventually they announced that there would be no more sick pay either, which resulted in sick people coming in sneezing everywhere. Another brilliant cost-cutting measure. Needless to say, I left soon after.

Re:Trivial ?

[jafac]

It's called being "Penny-wise and Pound-foolish".

We've all worked for "those" people at some point.

Re:Trivial ?

[Firethorn]

Dirt Cheap Programmer: $10/hour
Cost per standard week: $400
5% performance increase savings :$20/week
Time needed to pay for additional monitor: 10-20 weeks.

More realistic:
DCP $30/hour (remember taxes!)
CpSW: $1200
5% increase: $60/week
Payback: 3-5 weeks.

easy justification.

Re:Trivial ?

[Stamen]

Yes, that is exactly right, all things being equal and fair. That is hardly the case, often large companies maintain their market share not through capitalism but through good old fashion organized crime (Enron), or through good old fashion communism (state enforced monopolies, such as telcoms). What US is becoming is a Corporatocracy, which is just soviet style communism with a better marketing department.

Re:Trivial ?

[Hognoxious]

Why on $deity's $coloured earth should an employee be subsidising his employer?

Re:Trivial ?

[ShieldW0lf]

Not to mention that this isn't a competitive marketplace.

And lets not disregard the fact that the effectiveness of a competitive marketplace is tied to the capacity of the public to make informed decisions.

Re:Trivial ?

[b96miata]

Smart companies realize this. I've got 5 monitors on my desk right now and in a given 3 minute period I probably look at all of them. It's so much easier to dart your eyes back and forth than having to alt-tab and wait for things to switch around on a potentially overloaded system.

Re:Trivial ?

[MeNeXT]

There is no such thing as a hidden cost in a well run company. If you are spending your time on /. arguing the benefits of such and such and you are on company time you are not in a well run company.

Bean counters are not stupid. They can understand that an employee paid at $10/hr will, may, save the company more than the $200 monitor amortized over 3 years. The problem is that it seldom if ever materializes in real life. Convince them that you will use this time to improve productivity and you will get your monitor. If you get the monitor and at the end they see no improvement then the next guy will have a harder time getting his monitor.

A serious employee at a well run company would only have to fill out a requisition. Good bean counters know their job just like good programmers know their code.

Re:Trivial ?

[vagabond_gr]

Also, after buying a second monitor you need some time to configure it, get the latest drivers, adjust the resolution, etc. You also need to figure out which application to move where, try several options, etc. Then you have to post on your blog (or better slashdot) to let people know about your great dual-monitor system. You need different wallpapers for each screen. You have more free screen space so you can download some more desktop goodies like dancing teddy-bears or virtual pets that you have to feed every 10 seconds or else they get sad. You can have your mail client open all the time so that you instantly see all the funny-videos/urban-legend/spam and forward it right away to even more people. You can even have youtube open all the time so that you can finally catch up with the millions of people who upload so fast that you couldn't watch everything with a single monitor. You don't need to switch back and forth between tetris, solitaire and google earth, everything is nicely arranged in front of your eyes so that you don't lose a second of your precious time.

And when you get bored of all that, you have the wonderful idea of configuring
your dual monitor in Linux, using of course XGL and all the mambo-jumbo effects from the latest build of Beryl. So you're set for a lifetime of great productivity at the cost of a lousy second monitor.

PS. Gadgets are toys for big boys (read geeks). They have nothing to do with productivity, you lame Blackberry junkies.

Re:Trivial ?

[MightyYar]

It's very hard to argue that the bulk of the US economy is centrally-administered.

Re:Trivial ?

[Chris Burke]

Well, if this strategy weren't the most successful, then the long-term-thinking companies would win out in the end, no? Capitalism won't allow an inefficient system to survive in a competitive marketplace.

In the long term yes, at least in theory (and I'm sure others will point out problems with that theory, as they are ample). In the short term, anything goes, even in the theoretical.

It takes millions of years for evolution to find an "optimal" solution, and even then it isn't necessarily optimal, just "good enough for the environment". And if one species consumes all of the resources due to short term 'thinking' as it were, then another species in the same ecosystem that only consumes in moderation so as to maintain balance will still die.

Right now the environment rewards short-term thinkers. Companies have adapted to it. Long-term thinking requires an (indeterminate) long time to pay off and thus prove itself superior. If the short-term thinking of most companies destroys the economy, then the long-term thinkers may still die, and then who do you say was superior?

It's not like the Invisible Hand of Adam Smith reaches down from the sky and bitch-slaps any organization that performs an economically sub-optimal action. The theory says that in the limit an optimal balance will be reached, but in the meantime (as in what's happening "now" whenver "now" may be) could be wildly stupid and inefficient and still win.

Re:Trivial ?

[zopf]

The beauty of capitalism is its relationship with evolution... in capitalism, only the most resilient business models will survive over the long term. Hopefully that will result in the survival and growth of companies that have intelligent management and competent staff (cough, cough, Google etc). Unfortunately, for every company that survives long-term, there will probably be five or ten that burn themselves out through incompetence. The trick is to find a job with a company that has a chance for long-term survival. Either that or join a budding supernova, IPO, cash out, and run away before the implosion hits.

Re:Trivial ?

[Maltheus]

Short term? Like what, a day's worth? I recently calculated how much time I spend watching my screen paint and for application servers to restart cause the huge ass telecom company I work for won't invest in new hardware. Multiplying that amount of time by my salary means that a new computer would pay for itself in a month. Not to mention all the time we spend with "clever" little scripts to offload data from an overworked 5 gig production drive cause they don't want to spring the lousy $150 for a new 500 gig drive so that we'll never have to worry about space again. I can't even begin to calculate how many millions we lose in lost productivity each year just because management lacks the ability to engage in short-term thinking, much less the mid or long term.

My home server services one person, me. It's not all that high end, but it blows the equipment we use at work out of the water and that stuff is servicing millions. The Sun workstation they expect me to use goes for $20 on eBay (sans/monitor), but they still want new applications delivered in a week. I've given up expecting any of this to change. I'm just so tired of making these arguments and seeing people shrug their shoulders. I wish that guy good luck in his quest for a second monitor. For me, if I want a decent working environment, I have to pay for it myself.

Re:Trivial ?

[ChaosDiscord]

Well, if this strategy weren't the most successful, then the long-term-thinking companies would win out in the end, no? Capitalism won't allow an inefficient system to survive in a competitive marketplace.

In the long run, yes. But in the short run huge corporations crash and burn, glutting the market with unemployed. In the long run they'll usually get new jobs, but in the meanwhile some people will run into problems like a medical emergency, drown in bills, lose their house, and be forced to declare bankruptcy. People who relied on a pension from their business will find what they were promised reduced or eliminated. Shareholders who had been mislead have part of their portfolio reduced to nothing. In the short run a business can boost profits by turning as many costs into externalities as possible: polluting, overfishing, and the like.

Meanwhile, the CEOs, presidents, and other upper management made lots of money in direct salary, bonuses for raising the stock price in the short term, and profit some selling their own stock while it was artificially boosted. And since they made out just fine, there is incentive for others to follow in their footsteps, making short-sighted decisions for short term gain that doom other companies in the long run.

For those companies that do have long term thinking, they're penalized by the stock market and other potential investors because they don't look as successful in the short term. If a potential investor waits to see a company's long term work, it could easily be thirty years later and the entire management team has changed, so it's still not a reliable indicator. (The fall of once reliable Hewlett-Packard comes to mine.)

The invisible hand isn't full of magical pixie dust that just makes everything work. Primarily because participants in capitalism have deeply imperfect information, there are large windows of opportunity for abuse. In the long run capitalism tends to sort things out; but in the meanwhile new abusers have arisen and created new problems.

Capitalism sucks. But like a cockroach you can't eliminate it. And no matter how much it sucks, the other options suck more.

Re:Trivial ?

[Number6.2]

Hey, I'm impressed. Very nice, thanks :D

You must be working in a "good" part of the country, though. Here in the Delaware Valley, right after the Bubble burst, the only job I was able to get was at 22/hr :(. I'm still not making too much more than that, all things considered.

And yes, I'm a programmer, and I have a master's degree in computer science :(

And yes, i know I'm being ripped off :(...

Re:Trivial ?

[sherms]

This has always been a fear of mine. I've worked for the government sector and private. Whats interesting is the government sector let me have 3 monitors were the private sector I've been reduced to a 15" lcd Most here are 15"-17" crt. I tried explaining the cost in electricity as well as productivity, but no luck. Has government and cooperations reversed in there roles???

Re:Trivial ?

[zippthorne]

If you are paid 22/hr, that does not mean it costs the company only 22/hr. Keep in mind the taxes they must pay, benefits, and the portion of social security 'they' pay for you. That is all also part of your compensation, and it is significant.

Re:Trivial ?

[LaughingCoder]

The difference is the government can just "print more money" or increase taxes to increase its revenue. The private sector has to successfully compete to increase its revenue. So, it is not surprising to me that you would find it easier to buy equipment in the public sector - there are no competitors to worry about. That said, if a good economic argument (like electricity costs or productivity) can be made, *smart* companies will do the right thing and buy the equipment.

Re:Trivial ?

[foobsr]

What US is becoming is a Corporatocracy, which is just soviet style communism with a better marketing department.

A merger of 'Brave New World' and '1984'. What a beast.

CC.

Re:Trivial ?

[sherms]

Did you, by chance, mean easier to buy for the government sector? Your conclusion is opposite of the start of your paragraph.

Re:Trivial ?

[bobdinkel]

I disagree. My experiences working in both the public and private sectors have been almost identical to the parent poster's. However, the government agency I worked for was in no position to just "print more money". Our annual budget was determined by legislators. And we had to produce value or our budget would get sharply reduced. The bottom line was very closely watched.
It's tempting to think of the government as being some monolithic entity, but it isn't.

Re:Trivial ?

[coolGuyZak]

So if you spend an hour justifying the second monitor, what happened to your savings?

In theory, he shouldn't need to spend an hour justiying the second monitor. The auditing staff should understand how additional computer equipment changes productivity, or at least be competent enough to comprehend even a basic justification for the additional equipment.

The fact that the question was raised indicates that the questioner fears that the auditors are incompetent. There are two obvious reasons to explain this incompetence:

1. The auditors are truly idiots, in which case they shouldn't have their job.
2. The auditors did not receive the proper training to carry out their job, in which case they should be re-trained.

In a related scenario, the company isn't transparent enough for the questioner to understand the process behind an audit. Due to his ignorance, he feels it necessary to defend his equipment. In this scenario, the company should either become more transparent or, if it is already transparent, inform the questioner of such transparency. Regardless of which of these explanations fits his circumstances, he is justified in spending some time "defending his equipment", as the situation was created by business policy, at some level or another.

That said, he should also go a step farther. The cases illustrated above all result from an inefficiency in business policy. Rather than resolve only the fallout of this mechanism (e.g. defend his monitor), he should note the problem as he sees it and recommend a solution to whichever departments are involved. This strengthens his argument rhetorically if done properly: he becomes portrayed as a supporter of the system, who is only interested in the "best" for the company. This introduces a political danger, however. If he doesn't present his argument properly (for instance, say he takes an aggressive stance), then his life may get more difficult. The company may perceive his help as a threat, and take away his monitor out of spite.

This discourse is irrelevant, of course, if the questioner justifies his behavior because he's a selfish ass. ;)

Re:Trivial ?

[couchslug]

"Regarding the OP's problem the solution is simple: they should pony up $200 of their own money and buy their own secondary monitor, when the audit comes either they can show the second monitor is theirs or take it home that day and bring it back once the audit is done."

I brought my own ergo keyboard, trackball, and scanner/printer (the shop buys the ink cartridges and paper). My comfort can convenience are well worth it. All are well-marked as personal property.

Auto mechanics customarily supply most of the own tools, because that setup is an optimal "fit" for them and gives them the power user choices they want.Compared to that, springing for a few computer bits is dirt cheap. They are even tax deductable as professional equipment, as are your home computer and peripherals if you use them for business.

Re:Trivial ?

[Firethorn]

I'll agree. If somebody's making $15/hour, that's their compensation. But when you figure the hourly cost of an employee, the taxes, insurance, etc all figure in as expenses.

While the figures vary, 30-50% of hourly compensation as 'additional expenses' is a frequent figure. After all, you have to add 7.5% for SS alone. Many states also require a tax be paid for employees that goes into an unemployment fund.

Thus my 'remember taxes!' line.

Re:Trivial ?

[f1055man]

The Soviet system wasn't really centrally-administered either. The economy was controlled by the haggling and political struggles of the party bosses.
Soviet propaganda: to each according to their needs.
Capitalist propaganda: to each according to their ability.
Reality: it's who you know.
See: http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/23/ 224254 and http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=1B5 9C157-136A-4C1F-8F96-67847B42932E

As we move away from an economy based on commodities towards one dominated by the service industries, market forces will mean less and less. Where's Patrick Swayze when you need him? http://imdb.com/title/tt0087985/
What's this have to do with using two monitors?

Re:Trivial ?

[locnar42]

A lot of managers don't think of "if we spend this we'll save twice that" they think "if we spend this we immediately reduce the bottom line by the same amount, fuck that!"

I agree. Very few managers that I worked for in the past could look at the long term gain. Instead, they focused on the immediate cost. I've heard them say that time is free because they have to pay the salary regardless. I remember one manager that looked at long term, but would rather sacrifice this type of productivity gain in order to get more people under him.

I'm lucky now. I do software development for a great company that will provide its employees with nearly any request that can be justified. I have two computers with five 20" monitors between them. All of the developers have similar setups. It is the most productive environment that I've ever worked. It's not necessarily because of the monitors, but the overall attitude of providing the employees with what they need rather than fighting them and trying to profit at the employees expense. The cost of the equipment is tiny compared to the increase in productivity and employee retention.

Re:Trivial ?

[DigitalPenguinDude]

And a good tutorial on how to configure that Linux dual headed system is at http://www.yolinux.com/TUTORIALS/LinuxAndDualMonit ors.html
It had one key point in that tutorial which took me forever to find was, set the screen aspect ration so openOffice and Acroread do not look stretched.

Re:Trivial ?

[gstoddart]

Well, if this strategy weren't the most successful, then the long-term-thinking companies would win out in the end, no? Capitalism won't allow an inefficient system to survive in a competitive marketplace.

'Capitalism' is an abstraction to describe the system, but there is no actual laissez-fairfe capitalism that exists. It's all heavily interfered with to the advantage of the big players.

Market regulation, patents, and lawyers allow inefficient systems to thrive all over the place.

If you can lobby the government to change to rules for you, you can accomplish a lot.

Cheers

Re:Trivial ?

[jc42]

Well, if this strategy weren't the most successful, then the long-term-thinking companies would win out in the end, no? Capitalism won't allow an inefficient system to survive in a competitive marketplace.

Actually, there's a simple "disproof of concept" available in the natural world, where people have often tried to make the same argument in favor of efficiency, only to be shot down by the copious evidence that the species that survive are very clearly not the most efficient ones.

Thus, a standard textbook example is that mice occupy a niche very similar to several salamander species. A mouse needs around 10 times the food supply as a similar-sized salamander, due to the energy cost of the mouse's constant high body temperature. But in most environments, mice are the evolutionary winners. Why? Well, when temperatures are low and the cold-blooded salamanders are too sluggish to move fast, the mice come burrowing through the snow and eat them.

The problem with the obvious (but fallacious) logic is that it doesn't much matter how efficient you are when facing a predator. If you don't have the quickly-available power to escape or fight off the predator, you die. It doesn't matter how effient you were; you become food for the competitor that can "waste" a burst of resources to kill you. As long as your body contains more energy than a predator needs to find and kill you, the predator has the evolutionary advantage.

This applies just as well to companies as it does to animals. Thus, a legal department is a huge, unproductive waste of resources. But if you don't "waste" your resources on it, your company dies a horrible death at the hands of the predators that can attack you with a flock of lawyers.

Survival depends on many things, and efficiency is only a part of the equation.

Re:Trivial ?

[LaughingCoder]

I said So, it is not surprising to me that you would find it easier to buy equipment in the public sector The public sector is the same as the government sector. I think I said it right.

Re:Trivial ?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Try explaining that 22" LCDs cost $360 and give an expansive desktop.

Re:Trivial ?

[zippthorne]

The electricity that runs your PC is part of your cost to run the pc. If your PC was a little more efficient, you could spend that money on other PC-related projects, like more frequent upgrades or what not.

You assume that if the company did not have expenses that you don't see that they would just keep that money instead of increasing your real pay. This might be true if they were the only company to avoid those expenses, but in the real world, they are competing with other companies for your effort and your total cost of employment is the number they look at: no matter what your take-home pay, they cannot afford to spend more on you than the value you provide to the company under any circumstances.

Re:Trivial ?

[pipingguy]

What a great post.

Re:Trivial ?

[Jahz]

A lot of managers don't think of "if we spend this we'll save twice that" they think "if we spend this we immediately reduce the bottom line by the same amount, fuck that!"

Well, that's the bad thing about capitalism today - it's been replaced by blind greed and short-term thinking.

Um that is a problem with humanity, not capitalism. I am entirely confident that greed affects other economic forms as well. For example, before taking greed (and a general desire to have more than others) into account, socialism seems like the nirvana of economic systems.

I think the real problem there is greed caused by flaws in the management structure of these companies. Being out of touch with your employees and lacking the foresight to understand how to increase productivity are marks of POOR MANAGEMENT. This is why Google and the like are nice places to work. They're just as greedy and corporate as anybody else, but having lots of engineers sprinkled through the management hierarchy leads to an enjoyable work place. Including dual big-ass wide screen monitors for all, a choice of operating systems, and tons of "distractions" like pianos, games and what not... Just get your work done and you can play all you want!!

Re:Trivial ?

[Attila Dimedici]

You are the one using fallacious logic, it is efficient to be able to fend off a predator. By your definition, marketing is inefficient, why spend money telling people about your product? That is money you could spend lowering the cost of your product. There are many variables that determine market efficiency. That is why any economic system that calls for centralized planning will fail in the long run, there will always be some variable(s) that the central planners didn't factor in. In a free market, companies that make bad decisions fail. Then the resources that they consumed are reallocated to companies that make better decisions.

Re:Trivial ?

[Zantetsuken]

I think you forgot though that not only could he have youtube open all day - he could have *2* read it *TWO* (GASP) youtube windows open all day!!! Not to mention all the wasted processor and GPU cycles from the extra overhead of another monitor, along with the extra power it consumes - causing the guys in Maintenance who take care of providing power will have to waste time and energy working those gerbils harder to power the generators...

Re:Trivial ?

[CodeBuster]

Well, that's the bad thing about capitalism today - it's been replaced by blind greed and short-term thinking

What is bad about that? On the contrary, the system is working exactly as it was intended, people are free to chose how they earn, invest, and spend their money and they all enjoy the benefits or suffer the consequences of their own choices. It is true that there are many managers out there that lack the sophistication to properly evaluate the opportunity costs of their decisions, but there are also many skilled and efficient investors, owners, and managers who generally make pretty good business decisions. If you are an investor or a shareholder and you are dissatisfied with the direction that management is taking then you should make your displeasure known by voting your proxies at the shareholder meetings, voting against the term renewals for the board members that you disagree with, or if all else fails then you can sell your interest or shares and move on.

Instead, "investing" money is considered "spending" it.

Only to those who are unable to discern the difference. The general techniques of valuation are well known, but the skill comes in accurate estimation of intangible value such as human capital, potential value of intellectual property, and understanding of the marketplace in which the business operates. The better managers are the ones with a keen understanding of these things and the willingness to work hard and apply their expertise.

Re:Trivial ?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Also, after buying a second monitor you need some time to configure it, get the latest drivers, adjust the resolution, etc.

You plug it in and let it go - woo, took about a minute.

You need different wallpapers for each screen. You have more free screen space so you can download some more desktop goodies like dancing teddy-bears or virtual pets that you have to feed every 10 seconds or else they get sad.

No developer I've seen has done any of that. Of course, I did see one dev with some borderline x-rated anime figures on his desk - so far as I know, nobody ever said anything either.

Re:Trivial ?

[stebbo]

I agree (I think). I work in local government. Salaries are practically a fixed cost, so someone taking longer to do something is effectively (marginally?) 'free'. A second monitor costs real pound notes out of someone's budget, which is visible and easily measured. The fact that it might well save time (I'm sure it would) isn't even considered. Budget wins out every time. :-/

Re:Trivial ?

[DigitalCrackPipe]

Sleazy as some companies may be, the real danger would be stupidity and lack of foresight. An attempt to take away the extra monitor would show poor math skills -- no matter how poorly you pay professional programmers, even at minimum wage the cost/benefit lines would cross pretty soon for a brand new monitor, let alone a discarded monitor (essentially free).

Paying workers poorly and disrespecting them isn't really cheap for the company - it's just a result of short-term thinking. Oftentimes decesion makers either don't know relevant details, or what motivates them is entirely not in the company's best long-term interest.

Re:Trivial ?

[asc99c]

Being able to fend off a predator is necessary, but it isn't efficient by any logic I can think of. You almost seem to suggest an ability to do necessary things is efficient. Communism is in theory much more efficient than capitalism. Taking your marketing example, I would genuinely say it is not efficient. Getting rid of marketing and having an independent agency test all competing products and provide the results would be 'efficient'.

A capitalist system provides the most efficient results in practice, but mainly because the underlying concept is people working for their own reward. Communism is in theory more efficient but doesn't work because it relies on everyone working selflessly for the greater good, and that doesn't happen enough.

Re:Trivial ?

[wperry1]

What US is becoming is a Corporatocracy, which is just soviet style communism with a better marketing department. I think what you are looking for is oligarchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy which has all of the political power held by an elite few. With all of the lobbying money that a few big corporations throw at politicians these days that seems to be the direction we are heading.

Re:Trivial ?

[Attila Dimedici]

"Communism is in theory more efficient but doesn't work" This means that you need a better theory. The theory that says that Communism is more efficient is wrong, just like the theory that says the sun revolves around the earth. The purpose of any theory is to be able to make predictions about the future. There is actually a second basic flaw to Communism in addition to the one you mentioned. It is the mistake of central planning. It was theorized that having a small body of people analyzing the data and determining what to make, where to make it, etc, would be more efficient than allowing that decision to be made on a distributed basis. This turned out to be wrong, every attempt at centralized planning has failed. It turns out there are too many variables for any small group to figure out the best distribution system. Capitalism works because it has a mechanism for distributed decision making. The problem isn't with Capitalism, the problem is with people.

Re:Trivial ?

[LinuxDon]

As a system administrator, I deal with these kinds of requests every day and in 90% these requests get rejected immediately.
Working more efficiently on a PC is always about eliminating the efficiency bottle necks.

Here is why your calculation fails:

1. Every employee wants a TFT screen these days.
2. If one person in a room has a dual screen system, everybody wants one. The other people feeling neglected because they don't get one will be extra negatively effected in productivity.
3. Most workstations have to be upgraded to support dual-head in the first place. It takes quite some time for an ICT department to upgrade them.

4. It doesn't take 5 seconds to switch between applications, it only takes 2 seconds at -most-. If it takes you 5 seconds to switch then there are other efficiency issues.
5. People that can't type on they keyboard blindly will win more time getting typing lessons than they ever will with 2 monitors. Everyone typing blindly knows that the main point of inefficiently is moving your head up and down between the screen and the keyboard. Moving your head sideways with two monitors also costs time, so you only save 1 second.
6. If the additional monitor breaks it will have to be supported and replaced.
7. Often people double their salary's in the cost calculations because otherwise it won't add up.
8. Most people never bother to actually hand in a written proposal about what the ROI for the company is going to be.

Having two monitors is efficient only in the following case:
- When you have to work with complex information which is in one application, while you have to work with it in another (or sometimes the same) application.

Because if you have to remember the information on the one screen in your head and then switch to the other application to do something with it, you will get very distracted especially when you're dealing with very complex issues.

Re:Trivial ?

[ruvreve]

About 90% of the employees at our company have dual monitors. Our users have grown so attached to them they are buying monitors on their own for use at home. A decent 20 inch flat panel is about $300 and assuming it only lasts you 3 years, that comes out to about $0.40/day assuming your employees don't work weekends. You'll need to add in support and training costs, which will vary depending on your company and employees.

This benefits not only the power users, but also the slowest computer user. The slowest user can turn their head slightly a lot faster then they can find the 'Minimize' button, move the mouse down to the taskbar, click on another app, do whatever they needed to do, and then find the Minizmize button again, move the mouse down to the taskbar, and click to bring up the original app again. For some people it literally takes longer then it took me to type out all the steps.

Re:Trivial ?

[EvanED]

- When you have to work with complex information which is in one application, while you have to work with it in another (or sometimes the same) application.

Such as API documentation and your code, or a description of your design and your code, etc.

I have the two monitor thing at "work" (i.e. grad school), and I feel frustrated now when I'm at home because I only have one.

Re:Trivial ?

[Firehed]

Woosh!

Re:Trivial ?

[iamacat]

How so? Retail == Walmart, Software == Microsoft, Entertainment == {MP,RI}AA. Same companies largely dictate government policies and together with half a dozen or so smaller competitors each control at least more than half US economy. Sounds pretty centralized to me.

Re:Trivial ?

[jrumney]

I think you can save a lot more than 5 minutes a day once you build up some work habits around your dual-head setup. The productivity boost from using one monitor for your coding and a second for documentation or other reference is amazing. Two Alt-Tabs and a pause while you read some docs becomes a glance at the other monitor, your typing doesn't even need to slow down a lot of the time. The main boost is not from not needing to Alt-Tab, its more that you don't get distracted or lose track of where you were after looking up the docs, reading email or other secondary tasks, because your main work is still there in front of you.

Re:Trivial ?

[Peyre]

Nonsense. The government doesn't just "print more money" to increase its revenue. The repercussions from doing that are well-known and severe; there's a whole structure in place to prevent that kind of irresponsibility, including the Federal Reserve, etc. And even if it weren't for that, the gov't is divided into lots of departments that get their money budgeted to them. The Dep't of Education, for instance, doesn't print money, and won't get more on a "just because" basis. Not to mention printing money isn't even an option for state and local governments. As for raising taxes, just like that, to increase the government's revenue--they don't do that. Elected representatives know very well what the repercussions of that would be. A lot of them wouldn't want to anyway, and others wouldn't care enough to take the heat for it: increased borrowing is much more likely. Anyway, from my experience in state government and the corporate world, I can say it's easier (and faster) to get purchases approved in the private sector. It's also easier to steal from your employer and get away with it.

Re:Trivial ?

[mabhatter654]

wrong, we're talking the total amount the company pays to have you there. That's what's of interest to the bean counters. How much is the total cost of having an employee in the chair... wages are only about half the cost to the company. In most good manufacturing shops (not sweatshops), burden (the amount of non-labor costs) is typically over 100% of wages. For instance most health insurance premiums run about $1500/month per employee as well as Unemployment insurance, Workman's comp, liability, etc... plus the matching for taxes on the money they pay you, as well as costs like office space, computers & licenses. Especially for productivity improvements, minor improvements such as a second monitor are paid one time and may only may YOU 5% more efficient... BUT if you can find 4-5 of those and not have to find another employ and pay all the non-direct costs you save a bundle.

Re:Trivial ?

[Marcos Eliziario]

Really man. I think you should leave EDS ;-)

Re:Trivial ?

[Marcos Eliziario]

Probably GP is an employer, you insensitive clod!

Re:Trivial ?

[toddestan]

I would just argue that it's not going to cost them anything. You've already got the monitor on your desk, so it's not like they have to run out and buy you one. Possession is 9/10's of it. Just act like it's supposed to be there, they may not even question it.

I don't know how good the monitor is. At my job, there are 17" CRTs laying around in various closets and back rooms, even some 19" and 20" if you look around enough. If want to use one, just go grab one. Every once and a while, they round up a bunch of them and recycle them. If the monitor gets put to use (or walks out the back door), they don't really care because it saves them however much it costs to dispose of the thing.

Re:Trivial ?

[ShieldW0lf]

I think what you're looking for is Corporatism. It's another word for Fascism. Look it up.

Re:Trivial ?

[scrad]

well, look at any stock exchange photos or other information intensive business. they have 4-5 monitors on way coll holders so they can glance around and see what they want in an instant. Nobody makes them have to switch windows. So Yes, it is obvious that multiple monitors = high productivity. I have two 21" monitors. I used to use virtual desktops. I kept finding that the two things I wanted to see were on different desktops. nuff said. Tell them I said so! ;)

Re:Trivial ?

[xski]

And lets not disregard the fact that the effectiveness of a competitive marketplace is tied to the capacity of the public to make informed decisions.

Good grief, we're soooo screwed.

Re:Trivial ?

[MightyYar]

I hear ya... I'm not really a laissez faire guy myself. I'm all for government regulation to look out for the common good - not sure that applies to a dual monitor setup, though... that seems like a straightforward productivity improvement... short-term, no less, even by business standards.

Re:Trivial ?

[MightyYar]

Even if those three companies were all good examples, they make up a small fraction of the US economy. State-run companies made up the bulk of the Soviet economy.

Last I checked, I can legally buy my cheap crap from Target instead of Wal-Mart. Your other examples are pretty solid, though - MS and the XXAA have incredible influence over US policy, despite many of the XXAA members not being American companies. Wal-Mart has influence, but they mostly want free trade, and that has been a fairly popular idea for quite some time.

Re:Trivial ?

[MightyYar]

There is also pressure to spend all of the money you are allocated or risk not receiving it again in the next budget - my father has been in government administration for over 25 years, and he learned long ago that saving money is a lot of trouble, especially one-time savings.

Re:Trivial ?

[MightyYar]

All of this is true, but...

We are talking about a simple optimization of a workflow by using two monitors. It is not a leap to expect that this very short-term optimization with an immediate cost and effect on productivity would be an ideal candidate for selection by the mythical "invisible hand".

Re:Trivial ?

[MightyYar]

The Soviet system wasn't really centrally-administered either. The economy was controlled by the haggling and political struggles of the party bosses.

Heh, I think that an economy "controlled by the haggling and political struggles of the party bosses" fits the definition of centrally-administered very well. Not well-administered, but definitely centrally.

Re:Trivial ?

[Maltheus]

LOL, EDS were the ones who provided the $20 Sun workstation. Although I don't actually work for them.

Re:Trivial ?

[schlumpf_louise]

Chairs! You're given chairs!? In my office I have a two-step step ladder to sit on :( The mouse is placed at eye level, the keyboard comes out on a sliding shelf that doesn't slide all the way out and my desk is a piece of what I assume used to be part of a kitchen surface and attached to the wall with some hinges and chains with a piece of wood propping it up just in case. (we're a little stuck for space and the office is smaller than most toilet cubicles) Be grateful for your $100 chair!

Re:Trivial ?

[cnettel]

The knowledge still has to spread. If all developers wanted two screens, and it was just a matter of convincing management as well, then this would be more plausible. As things stand now, a lot of developers would argue that a .4 GHz increase or a 10k RPM drive or (another) 2 GB of RAM, or even a slightly larger widescreen, instead of a sensible dualmon config, would help their productivity or whatever more.

(And, yeah, I would probably get a 30" screen over my two 1600x1200, but the two 1600x1200 were far cheaper at the time of purchase, and that config would still win today.)

Re:Trivial ?

[sjames]

The beauty of capitalism is its relationship with evolution... in capitalism, only the most resilient business models will survive over the long term.

In nature, there are a few parasites that once they invade a host alter it's bahavior to favor the parasite's survival over it's own. In the economic ecosystem those parasites are FAR more common.

The problem with capitalism is that it will seek ANY local minimum without regard to human wellbeing. Q: What's the cheapest way to feed a million people for life? A: Give them each a hearty meal laced w/ cyanide.

Re:Trivial ?

[zopf]

We're not talking about human well-being though. We're talking about sheer bottom-line productivity. But on a side note, the good part about capitalism in a large, innovative country like the USA is that it's dynamics are so complicated that rarely does the system stay in a local minimum for very long. In addition, there are so many degrees of freedom (no pun intended) of the various markets that the chance that all variables would reach a local minimum is very small. Thus, the system, like a dimpled, vibrating surface with a number of small beads, will reach ever better minima. That is, until a famine or drought hits, etc. But in stable conditions, (our) capitalism for the most part has a good set of feedback loops that keep the system in a dynamic equilibrium.

Re:Trivial ?

[sjames]

We're not talking about human well-being though.

Of course we are! The economy exists to serve humans, NEVER the other way around. If an economic system cannot accomplish that, it is buggy and must be fixed or replaced.

One of the greatest bugs in capitalism is that it is subject to the race for the bottom. That is, it tends to fall into local minima that are too deep for it to find it's way back out of but are far from ideal.

Equally, those vibrations in the surface translate directly to foreclosures and evictions, retirement funds disappearing overnight, people doing without life saving medication, kids joining gangs because they don't see a better future, and a whole host of other human miseries great and small.

Here's a study

[PIPBoy3000]

After a bit of Googlin':
Two Screens Are Better Than One

The best part is that it was done by Slashdot's nemesis. :)

Re:Here's a study

[timeOday]

I think having two monitors is totally unnecessary, simply because they make very big single monitors now. Many of my co-workers have gotten the Apple 30" monitor, which has more screen real-estate than two 1600x1200 screens put together, and no big black line down the middle. It's almost too big, you have to turn your head to cover the whole thing.

Re:Here's a study

[Andy Dodd]

1) Many OSes don't tile windows well. To have two windows properly tiled on a single monitor, you need to minimize everything but those windows and then choose to tile all nonminimized windows. (At least this is my experience with Windows XP) It's faster to just drag one app to your second monitor and maximize it.

2) The aspect ratio of a single 16:9 screen doesn't fit two 4:3 screens well. While for editing Word documents this is not a bad thing (and could be good in fact), for editing PowerPoint documents, images, and Excel spreadsheets, dual 4:3 is better.

3) Moderate sized 4:3 flat panel displays cost a fraction of the price of an Apple 30" display. The Apple 30" display is $1500-2000, 19" 4:3 displays are $200-250 each.

4) Most workers already have their first monitor. Adding a second is cheaper than chucking it and buying a large widescreen, even if that large widescreen were remotely competitive for these purposes with dual 19s in price.

I have a second monitor in my cube, but it's an old beat-up CRT and I don't have the desk space to use it. :(

Re:Here's a study

[CDarklock]

Actually, a lot of us here read Slashdot. It's just that only a tiny minority have the flame resistance to post on it.

Re:Here's a study

[julesh]

Speaking as someone currently using two 17" monitors, I think two monitors is better.

1. 30" monitors cost a *lot* more than two 17" monitors. Like, £1000 more.
2. 2560x1600 isn't as good as 3200x1200, IMO. The 30" monitor is too tall, I prefer something wider and flatter.
3. My monitors are arranged to surround me, rather than forming a flat panel. This means I'm looking at them close to straight whether I'm looking in the middle or either edge. With a single big monitor, I'd have to have them flat, and would be viewing them significantly off-straight at the edges.
4. With multiple monitors, software can be manipulated easily to take up exactly half of the display (using the maximize buttons), which is useful when you are using exactly 2 applications -- something I do regularly (e.g. IDE for development and web browser for reference). I don't believe achieving this is easy with a single large display.

Re:Here's a study

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I agree with all your points and would add one more. Using two monitors, one of them can be a regular monitor and one can be the built in display on a laptop. This provides both a large amount of screen real estate as well as portability. A 17" laptop is not portable. A 12" laptop does not have a lot of screen to play with. A 12" laptop you also plug into a 17" monitor, together are portable and provide a lot of screen when you're at your desk.

Re:Here's a study

[bwalling]

Two is better than one. No questions asked. Tiling windows sucks. With two monitors, your windows will automatically maximize to a single monitor, making it quite easy to get full screen apps on both screens at once. I've tried the large monitor thing, and you spend more time fooling around with window placement. With two monitors, much of that ends up being handled for you. I'm actually at the point where I'm ready for a 3rd monitor, I'm just afraid to ask for it - I figure it will become a spectacle.

Re:Here's a study

[Fulg]

I think having two monitors is totally unnecessary, simply because they make very big single monitors now.

For me the major advantage of two monitors over a single huge one is that maximized windows only takes up a single monitor (half your desktop space). To accomplish the same result with a big monitor, you have to resort to third-party hacks to split your desktop into "virtual monitors" (in Windows anyway), and there's always that one app that doesn't work with it...

Re:Here's a study

[MyDixieWrecked]

It really depends on what kind of work you're doing. Having two monitors enables you to partition your workspaces in ways that a single very large monitor, cannot.

At my primary employer, I've got a single 23" Apple cinema display, which is a quite adequate size for doing pretty much anything. It's really great for doing stuff in illustrator and photoshop because I rarely have to hide my palettes and I can fit large projects on the screen at a large enough size that I can see the detail. I wouldn't want a bigger monitor since I feel that would start to be counter productive due to it being too big for the eyes. However, I'd LOVE to have a second monitor. When making changes to art based on an email, it's a PAIN to switch back and forth between my graphics app(s) and the email window. Also, if I'm downloading new client files in the background, I can't keep an eye on them since the Illustrator window takes up the whole screen, as does a typical session in photoshop.

At home, I've got a 22" (I think that's the size) Dell LCD for my primary display and a 17" CRT for my secondary. I keep stuff that I want to constantly keep an eye on on the second (at home, it's IM, iTunes, irc, terminal sessions with compiling, debugging windows, program output, etc).

The best part of having 2 monitors is the fact that you can move stuff onto #2 without worry that it will get covered by other windows when switching apps. For reference, for status, and for control are the most ideal uses for an extra display.

now 3 displays... I've never tried that, but it sounds intriguing.

Re:Here's a study

[Khelder]

That's an interesting article, but it's kinda light on details. It's too bad the article doesn't link to a published paper about the studies they did. If anyone knows of published papers in a refereed forum, please post links/refs.

Re:Here's a study

[Ryan Amos]

I have a pair of 4:3 monitors and I love them. I personally dislike dual 16:9s but I've found it's largely a personal preference. Regardless, I don't think any major OEM is going to stop making 4:3 monitors anytime soon.

Re:Here's a study

[Ahnteis]

Virtual desktops are only marginally better then a single desktop. You can't compare two full sized windows with them, and you still have to click or hit a hotkey to switch the view.

In fact, after using virtual desktops for years, I am sick of them. The provide minimal benefit to me but are hyped as if they were a substitute for REAL desktop "real estate".

Re:Here's a study

[kanweg]

Given that Apple's 30" now comes at E1800, which equals about L 1216, I don't think your cost comparison is accurate.

Some files are best viewed large (A4 pdf's, for example), for which reason I'm hoping that the Mac mini will support 30", in which case I'll buy my secretary a 30" monitor. This would save scrolling and looking for text.

Bert
Who personally thinks that a two monitor set up including a 30" is better a compromise we should be able to reach

Re:Here's a study

[adonoman]

1) Many OSes don't tile windows well. To have two windows properly tiled on a single monitor, you need to minimize everything but those windows and then choose to tile all nonminimized windows. (At least this is my experience with Windows XP) It's faster to just drag one app to your second monitor and maximize it. Try -clicking on a bunch of windows in the taskbar. Now right click on one of them -- you can now cascade, tile, minimize, or close the whole group.

But as someone with two monitors, I agree that the one app on each screen is much faster.

Re:Here's a study

[Hognoxious]

A 17" laptop is not portable.

You need some time in the gym.

Re:Here's a study

[smidgie82]

I'm a believer in multi-monitor setups, and have been for years. When I'm coding, it's very nice to have my active code window maximized on one screen and documentation up on the other. Or for developing web apps, it's nice to be able to work in code in one window and be able to look at the rendered version on the other side, as being able to see both helps me correlate the two in my head. For most other work, I use the main monitor for writing email, checking my calendar, etc. and the other window has my company's jabber client open, and several apps that I've either developed or found for near-real-time checking of the status of some of our servers. But where the dual-monitor setup really shines is debugging: if I'm debugging something, it's nice to be able to run the app maximized on one screen, and still have a full screen for stepping through code, setting up watches, etc. None of the above are quite as convenient or efficient using virtual desktops as they are on two screens that you can see simultaneously. It's been my experience that, once you settle into a habit of usage for your two (or more) monitors, my usage of them is significantly more efficient than using virtual desktops. Since KDE will let me configure pretty much as many desktops as I need, I tend to squander desktop real estate and organize windows haphazardly, knowing that I have plenty of virtual desktops to use if I need more space. The result is inevitably wasted time as I switch back and forth between them, forget which desktop windows are on, etc. For me, at least, multiple physical monitors are the clear winner.

Re:Here's a study

[kestasjk]

I wouldn't trust a screen maker to tell me whether or not screens are more productive (and if it's Apple they'll probably tell me it's Now 2.3x more productive! MS has less to gain, so I'm more inclined to believe them.

Re:Here's a study

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

There is a difference between weight and bulk. A 12" laptop can go in my briefcase and fits in my lap in a normal chair in a restaurant. It fills the section of bar in front of me down at the pub. A 17" laptop means I need to buy a new, oversized bag of some sort, get a chair without arms on it, and fight for a seat at a table when the bar pub gets crowded.

Re:Here's a study

[Bushcat]

We give people all the screen estate they ask for. We can always take it away again. A short while ago everyone wanted big widescreens which we couldn't afford for everyone, so I un-PC-ley gave them to our "best" people. Right now, the "best" are back on multiple screens, having passed them down the line. The general opinion is that it's way faster to pop a windows up to full screen on separate monitors than dick around getting the widescreen set up just so. We use cheap USB video adapters most of the time. One thing I never expected is that we print way less now.

Re:Here's a study

[adonoman]

If you're using an NVidias card, the accomanying extra software has a little utility to let you define new maximizing areas -- dividing the screen into spaces that you can maximize into. Of course by holding down a key you can force a full maximize. It's fun to play around with, but with two monitors I haven't found that I use it at all.

Re:Here's a study

[EdA]

>I think having two monitors is totally unnecessary, simply because they make very big single monitors now.

Not true, it depends on your work environment. We were given the option of one 22" (or was it 24") or two 20" LCD displays. I chose the latter. Our work environment includes VNC-ing down to a Linux farm (left display) and email/PDF-reader/browser/etc. in the right monitor. What makes it "right" is that when wireless my laptop and 20" display use the same resolution so I just have everything crammed back on the single monitor. Using a super wide VNC on a single monitor means loss of productivity when home or in a conference room.

/Ed

Re:Here's a study

[hobo sapiens]

Agreed, good points.

Me, I like to put my programming stuff on one monitor (IDE, browser, /., etc) and the secondary crap on the second monitor (like eMail, IM, documentation). I can also stretch out browser windows to see how my pages work in extreme window sizes, I can do better side by side comparisons, and I can code and look at the resulting web page, read the manual, etc at the same time.

Two monitors has provided me with more of a productivity boost than any other piece of hardware or software I can think of.

If you need to justify it beyond the productivity angle (such as a time cost per day) then I feel bad for you. First, because as the saying goes "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts". If you are more productive, that should be enough reason. It's not like you are requesting some major expense. Second, because two monitors *does* increase productivity and is therefore better. Several studies confirm this. If your company is not aware of this, then they should be.

One more angle you could play, especially if that monitor is an oldie: monitors have life expectancies. If you are using an old one (say 5-7 years old), perhaps its ROI has already been realized. Meaning, they would never give it to a new employee because it is beyond life expectancy. So you are in essence saving it from the scrap heap, squeezing every last bit of life out of it, and at the same time boosting your productivity.

Re:Here's a study

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I do agree that there is a definite desirability to have a single large display, but those two UXGA screens probably only cost $400 each now, $800 total vs. buying a 30" plus a dual link DVI card (which can be hard to find, it's dual link in a single shell, not two DVI ports as I've seen some people assume) is going to cost $1500 to $2000+ to implement. Right now, I'm using a 17" along side a 21", both CRTs.

In windows, two displays also allows you to use the "full screen" on two different apps, it's a simple, on a 30" display, it would be a largely worthless button and offers less control.

Re:Here's a study

[profplump]

Can you actually buy 17" monitors that are 1600x1200? I have trouble finding anything better than 1280x1024, and 2560x1024 is not better 2560x1600, at least not for me.

Re:Here's a study

[ak3ldama]

At work i have dual 16:9 and at home dual 4:3. I honestly can't say which I prefer. Working in an IDE with property info on both sides of the code/design being viewed is nice on a widescrean monitor since it allows more text line width. Whereas on a 4:3 monitor, it allows more lines of text to be shown, but sometimes not as many property/information 'docks.' In an OS like Windows or Linux, where each window has it's own full menu bar, having dual monitors is definitely better. The people pitching their 30" apple displays likely run OS X and therefore fit more in line with the apple UI design decisions. As a developer it is just much easier to have two seperate monitors, since there is usually two windows that can each be run full screen. One last anecdote: those that do drawing/gui code know, that having a separate monitor to display the app's window makes debugging somewhat easier.

Re:Here's a study

[sconeu]

What's even better is that I have dual 4:3 monitors, and the second is being run in portrait mode.

Having that second monitor in portrait makes editing code and documentation much easier!

Re:Here's a study

[Phillup]

MS has less to gain, so I'm more inclined to believe them. Call me a cynic, but maybe they are just trying to convince people that they need that latest version of the OS... the one that finally does multiple monitors.

Whatever the reason, you can be sure it isn't benevolent.

Re:Here's a study

[postmortem]

About your study (that you pulled from your ass): there's no such thing as 19" LCD 4:3 monitor. All 19" LCD monitors are either 5:4 (the ones you are talking about), or 16:10, which are widescreen.

Also there's no 16:9 LCD monitor...there are 16:9 TVs but we're not talking about them.

Re:Here's a study

[muckdog]

The biggest advantage of two monitors over one big monitor is that you can quickly maximize a program to fill up one screen and still have room for the second one. This doesn't sound like much but if you do that on a single big wide screen you need to drag the window to the size you want. Like having a DVR or a GPS system its something that you don't see the need for until you have it. I currently have to 20" LCDs at home running at 1600x1200 and love it. I just wish Nvidia and ATI are not making triple or quad monitor gaming cards right now. Likely when the price on the 24" widescreesn comes down a bit more I'll pick up one of those at my center monitor and get a matrox device to split the two off the second port of my dual port card.

Re:Here's a study

[HTH NE1]

2. 2560x1600 isn't as good as 3200x1200, IMO. The 30" monitor is too tall, I prefer something wider and flatter.

But which is quite incapable of drinking coffee!

Sorry, force of habit there. Anyway, due to the replacement of CRTs in our training room with LCDs, the company where I work decided to relent and let anyone who wanted them to have two displays. (The IT department refuses to support more than that.) After that, the remaining monitors were sold off for $5 each, so I have three on a PC at home with a Matrox TripleHead2Go, also arranged in an arc. It assembles them as 3*1280 x 1024, presenting the set to the system as a single VGA display, though I wish it could do them individually in portrait for a 3*1024 x 1280, giving it an aspect allowing 1920 x 1080p HD video. Instead it offers portrait on the set, giving a less useful 1024 x 3*1280 display, far too tall to be useful, especially with CRTs. (Three displays are much better than two as you don't have applications deciding to center themselves on the divide between two screens.)

CRTs for programmers are being replaced with LCDs only as the CRTs die. One co-worker uses his LCD in portrait mode, which is a lot better for reading our large code blocks.

Multiple displays are also far superior when debugging, allowing the application to run on one display and the debugger on the other.

I now wish I had control over the resolution and geometric arrangement of my displays. (Linux allows two displays to overlap, or to even have a gap between them to account for bevel dead space; I haven't found a way to do that on Windows or Mac.) IT decided to restrict that ability to root. That also limits what options I have in providing my own displays. My 19" is capable of higher resolutions, but right now it's driven with larger pixels than the 17" display.

Re:Here's a study

[jcnnghm]

It depends on the operating system. XP and Vista seem to have very mature multiple monitor support. I believe this is largely because Gates and most of the other higher ups at MS use 3 displays. If you have multiple displays and XP, buy Ultramon immediately, it makes it perfect.

When I use XP, I use a three monitor setup, a 24" (16:9) in the front, and two 20" (4:3) to either side. This increases my productivity dramatically. I think about it this way. When I am working on a hardware project, I generally am standing at a workbench with the parts directly in front of me, the design document to the left, and part documentation to the right. I don't have everything in one big pile and swap them from the front to the back. When I am in front of the computer, I have my IDE on the monitor in front of me, Firefox to the right (generally with five or six tabs open with various pieces of documentation), and Outlook to the left, generally with the design info. With Ultramon, I can easily move maximized windows from screen to screen.

When I am using by Macbook Pro, the stories a bit different. Primarily, OSX isn't as good with multiple monitors. This is largely because of the lack of an Ultramon. My biggest gripe is that the toolbar only appears on one monitor, so if I am using textmate on the external, I have to switch displays to get to the menus, and LOTS of programs don't handle multiple monitors very well. For example, when I type in the search box in Firefox, the drop down box with stuff I've searched before only shows up on the primary display.

Since the MBP only has a single DVI output, I can't do three monitors with it, so I settled on one large one. I bought a Westinghouse 1080p 37" HDTV http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82 E16889234001 and use that. In fact, I'm writing this on it right now, and I couldn't be happier. It was only $1,000, has multiple DVI inputs, has a 1920x1080 resolution, and is clear enough that I can sit less than a foot away and use it. Large displays such as the Westinghouse are good with OS X because most apps don't generally take up the whole window anyway.

It's an interesting paradigm shift going from 3 small to one large. I'm not really sure which is better. On one hand, I think having multiple monitors when all windows are maximized is wonderful, but at the same time, I think one large one with several open windows can be just as effective because you don't need to move your head as much.

Having said all that, I guess the bottom line is, with OS X I would always go with a single, large display, and with XP, I would always buy Ultramon, then three displays to go with it (Note: it isn't the other way around, don't bother if you aren't going to have Ultramon).

Re:Here's a study

[keytoe]

To be honest, I never understood why Microsoft went with the whole 'hog the screen' mentality with their application model - and it's never fit with my workflow. The window arrangement on my (dual headed, of course) desktop is meticulously tiled so I'm never more than a single click away from any of them. When you have on average 5 terminal windows, two web browsers, ten text files, multiple chat windows, iTunes and an email app open, tiling is critical. I certainly couldn't work as effectively if I were limited to a single screen. Log tails, reference and email go on the left screen - work happens on the right. I can't imagine having to fit all that on a single monitor, and if any of those apps were 'optimized' to prefer full screen mode, I'd go crazy.

To me, it seems ironic that an operating system named Windows has such a hard time allowing me to manage windows the way I'd like.

Re:Here's a study

[DoubleD]

I wonder if there is a utility that allows virtual desktops (no not the normal kind) where two or more windows could be maximized in different areas of a single monitor. This would be great for those 30" displays.

Does anyone know of such a thing?

Re:Here's a study

[DoubleD]

I do I do!

Hm perhaps I should have looked around a bit first.

If you have nView (comes with some nvidia cards, mine is a quadro something) you can go to the nView desktop manager/user interface tab and enable gridlines. Holding down ALT while clicking a maximize button maximizes the selected window inside the current grid square. There are more options to play with as well. Now you can save all that time normally spend tiling your huge screen.

Re:Here's a study

[arodland]

They're a hundred times better than nothing -- but having two monitors makes them even better. In my setup at work, two windows on the same desktop almost never cover each other. Instead, things are arranged by "tasks". Desktop 1 has email on the left and gaim on the right. When I want to be communicating, my fingers hit alt-1. Desktop two has xterms on the left and a web browser on the right (web programming is what I do), so I program here and test there, with one keystroke to hop between active monitors. Desktop 3 has whatever else I want to keep going, like a music player. And that's about all it takes for regular use (though on a single-head machine I will use 5-6 desktops instead of 3-4). The idea is A) arrange it so that things you need to switch between most often are on the same desktop, and B) use them consistently so that changing desktops is as natural a motion as moving your head. You shouldn't even notice yourself doing it. It will make you a more productive man, woman, or small furry creature from Alpha Centauri.

Re:Here's a study

[michaelkenward]

A good strategy is to have a widescreen monitor beside a standard format monitor. I have a 20-inch widescreen (1680x1050) beside a 17-inch standard 1280x1024). They are about the same height. This helps when you switch xsometh8ing from one to the other. The two screens line up nicely pixel to pixel. The widescreen can hold two portrait format word processor windows, the other monitor can then have something like your email or browser visible. Then you can quickly move between these without having to change the visible windows.

Re:Here's a study

[dreddnott]

You're so wrong I wish it was funny.

I've seen many 19" (and 20") LCD monitors with a native resolution of 1600x1200.

In fact, here's a great Guide to Choosing the Right 19" LCD Monitor, from 3 years ago that reviews 19" LCD monitors with various aspect ratios.

As for 16:9 LCD monitors, here's another great article.

While I worked at a computer recycling company, we had a contract with a large monitor manufacturer (birds logo) and I had the opportunity to see and test many different types of LCD TVs, monitors, and some LCD displays that were very suitable for both. In short, you might want to avoid the rash sweeping generalizations that characterised your post.

Re:Here's a study

[odoketa]

I don't know that MS is our best choice for scientific research on a topic they might have an interest in. A small study (with admittedly some corporate involvement) was done at Utah. Titled "Productivity and Multi-Screen Computer Displays" and written by Colvin, Janet, Nancy Tobler and James A. Anderson. The abstract sums it up: "Multi-screens scored significantly higher on every measure." I would have sworn another study came out more recently, stating basically the same results - in the neighbourhood of 20 percent efficiency gains, though I can't remember what the comparison was. Apple also paid for a study, titled "The 30-inch Apple Cinema HD Display Productivity Benchmark", but again, they have a certain interest in selling big screens....

Re:Here's a study

[sootman]

With multiple monitors, software can be manipulated easily to take up exactly half of the display... I don't believe achieving this is easy with a single large display.

It's easy in Windows. And it works with more than two apps (though more than 4 gets crowded)
1) bring one of your desired apps to the foreground
2) while pressing the 'control' key, click on the taskbar button(s) of the other app(s) you want to see
3) right-click and choose 'tile vertically' or 'tile horizontally'
3) note that with 4 apps, you'll get a grid no matter which you choose (IIRC; don't have a Windows box handy.)

Back (somewhat) on topic, I find people are pretty evenly split as to whether they prefer one large monitor or two small ones. I hate working on multiple displays; a friend of mine loves it. He loves the distinct workspaces; I hate the gap.

Maximizing one app per window works well, but so many other things don't work, or don't work well. You only get one taskbar. On Macs, you only get one menubar and one dock. Potential weird behavior if you have them stacked top-bottom (like when you've got a laptop on a desk in front of a raised monitor) especially on Macs, where you can now drag things through and past the dock and menubar. Sometimes weird things happen, like dialogs and warnings appearing on the wrong screen. On Macs, which don't have a 'containing' window for apps, it might be unpredictable where a new window/document will appear in response to file -> new. God only knows how virtual desktops will behave. Etc etc etc. If I can afford it, I prefer one large display--none of these quirks apply.

My favorite solution of all? Two computers, two identical monitors, and Synergy.

Re:Here's a study

[postmortem]

You can't buy 19" with 1600x1200 resolution, yes, there are 20.1" ones with 1600x1200, but you were talking about 19" which per rule have 1280x1024 5:4 resolution unless they are widescreen. Same applies to 16:10 screens that you declared to be 16:9. Simply, you were wrong on both counts.

Re:Here's a study

[pipingguy]

3) Moderate sized 4:3 flat panel displays cost a fraction of the price of an Apple 30" display. The Apple 30" display is $1500-2000, 19" 4:3 displays are $200-250 each.

On the other hand, a multiple monitor setup cannot benefit from SLI, which is a pain. Four LCD monitors (19" and 22" widescreen) in a quad arrangement is nice for multiple tasks but one 30" would be better for plant design walk/flythroughs and yes, gaming.

Re:Here's a study

[InvalidError]

I use both virtual desktops and dual display together... and I have been using a dual-display setup at home for about seven years now.

As many have pointed out, one of the most fundamental benefits of dual display setups is having input/editors on one screen and output/viewers on the other without having to do any switching of any sort. No window manager however good it may be can do this. I use virtual desktops on top of dual displays so I can keep related windows grouped.

Personally, I would consider going back to single-display in a work environment absolutely unacceptable for anything but the most trivial or momentaneous tasks. On my last job, about 90% of all engineering seats (~300) had either dual-monitor setups or 30" Dells... the remaining 10% had at least triple or quad setups while a few exceptions (under 10 seats) had 6 or 8 displays setups. Even part-timers, junior engineers and interns had dual-display setups.

I guesstimate that having a second display improves my efficiency by about 30% and substantially reduces the frustration of having to continuously open/close windows for every little thing. Going back to single-display (below QWUXGA resolution) after so many years of dual would be something like a 50% handicap for me now.

Re:Here's a study

[falconwolf]

I think having two monitors is totally unnecessary, simply because they make very big single monitors now. Many of my co-workers have gotten the Apple 30" monitor, which has more screen real-estate than two 1600x1200 screens put together, and no big black line down the middle. It's almost too big, you have to turn your head to cover the whole thing.

I suppose it depends on what you do. A lot of photographers/graphics pros efficiently use dual monitors. We will have the graphic or photo we are editing open in a large monitor then have all of the tools and pallets open in a smaller monitor. Screen real estate is priceless. Other occupations can benefit with dual monitor setups as well.

Falcon

Re:Here's a study

[Kris_J]

On the other hand, a multiple monitor setup cannot benefit from SLI, which is a pain.

It can if you use Matrox's TripleHead2Go.

Re:Here's a study

[pipingguy]

I use 4 monitors, not 3. Having 4 comes in handy when doing a lot of stuff simultaneously but most of the time it's just too much disrupted visual real estate. That's why I'm looking at getting a 30" display that can use my current video cards' SLI feature.

As an ex-Montrealer I was a Matrox guy until they dropped the ball with 3D - I need 3D for my work.

Re:Here's a study

[toddestan]

Exactly. If someone knows of a desktop monitor with 1600x1200 or greater resolution in something 17" or smaller, I would love to hear about it.

Re:Here's a study

[toddestan]

The 17" and 20" widescreen combination does work fairly well, but I must point out that 1280x1024 isn't really a standard format. It's actually a wierd 5:4 aspect ratio, and the only place I have ever seen a 5:4 aspect ratio is with 1280x1024 screens. 1280x1024 should really be 1280x960, which is a proper 4:3 ratio, and is the resolution CRTs should be set at so the image is not stretched.

Re:Here's a study

[Gazzonyx]

Considering how often you post and your sig., I'd say that you, my friend, have flame retardant underwear!
I salute you!

Re:Here's a study

[michaelkenward]

Must be a rogue monitor I have. It is a Samsung 171s. The specifications read: Optimum resolution 1280 x 1024@60Hz Maximum resolution 1280 x 1024@76Hz Looks very odd at 1280x960.

Re:Here's a study

[Kris_J]

I prefer not having a join in the middle, and the TripleHead2Go lets me use any powerful 3D card with triplehead.

Re:Here's a study

[SanityInAnarchy]

You can't compare two full sized windows with them

Yes, you can.

First, you can, in fact, use both. I've seen people who love to work that way.

Second, I'm not sure I get why "full sized" == a single screen. I suppose that's -- again -- the domain of the window manager. If your "maximize" button is your only way of making a window automatically big, and it always maximizes to exactly one physical screen, then sure. I don't mind placing things by hand, though -- web browser surrounded by four or five terminal windows, for example, and I don't even have to turn my head -- and there are all kinds of window managers, several of which completely take away that manual work. And also, I've seen entirely too many setups where "maximize" is broken and will maximize the window across both screens.

Re:Here's a study

[SanityInAnarchy]

As many have pointed out, one of the most fundamental benefits of dual display setups is having input/editors on one screen and output/viewers on the other without having to do any switching of any sort. No window manager however good it may be can do this.

This one might. (Disclaimer: I haven't bothered to actually learn this, but it seems like it's exactly what you're looking for, if limited to a single screen.)

I tend to do that by hand. Often this looks like a web browser in the upper right of the screen, three terminals down the left hand side, one under the browser, and Gaim in the lower right. Now I don't even need to do virtual desktops unless I also want something else, like email. Bonus: Unlike dual monitors, I don't even have to turn my head to go from documentation/output to terminal/editor/input.

Going back to single-display (below QWUXGA resolution) after so many years of dual would be something like a 50% handicap for me now.

I hear you -- occasionally, I have to use a display at 1024x768 or some such, or a window manager (OS?) without virtual desktops, and I feel crippled. My main work machine now is 1600x1200, which means it's trivial to open six 80x24 terminals, neatly tiled in a 2x3 grid, and have room to spare.

But again, the need for a separate physical monitor is more one of price than anything else. Worst case, you could get a ginormous, say, Apple Cinema display, and hack your OS to think it's two monitors (so stuff will automatically maximize to only half the screen). The reason people don't do that is the dual monitors are cheaper than one bigger monitor. Just stressing the point that ultimately, it's about physical space and virtual space, not about actual number of physical monitors.

Re:Here's a study

[toddestan]

Every 17" LCD I have seen is built with a 5:4 ratio, so the 1280x1024 resolution is correct for your monitor. 17" (and 19") LCD screens are also the only screens that are built with a 5:4 ratio, which is why I consider them oddball because the aspect ration actually makes them even more squarish than other non-widescreens. 17" CRTs are built with a 4:3 ratio, hence the need for 1280x960 or you end up stretching the image horizontally.

Re:Here's a study

[michaelkenward]

This is very confusing. My 17-inch regular monitor sits beside the 20-inch widescreen monitor with both in the correct resolution and with absolutely no sign of any stretching or compressing of images on either screen. Perhaps it is down to the video card you use. Mine allows both to operate as they should, with independent control of the resolution on each monitor. That is why I recommend this arrangement. Two widescreen monitors would eat a lot of desk space. This way I have the advantage of what is effectively a three-pane arrangement, with the widescreen monitor showing two documents side by side and the 17-inch monitor adding another document. Nothing is distorted on either screen. And given that the resolutions are within a gnat's crotchet of each other, both are about 27-mm high they line up very nicely.

Re:Here's a study

[julesh]

3. My monitors are arranged to surround me, rather than forming a flat panel.

You are not driving an indy car simulation. The 30" is big, I'll give you that. It's not so big that you have to crane your neck or do some odd eyeball contortions to see things.

The problem with having a non-straight view on something is not really to do with discomfort: it's to do with faithfulness of reproduction. When you're viewing a display obliquely, parallel lines do not appear parallel. This can be a problem when you're working on something visual. Also, with LCD displays, colour fidelity varies with the angle of view. If I place my monitors flat against the wall behind them, I can see noticeable colour variations across a field that I know is a block of a single colour. This can cause problems when you're working on a project that requires you to spot errors of colour reproduction (e.g. spotting low-colour images on a web site that have lost an important colour during colour-space reduction).

Re:Here's a study

[Andy Dodd]

If you're using that kind of a highend setup, then yeah, a 30" monitor makes sense. That's probably for less than 5% of engineers and 1% of office workers in general (probably even less than 1% of engineers). There are a lot of people who NEVER do 3D work, but lots of programming, graphing, and documentation.

Conservatively:
5% have any need for an SLI setup
90% could effectively use dual monitors but SLI is massive overkill (I'm in this category, I have no idea why my deskop box has a Quadro, i'd rather have a crap video card with dual monitors than a Quadro that's probably worth more than the cost of a second monitor.)
5% don't need dual monitors or large monitors.

Re:Here's a study

[pipingguy]

Quadros are nice. A cube neighbour just got a "slower" machine (in CPU cycles) with less RAM but equipped with a 350 (only 128 MB VRAM, I think) and it just flies (sorry for the pun) through 3D piping models without stuttering or too many drop-outs. The old machine had a Matrox G550 which is notorious for poor OpenGL and non-gaming 3D.

Some Quadros sell for $4K or so. Those must be for really complicated, huge models.

Always

[thegrassyknowl]

I had two monitors on my desk for a long time. One eventually got bad enough they replaced it with a flat panel. The new panel was so good that I couldn't use the remaining CRT (and also, my eyes were fucked as a result of the shitty old CRT they wouldn't replace sooner).

Long story short, I ditched the second CRT and they wouldn't replace it. My productivity dropped enormously. I actually found it most beneficial to have email, a browser or some documentation for the toolkits I was using open in fullscreen on the second display. It made finding a reference a simply matter of glancing across rather than bringing up another window, losing the context of what I was doing then having to do the shuffle back and forward.

Not only that, but I save on printing because I can keep things open on the second screen for reference like the output of a program working on. The same applies to anyone who is expected to multi-task at work though. Two screens are better than one unless the one screen is a 30" high resolution panel.

I don't know how anyone wrote software back in the days before dual high resolution screens. It's a time consuming chore, requiring a number of dead tree tomes open on one's desk and constant shuffling about.

Re:Always

[tomhudson]

"I don't know how anyone wrote software back in the days before dual high resolution screens."

Simple - we had both a vga and a monochrome monitor hooked up to the same computer (vga video + hercules mono). Borlands' compilers, dbase, etc. all supported the /dual command-line switch. Also, you could switch monitors manually "mode co80" "mode mono" . Use ansi.sys to assign each string to a function key, and switching monitors was a 1-keystroke operation.

It was nice to be able to step through your source on one monitor while watching the output on the other. Or hae a batch file display the passwords on the mono monitor, then launch a game on the vga (anyone remember "Death Track"? :-).

So yes, there's a couple of decades to back up the assertion that dual monitors are better.

Re:Always

[justthinkit]

I don't know how anyone wrote software back in the days before dual high resolution screens.

Answer: MultiEdit.

Seriously, what the heck is wrong with using a text editor to program? Ok, maybe I'm biased because I'm so old I am genetically incapable of learning OOP but shouldn't 100 files open at once be enough for anyone?

Re:Always

[ec_hack]

I don't know how anyone wrote software back in the days before dual high resolution screens. We used paper tape or punch cards. If we were lucky, there was a line editor available on the TSO (Time Sharing Option) terminals. Getting one compile a day makes you very, very cautious and detail oriented in your programmming.

Besides, it's a great feeling when you can take an offending block of code out of the deck and rip it to shreds

Re:Always

[Nasarius]

I don't know how you think that addresses the GP's needs. I use the split features of vim, KDE's multiple desktops, KDevelop or Eclipse, etc. But it simply doesn't compare to having the API reference on one monitor and your editor in the other, or any number of similar situations where you want to be able to look at two things without switching back and forth constantly.

Re:Always

[Znork]

"I don't know how anyone wrote software back in the days before dual high resolution screens."

There was no internet so all documentation was on dead trees, and all the mail as well.

If you need to demonstrate the point, set up a script to automatically print all your mail and simply print and/or request all documentation in book form.

Re:Always

[theonetruekeebler]

I remember doing that with Borland C's very nice IDE: I was writing a set of graphical tools for VGA, so I could display the app there and step through code on the mono. It made debugging a snap, even for non-graphical apps, because I wouldn't have to keep switching views back and forth.

I kept the monitor and card in the attic for years, and in 2001 when my headless Pentium III Linux server stopped responding, rather than dragging my 60-lbs Trinitron monitor down to the basement, I dropped the 8-bit ISA Hercules card into the single, lonely ISA slot on the motherboard, plugged in the green screen monitor, and watched in amazement as the boot messages scrolled past just as happy as can be. The card says (c) 1981 on it and I loved having this mixture of new and ancient technology functioning together in a single system. I kept it together like that for years, along with my PC-AT keyboard, just for the atavistic thrill of it all.

Nowadays I much, much prefer having two LCD screens in front of me -- one with documentation and debris, and the other with the tasks at hand.

Re:Always

[MMC Monster]

I don't know how anyone wrote software back in the days before dual high resolution screens. It's a time consuming chore, requiring a number of dead tree tomes open on one's desk and constant shuffling about.

They were probably doing the same thing I was: Dual low resolution screens. At least in the late 80s. Before that maybe it was dual punch card readers, probably.

Re:Always

[Hognoxious]

Man, I remember TSO and something called ELIPS I think. It sucked, but a lot less than Roscoe. Happy days (except when I had to write JCL [shudder] ).

Re:Always

[justthinkit]

The difference between having to turn your head -- I mean some people are advocating four monitors FFS -- and pressing Alt-Tab (or equiv.) comes down to personal preference, really. Even on my single 24" 1920x1200 LCD I have "here, and over there" moments (i.e. at times, some stuff on the screen is too far for my peripheral vision to see it easily/ideally, and adding more square feet of screen real estate compounds this problem).

The cost of four monitors is more than one 24" one -- even with free LCDs, the video card(s) upgrade(s) and time/ongoing hassle are still hefty. Also, 4 displays and 2 or more video cards use more juice. So more than one monitor is not an obvious choice -- in fact I've tried (developed with) both and know that I do not like 2+ monitors.

Look, every ap wants to be full screen, just ask any novice. But isn't that the point of /., to rise above this level of "use" to window management? 1920x (and even 1650x) give me enough width to have two things up at once. Two things is enough the vast majority of the time. For other times, there are various ways to create and place various sized windows to deal with this. To be truly productive one needs to minimize the times when one just has to have 3+ big windows active. Really.

I think the only people who really really need multiple monitors are traffic controllers/monitors -- including air & train traffic controllers, and shipping or network management centers. These are a true "show me everything at once" application.

Re:Always

[tomhudson]

I won't go back to a single monitor setup - I want a 3rd. Maybe its time to start thinking about those oversized jobbies?

Did the same thing..

[Jearil]

At my job we had a consultant that worked on the desk behind mine. After he left his computer area was left abandoned, and actually the desk and other parts of it were to go to me for my work area (for some reason my boss felt I needed both a desk and a "writing table"). Anyway, they didn't seem to have any purpose for the computer and monitor on the desk when I asked my supervisor, so I hooked up that second monitor to my machine.

I of course told my supervisor about this, who after hearing the explanation of it thought it was actually a good idea. All I needed to do was write up a justification on why I needed a second monitor, and they let me have it. Justification isn't really that hard, especially if you're a programmer. The ability to have your IDE or editor or whatnot on one screen while viewing the output, documentation, or APIs on another is incredibly useful, and can speed up your work significantly. I'd go and say something like that to whatever supervisor or person in charge of equipment before they got to looking at the equipment at your desk.

Interestingly, after I got my second monitor, a coworker friend of mine came to my desk from the building across the street and saw the setup and was extremely jealous. He ended up finding a spare monitor near his desk for his own setup. After that, all of the people near his desk saw his setup and wanted it to. We actually ended up having some ITS meetings where enough people brought up the idea of dual-monitors that it's now a standard request for people to get with minimal justification. So who knows, maybe you'll start a trend like what happened for me.

Re:Did the same thing..

[jamesh]

We recently sold one of our clients (accounting firm) about 100 flat screen displays, quite a few second (or dual) video adapters, and a few computers (to replace ones that couldn't be upgraded) to give their 80 or so users 2 displays each.

Anyone with a laptop now seems to have an additional display hanging off it now too.

It is definitely catching on.

Re:Did the same thing..

[acidrain69]

I had the same thing. I took a spare CRT, and my boss at the time really liked the setup, so he got me matching 17" LCD's. One of my coworkers also got matching 17's. My old boss now has 4 monitors, 2 19" LCD's, a 17", and a widescreen 24. He only really does work on 2 of them, the 17 is for viewing our internal help desk website for new tickets, and the widescreen is for our camera DVR system. My new boss now has a 19" LCD to connect to his laptop, and we are talking about pushing 2 monitors down to some of the regular non-IT employees in certain positions where they would benefit.

It's nice to work in an environment where people recognize potential productivity increase when they see it. 17" LCDs are cheap now. Easily $150 or less. A spare video card or a dual vid card can be cheap, I spent $35 on the one I use at work.

If you job complains about spending $150 on a long term investment in your productivity, then you should start looking for a new job. Of course, people are giving away CRTs all the time, you could always offer to bring one in. Check freecycle.

Re:Did the same thing..

[marekbrz]

Ditto to the parent posters. I recently got a job at a university, in the biochemistry department, doing part time research. My job requires me to look at a LOT of images from electron microscopes, which can end up being large images. In addition to simply looking at them, I need to use a program called Spider to manipulate and do all sorts of things to the images. The problem is that Spider has probably the most bizarre and confusing syntax I've ever had the misfortune to use, which requires a reference manual up at almost all times.

Since it's a Linux desktop, I could use Virtual desktops and all that jazz, but I've never really became used to using them (while I've used Linux for roughly 4-5 years, my primary computer is a Mac, which doesn't do virtual desktops out of the box). Anyway, since this is a university, I figured that there would be a spare monitor somewhere, which after about five minutes of searching proved my intuition correct. I set up the two monitors, half expecting my boss to take one down, since the computer now had two bigass 21" CRTs.

I was wrong, as he loves the setup. I got a call today saying he ordered two 21" flat panels to replace the CRTs. That plus the RAID array we're getting soon, means I'm definitely looking forward to going to work this weekend. This is definitely the best job a university student can have... :-)

Re:Did the same thing..

[HTH NE1]

Interestingly, after I got my second monitor, a coworker friend of mine came to my desk from the building across the street and saw the setup and was extremely jealous. He ended up finding a spare monitor near his desk for his own setup. After that, all of the people near his desk saw his setup and wanted it to. We actually ended up having some ITS meetings where enough people brought up the idea of dual-monitors that it's now a standard request for people to get with minimal justification. So who knows, maybe you'll start a trend like what happened for me.

Here, the potential for jealousy was a reason to veto any justifications for a long time. The only thing that turned it around was an updating of our training room (for visiting customers) to LCDs that led to an excess of 17" CRTs. Suddenly, anyone who wanted two displays could have them for the asking. Remaining excess were sold off for home use. Now any CRTs that die are replaced with LCDs.

Thing is, high-res CRTs are still much cheaper than comparable DVI LCDs. Even though my video card at home can use a dual-link DVI display, when my old VGA died I got another VGA running at 2048x1536 rather than a 2560x1600 Dual-link DVI for 3-4 times as much money. But I still use a small 1280x1024 LCD display next to it (ADC->DVI adapted).

And since it's VGA, I can still use it with my KVM switch on four computers. I couldn't do that with any DVI display without buying a new KVM switch.

Re:Did the same thing..

[c_ollier]

If space permits, you could use Synergy to control both computers from a single mouse/keyboard.

You setup the screens side by side, just like a dual monitor setup, but each is connected to his own computer. Install Synergy on each computer (OSS, there are Win, Mac, Unix versions). The computer with the keyboard/mouse you're using is the server, the other the client. You have then to inform Synergy of the relative positions of diplays.

When you move the mouse pointer from your PC to the client's screen, Synergy switches it from local control on the server, to remote control on the client.

Of course, you can't drag windows between screens, but the clipboard is shared.

Re:Did the same thing..

[RyoShin]

The ability to have your IDE or editor or whatnot on one screen while viewing the output, documentation, or APIs on another is incredibly useful, and can speed up your work significantly.

This is even more noticeable when doing web programming.

You open FireFox or Opera in one monitor, set it to the page or site you are working on, and use an extension like ReloadEvery (Opera has this feature built in, I believe) to have it refresh every five minutes or so. Then you just code in the other window, saving as you complete portions. What you save eventually shows up in the firest monitor, and if you break something your peripheral vision will catch the major change in the FireFox/Opera screen, alerting you to the problem.

In my experience...

[FredDC]

At my previous job I was also using 2 monitors, which definitely made me more productive as I could more easily compare information on different screens.

At my current job I only have 1 monitor and it took me a while to get used to it again. I would ask for a second screen but I already know the answer... "No, because otherwise everyone would want a second screen."

While on my departement, everyone would be better of with having a second screen, the average amount of windows open at the same time is at least 10. It would definitely increase productivity but explaining this to management who at most have their e-mail and text processor open is a lost cause I fear. Well, at least at home I have 2 screens to enjoy.

Also, on a related note, I found synergy to be an amazing tool when using multiple computers at the same time. It allows you to share the same mouse and keyboard between multiple computers by sending the signal over the network and it behaves just as if you had multiple screens on 1 computer (move between screens by going to the side of the screen). I haven't used it for a while though because I didn't have to work on multiple computers at the same time. But if you are, definitely check it out!

Re:In my experience...

[Andy Dodd]

Synergy is wonderful. Unfortunately, a lot of corporate IT departments will likely frown upon it for security reasons, which is why I never try to use it when I have both my laptop and desktop turned on at work.

Re:In my experience...

[jbrannon]

Also, on a related note, I found synergy to be an amazing tool when using multiple computers at the same time. It allows you to share the same mouse and keyboard between multiple computers by sending the signal over the network and it behaves just as if you had multiple screens on 1 computer (move between screens by going to the side of the screen). I haven't used it for a while though because I didn't have to work on multiple computers at the same time. But if you are, definitely check it out!

Amen! I'm currently working on-campus at my college's computer science lab, and I was asked to "see if we want Vista" (that's a whole other topic - not even going to touch that) when they get new boxes this summer. So, they built me a "Vista" box (riiight - 2.4GHz P4, *512MB* RAM, onboard video). I put it right next to my normal work box (WinXPPro) and run synergy on both. Makes life a lot easier - when I want to kill myself, I just move the mouse back onto the XP computer. Then I'm just depressed, not suicidal. ;-)

Re:In my experience...

[eln]

I used to use Synergy, and it worked really well. Unfortunately, it doesn't work with our VPN. At work, I have a Linux box and a Windows box. The Linux box is constantly VPN'd into the server network, which is not normally reachable from the internal office network.

The Windows box is a laptop, and the Linux box is a desktop. I have a second monitor hooked up to the laptop, so I effectively have 3 displays (laptop builtin display, extra monitor for laptop, and monitor for desktop). This way, I have plenty of screen real estate.

To solve the VPN issue, I had to switch to x2vnc. It works just fine over the VPN. The only disadvantage is that it lags significantly when the Windows box gets busy (like during a virus scan). Luckily, the keyboard and mouse are physically connected to the Linux box, so I can still use the box I do most of my actual work on while the Windows box calms down.

Re:In my experience...

[Skewray]

I've always been extremely annoyed that when I move the mouse off of the right edge of Windows monitor, it doesn't appear on my Linux monitor. One gets used to the mobile mouse with a multihead machine, but switching machines still takes a chair rotation. I can imagine a Linux-controlled KVM to manage this, but not a Windows one.

Re:In my experience...

[JesterXXV]

I would ask for a second screen but I already know the answer... "No, because otherwise everyone would want a second screen."

Ask anyway. And keep asking. There needs to be a change of mindset above you before anything happens, and at least you'll put the idea in their heads, even if they reject it. At my job, we're slowly starting to transition everybody to duals, and I know it was a few persistent people who helped spread the meme.

Re:In my experience...

[Anonymous Coward]

Use ssh tunnelling. Several articles are out there for syn plus ssh. Ignoring my syn config (which is just the minimal/normal synergy setup), I just have two *TINY* scripts:

syns:

#!/bin/bash
synergys -c /home/username/.synergy/synergy.conf

syn:

#!/bin/bash
# Startup the Synergy Client...
/usr/bin/killall synergyc
sleep 1
ssh -f -N -L 24800:localhost:24800 192.168.1.3
/usr/local/bin/synergyc --name thismachinesnamefromsynergyconfig localhost

You'll need to user your own vals for thismachinesnamefromsynergyconfig, 192.168.1.3 (the server's IP), and username (to whatever your home linux path is on the client box).

Syn's pretty cool. I keep wanting to do a workbench / home 4 or 5 screen setup. Old sun box, 2 laptops, my dual-screen workhorse... and synergy. Yum.

Re:In my experience...

[kramulous]

That made me feel sad .... very sad. I know that it is a never ending battle against management with little computer knowledge. It's hard to battle ignorance.
 
But fight you must ... don't let the dark side of the force win.

Re:Forget extra monitors

[Ihlosi]

Unless you are actually needing to see more things at the same time, extra monitors are a waste of desk space and electricity.

I supposed you don't need to look at data sheets while you program. Sure, you don't need to see the IDE and the datasheet at the same time, but just switching between the two fullscreen apps on a single monitor costs you more than enough time, since you lose track of what was in the old window and need to orient yourself in the new window.

It's pixel count that really matters

[ergo98]

For years I've been a fervent advocate of multiple monitors, largely because the limited pixel count on any given monitors means that users often maximize applications, so going between documentation and an app, or a helpful webpage and the IDE, etc, is usually one or the other.

Hence the advantage of dual monitors, allowing you to display one or several apps (or tool windows) on one, and the other apps on the other.

I'm reconsidering now, however, and pondering just getting a very high resolution 24" widescreen display, changing my usage to actually keeps windows as windows.

Re:It's pixel count that really matters

[Fjan11]

It's more than pixel count. On Windows and Mac the user interface makes a windows automatically "raise to front" if it gets input focus, obscuring other windows behind it. If you want to keep view the contents of another window you need to do a resize and move for two windows. If you have two monitors you can put an otherwise obscured window on the second monitor and no resizing is needed. (Of course, this assumes you work on a UI that does auto-raise, not all do)

Dupe?

[Hognoxious]

Does asking the same question twice mean you get twice the quality of answers? I'm pretty certain I've seen this asked in the last six months.

Re:Dupe?

[Hognoxious]

Oct 2006 is five years ago? How about I just ignore you, dimwit?

Hidden ? Obvious.

[Ihlosi]

Wrong, when audited, you can't compare a hidden benefit with a visible cost, no matter how positive it might eventually be.

If your salary is $50 an hour, then every second you spend on unproductive things becomes a very visible cost, especially if those seconds add up.

If the bean-counters at the company don't see that, they're effectively incompetent. Which usually points to bad prospects for the future of the company.

Re:Hidden ? Obvious.

[aadvancedGIR]

I disagree, wasted time is a cost, but it is not visible one, I would even say it is the best example of hidden cost since it has a real effect on your productivity but doesn't show on beancounter's charts because it doesn't change your salary.

Re:Hidden ? Obvious.

[midnighttoadstool]

That's all very platitudinous, but you haven't actually addressed the guy's argument.

Re:Hidden ? Obvious.

[kalirion]

If your salary is $50 an hour, then every second you spend on unproductive things becomes a very visible cost, especially if those seconds add up.

So how much money has Slashdot cost your company?

Re:Hidden ? Obvious.

[Canthros]

A salary isn't really by the hour, of course. If you're salaried, you get paid the same, no matter how many hours you work. The to this argument is not that it will save money, but that you can do more. Unfortunately, the increase in productivity needs demonstration.

Re:Hidden ? Obvious.

[Bacon Bits]

So how much money has Slashdot cost your company?

Not much, I got two monitors!

Re:Hidden ? Obvious.

[jfengel]

Interesting. Is there a classic way to externalize such hidden costs?

Programmer productivity has always been a difficult thing to measure, which means that it's difficult to justify any tool a programmer uses, right down to the computer on his desk.

It seems to me that there should be some way to tell the auditors, "We used to develop 27 lines of code per hour here, and now we crank out 33." That justifies the cost in numerical terms, but since it introduces a new metric it doesn't really justify anything. Still, like I said, if they're going to insist on metrics, they're going to have to deal with the fact that for most shops the only metric for developers is "number of hours sitting at desk".

Re:Hidden ? Obvious.

[InsaneProcessor]

Very little, I use three monitors.

Re:Hidden ? Obvious.

[bcmbyte]

What are you kidding me? I keep slashdot in business because I am here so much. If I stopped visiting /. their they have to reduce what they charge to their advertisters. :P

Re:Hidden ? Obvious.

[viper66]

Where I work every programmer is on salary and gets two 19" monitors. The lucky ones get two 19" LCDs.

Re:Hidden ? Obvious.

[mahtoosacks]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ha not much cus i only make 15 an hour... i make them more... in the end its all even

Re:Hidden ? Obvious.

[vagabond_gr]

If your salary is $50 an hour, then every second you spend on unproductive things becomes a very visible cost, especially if those seconds add up.

If you make $50 an hour (approx. $100k a year) then go buy yourself a monitor and stop whining.

Re:Hidden ? Obvious.

[jafac]

The value of the pedantry and trollery notwithstanding, I would argue that the time I spend on slashdot is TIME WELL SPENT.

I'm not about to quantify that - I have neither the expertise, nor the time to produce hard numbers supporting this idea. But if you read Stephen Covey's "7 habits of highly successful people" - you read about a habit called "sharpening the saw". 30 minutes to an hour a day, SURFING THE WEB, has exposed me to ideas and information I would never have been exposed to any other way. Every day I deal with "engineers" who are completely clueless to entire areas of knowledge - anything outside their little niche of expertise, may as well not exist.

Of course, you have to be judicious about where you spend your time. 30 minutes a day on the boss's clock, looking at porn and webcomics is not likely to make you a better, or more innovative worker. But sites like Groklaw, Slashdot, Sourceforge, Wikipedia, etc. can really broaden your horizons.

As a tech lead, I encourage my workers to do a little bit of online saw-sharpening.
But I have not been caught by my boss yet. :)

Re:Hidden ? Obvious.

[mikael]

It seems to me that there should be some way to tell the auditors, "We used to develop 27 lines of code per hour here, and now we crank out 33."

Measure the amount of the time it takes to make a change in the source code, recompile, run and test, then propagate the changes back to the other programmers using the source code management tools, and then recompile on the other systems.

Re:Hidden ? Obvious.

[ystar]

I think this is part of the reason I'd bring a monitor from home to work (were I not in school full-time). Whether it's an old 15-inch LCD that hasn't been turned on in years (I always planned to make a projector with it...) or my 1600x1200 main monitor to switch out with the presumably crappy starter monitor waiting on my desk at the new job, I could work *productively* on one and use the other one for either a) "inspiration" - rss feeds of /. or whatever, sort of like family photos but nerdier b) actual useful tasks such as reference material What's the boss going to say? I can't use my own equipment? I just hope it doesn't serve as justification for all businesses to stop buying their employees monitors when they hear that many tech geeks have spare ones at home...

Re:Hidden ? Obvious.

[bkr1_2k]

Most companies I've worked for won't allow personal equipment to be used like that. Sure, you can bring in your ergo chair and your personal radio (no streaming media here) but don't even think about bringing in your PC equipment to enhance your work. That's not allowed, specifically because of auditing.

Good luck trying to do that when you get into the workforce...maybe you'll have better luck than I have.

Re:Hidden ? Obvious.

[blhack]

I couldn't agree with you more. I work as IT for a relatively small company (we have about 200 employees, 50 of them have workstations)......on most days there isn't a WHOLE lot for me to do...so i spend a lot of time just reading slashdot or messing around with my linux boxes. My recent projects have been playing with soekris/WRAP/router boards and big honkin' ubiquiti cards. These are projects that have payed off, I've doubled our wireless networks coverage area (something people were telling us we could only do if we spent crazy money on cisco gear). So time not spent fixing peoples computers is spent just sharpening my skills, and/or reading about new technologies and techniques.

Re:Hidden ? Obvious.

[Shipwack]

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of monitors...

Re:Hidden ? Obvious.

[twifosp]

If wasted time is a cost, but not a visible one then you aren't measuring your productivity correctly. Or you don't have it tied to a spending cost correctly.

There are times when measuring every little productivty cost is a waste of time, but it's hardly a hidden one.

Re:Hidden ? Obvious.

[pipingguy]

Or is it: "Time...well,...spent."

"Everybody knows that A&E's slogan is Time Well Spent. Well, in this case, it's still the same, but is a little different. This show will be Time... well...? spent."

RIP Richard Jeni

Re:Hidden ? Obvious.

[sarahbau]

What's the boss going to say? I can't use my own equipment? Probably. Most companies I've worked with don't like people bringing in their own stuff, at least not electronic or computer equipment. My first job was in an art department, since I was new, and only 18, they put me on the oldest computer - a Macintosh Quadra 700 (which used a 25MHz 68040). The computer was ridiculously slow, and I was using something more than 10 times faster at home. I asked my boss if I could bring in my old computer since it was still several times faster than the Quadra, but he wouldn't let me. It didn't matter that I would be more productive.

Re:Hidden ? Obvious.

[WNight]

Use waste as the metric. Figure out how long you need to do given subtasks, how much faster they are, and how often you have to do those things. Lack of waste doesn't translate into productivity - you could use your new time to slack harder, but it's a good start.

Re:Hidden ? Obvious.

[lhand]

Is there a classic way to externalize such hidden costs? There sure is. It's called FTE for Full Time Equivalant. It is based on how many full time employees something will save/cost the company.

"We used to develop 27 lines of code per hour here, and now we crank out 33." Let's see, that works out to 6 extra lines of code pre hour. 6/27 is .22 FTE gained by using the extra monitor. The bean counters can compare the amortized cost of the monitor against the cost of .22 programmers and see that it's a bargin.

Piece of cake. Write it up like any project you'd propose.

Just be sure you can back up the numbers somewhat. And a supervisor or manager that agrees on the increased productivity would be a big help.

Re:Hidden ? Obvious.

[thegrassyknowl]

Severe amounts of wasted time are quite visible in many companies. I have heard of people who are required to book to a non-chargeable job rather than their project if they spend time waiting for their tools to do something (compiling, for example) and can't do another task in the mean time. Consequently they also have the latest and greatest quad-core machines running nice stable Linux to do their thinking for them because that reduced the amount of non-chargeable bookings.

Re:Hidden ? Obvious.

[mink]

Some places wont even let you bring in a chair.

I brought in a barstool once because the rack system I was working on was set up so that you had to be standing and holding your arms above chest level to type.

Operations saw it and told me since it had only 4 legs (I admit it dod have wheels on the legs) it was in violation of OSHA guidelines.

The problem is that there are about 20-30 office chairs that I see every day that only have 4 legs in the cross design rather then the new supposed OSHA complient 5 point layout.

Sometimes people are just assholes playing power games at work.

Works for me

[jamesh]

I spend a reasonable amount of time in RDP (Remote Desktop) sessions to clients MS Windows servers. Things are better these days but a few years ago we had a lot of customers on fairly slow connections, and RDP, being the wonderful protocol it is, wants to redraw whenever you bring it to the front.

So I would connect, log in, then wait for a a minute or two for the screen to draw (remember, I am normally connecting in to solve a problem, so performance is often much worse than normal!) then slowly try and figure out what is going on.

What made it horribly sucky was that I couldn't minimize the RDP window while it did it's thing, otherwise it would just start to redraw again. With a second screen I could just put the RDP session there and let it do its thing!

Just recently I have been porting an older C++ application to C#. I have the source code for each application on each screen, way faster than trying to flip between them on a single screen.

The nice thing is, this works so well _because_ they are two separate screens. Having one screen that was twice as wide just wouldn't be the same (unless it functioned as two screens of course :)

My setup is my 15" laptop display and a 17" CRT, both running 1024x768 resolution. I'm almost thinking I should track down a USB VGA adapter and run a 3rd screen. Performance might suck (being USB instead of PCI) but i wouldn't be doing anything on that display where that was an issue.

Hmmm... here's a more interesting question. At what number of screens does productivity start to drop? I guess the answer will depend on what tasks you are doing but it would sure make an interesting study... I'm imagining 3 screens across and 2 screens high as a starting point :)

Re:Works for me

[nelsonal]

Many trading floors (they spend whatever is desired on equipment) usually have no more than 4-6 screens usually deployed in an upside down T or 2x3 array. When you're spending a couple hundred thousand (bare minimum on the trader and at least $50,000 (Bloomberg alone is $20,000) on data services it pays to pay $600 on enough monitors to show all the data services.

Re:Works for me

[filet0fish]

I've got a triple monitor setup at work (2 17" LCDs and a 20" widescreen in the middle), but I had a 4 monitor setup for a while. I was only planning to go to 3 monitors, but the card I added supported two, so one of my coworkers scrounged up another 15" LCD. I found I really didn't use the 4th monitor much. It didn't hurt my productivity, I just rarely had any use for it. Usually it just had my music player or instant messenger list. I think the resolution across all four was something like 5000x1050.

For triple monitor, I typically have a text editor or file browser open on the left 17", the middle has my browser or the IDE for whatever language I'm working in, and the right 17" has email, IM, and music player. If I'm doing work in a remote desktop or a virtual machine I usually put that on which ever side monitor I'm not using at the moment.

So for the typical programmer, I'd say above 3 is overkill. I don't think it hurts productivity to have more, but the usefulness drops off after 3.

Re:Works for me

[RR]

I'm almost thinking I should track down a USB VGA adapter and run a 3rd screen.

That's what Matrox is for. Their DualHead2Go and TripleHead2Go allow you to attach multiple monitors that have the same resolution to the laptop at once. Though, I think there's some software weirdness if you want the benefits of having a window maximized on only one screen.

Re:Works for me

[toddestan]

Hmmm... here's a more interesting question. At what number of screens does productivity start to drop? I guess the answer will depend on what tasks you are doing but it would sure make an interesting study...

I found that if I really didn't have a use for the extra screens, they didn't cost me productivity, just desk space. I had quad head on my PC for a while, but found I almost never used the 4th monitor, so I eventually ditched it. I don't even use the third monitor half the time, but I would never give it up because it's great the other half of the time.

Re:Works for me

[Locklin]

Just recently I have been porting an older C++ application to C#. I have the source code for each application on each screen, way faster than trying to flip between them on a single screen.

I do that all the time: Ctrl x + 3 in Emacs.

second monitors are great for having a reference open all the time, but for re-writing or referencing code, a second monitor is too far away and too slow to scroll. They need to be right side by side and it should be just as easy to scroll your reference window as your working code.

If you really think it helps that much

[CastrTroy]

If you really think it helps that much, ask them if you can bring in your own monitor. You should be able to find one pretty cheap. I bring in my own trackball to work, because I don't like the mouse they gave me and I had an old trackball lying around that I was more comfortable with. If it doesn't cost them anything, I don't see why they would really refuse. But I work for a small company, so maybe things would be different for a larger corporation.

How many already have it, but aren't using it?

[TopShelf]

At both my current job and my previous one, we had plenty of people with laptops and docking stations at their desks, complete with CRT or flat panel monitor. At my previous job they seemed stunned when I simply opened up my laptop at the same time and ran dual-desktop between the laptop monitor and the CRT! Worse yet, at my current job the typical docking station had a platform on the top that the CRT sat on, meaning you couldn't open the laptop even if you wanted to. I removed the platform, opened the laptop, and entered dual-desktop nirvana.

Re:Forget extra monitors

[QuoteMstr]

Virtual desktops have several advantages compared to real ones:

• Switching latency: it's much slower to mash the keyboard to switch desktops than to move one's eye.
• Simultaneous typing: you can't enter text in one window on a virtual desktop while simultaneously viewing a window on a different virtual desktop; I do this all the time on my dual-monitor setup when looking at API documentation.
• Spanning: although it's ugly, spanning windows across both heads comes in handy more often than you'd think, especially for badly-written pages or images with strange aspect ratios.
• More space for monitors: with more _real_ desktop space, you have more space to put various useful sticky windows. For example, I have gkrellm instances monitoring our servers sticky on my left monitor; with a single-head setup, I'd have to leave the monitors on just one of the desktops, which would defeat the point of constant monitoring.

Yes

[Blackknight]

Do you work where I do? We're about to do the same thing but our management is smart enough to realize that multiple screens really helps. With two monitors I can keep an eye on our monitoring systems with one and work on the other, it makes keeping track of what's going on MUCH easier.

There's a reason stock traders have so many screens....

Re:Yes

[Crizp]

My employer also sees the sense in having dual monitors. Here, everyone has them -- from developers to support -- and I've not met one who thinks it's not a productivity advantage.

Re:Forget extra monitors

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Unless you are actually needing to see more things at the same time, extra monitors are a waste of desk space and electricity.

But what about those of us whose work does involve seeing more things at the same time?

At work, a lot of us have been picking up older screens to use as second monitors over the past year or so. This was mostly luck, rather than a management decision: someone noticed that the standard-issue graphics cards in one generation of PCs we had included two output ports, and tried it out with an old 17" CRT that was otherwise sitting idle.

Among other times this is useful for us in our everyday work:

• code vs. on-line help
• debugger vs. running program
• documentation tool vs. whatever is being documented (code, UI, etc.)
• diff tools (see full-width code lines side by side, one on each screen).

I could list many more, but those are fairly typical examples of things we do a lot during the course of our development jobs. It's not hard to imagine applications either: anything involving applications with lots of toolbars and such (graphics, CAD) must be a good candidate.

I don't have any quantitative data, but having made the switch myself a few months ago, I definitely spend a lot less time messing around changing windows and arranging desktops than I used to. The only annoyance is that I sometimes switch to look at the other screen without making the application there active, and then start typing. :-/

Don't do that.

[Ihlosi]

If you really think it helps that much, ask them if you can bring in your own monitor.

It's not the employees job to throw money at the company he works for. Unless doing something like that has benefits for you (like not getting carpal tunnel syndrome by using your own mouse), don't do it.

If the bean-counters are too stupid to invest in good working equipment, don't bail them out.

Re:Don't do that.

[gauauu]

If you are a salaried employee, getting your work done more efficiently helps both you and your company.

Benefits to you: less overtime, enjoying your job more, more likely to get a promotion and a pay increase

And I'd say, if you are so antagonistic toward your company that you'd refuse to invest a little bit of your own time/money into doing something that helps the company along with yourself, then you should quit and find a job with a company that you can really get behind.

Re:Don't do that.

[ktappe]

if you are so antagonistic toward your company that you'd refuse to invest a little bit of your own time/money into doing something that helps the company along with yourself

If the company removes his 2nd monitor without regard for his claims of it increasing his productivity, then it seems pretty clear the antagonism is coming from the company, not him. At that point the company is in no way whatsoever deserving of him putting his own time/money to the company.

Re:Don't do that.

[silicon not in the v]

That's a good, noble, smart-ass attitude about it, but not always realistic. Think of the difference of what happens.
First, if the company buys the monitor for you, it begins the jealousy factor, where others want to have it too, so managers and such, who wouldn't have any need for it, start asking, and it ends up wasting the company a lot of money.

If, on the other hand, you bring in a used monitor you got for free or $50 or so, you can do whatever you want with no hassle, and it put no obligation on the company. If anyone has any jealousy issues about it, the company can just say, "You're free to bring in an extra monitor for yourself if you want it too."

I agree that if the company has the budget to spare for it, and they're a decent company, they should be handling it, but depending on the number of employees and financial situation of the company, it's sometimes reasonable to help out on occasion when it does make your work easier. And I guess that does address your main point. It DOES benefit him, because being stuck using one monitor is awful and frustrating when you really want to work with two.

How far do you want to take that stand or yours? I brought in my scientific calculator from home, and most of the engineers I work with have their own personal calculators here at work, too. Calculators are not a one-size-fits-all; there's some personal preference there, but I wouldn't demand the company to order me one because "it's for work, and they should provide it". I also really like a certain type of pen, which the company doesn't have in the supply cupboards, so I bring those from home, too. I guess the guiding principle I have is that the company provides what's needed to do the job, but if there are extras that make it easier, and the cost is fairly cheap, I don't mind getting it for my own convenience. You could also think of it this way, that the company pays well, so if there are some things you want to buy to customize your work area, they've indirectly bought them for you. But by it being general funds in everyone's check, each person can customize what they want, instead of the company having to manage everyone's preferences and order a bunch of individual stuff.

Re:Don't do that.

[L0rdJedi]

If, on the other hand, you bring in a used monitor you got for free or $50 or so, you can do whatever you want with no hassle, and it put no obligation on the company. If anyone has any jealousy issues about it, the company can just say, "You're free to bring in an extra monitor for yourself if you want it too."

Where does that stop though? So someone decides they need a faster computer for surfing the net and doing email. They ask for something faster and are told they don't really need it. Let's assume for now they have a single core P4 2.8 GHz. They've been reading about these "new fangled dual core" computers that are a lot faster and they want one, but they don't really need it. So you tell them they can bring in their own monitor and they end up bringing in a whole system.

If you work for a small company with a small network, it probably won't even be noticed. However, now you run into the problem that you don't know 1) what Anti-Virus they're running (assume Windows) and 2) whether or not it's being kept up to date. Also, maybe you end up rolling out some changes, but they don't get the changes because they're on their own system. Sure, if you've got a domain controller, they won't even be able to access the network, but they'll just end up figuring out a way to do it themselves (especially in a really small company).

You also run into the problem of who owns the equipment if something tragic happens to the employee? Does the next of kin take it back or does it stay at the job? What if they get pissed off and decide to take everything they've brought in with them when they suddenly leave?

My point is, make them understand that you can be more productive with two monitors. If they don't understand that, bring one in on a trial basis and even offer to let them buy it from you (cheaper than a brand new one). And if management can't handle telling other people that you need it and they don't, perhaps you need new management for that reason and not because they won't get you a second monitor.

On a side note, we have an engineer here that jokingly asked for a second monitor one day. He said "Wouldn't it be cool if I had two monitors?" I said it would be and that he should ask his boss. Well, his boss pretty much approves anything if he's not directly involved with it (the monitor could have cost $2000 and his boss would've said yes). So he got one and then the other engineer wanted a second one. The other engineer has been working fine for 2 or more years without two monitors and suddenly "it would be nice if I had a second one, so let's get a computer that has the capabilities for two displays". Apparently he didn't know he could already do this. Anyway, these guys didn't really need two monitors (the first stretches Solidworks across both displays, the second periodically reads PDF specs on one while designing on the other), but they gave us such a hard time about it once the idea came up that they wouldn't let it go (well, the first one, the new guy, was willing to let it go, but the second one, who has been here longer, kept bugging). Were the two new monitors expensive? No, they weren't, but they do eat into the companies profit sharing program.

Of course the $40,000 3D printer they just got eats into it more. That'll actually save the company money though, so it was worthwhile.

Re:Don't do that.

[Ihlosi]

First, if the company buys the monitor for you, it begins the jealousy factor, where others want to have it too, so managers and such, who wouldn't have any need for it, start asking, and it ends up wasting the company a lot of money.

Is plain old jealousy really that big of a problem in the workplace in America ? Like "who's got the window office", "who's got two monitors", etc. ?

That would be a pretty fscked up work environment. Where I work, people get the stuff they need (i.e. managers get notebooks and PDAs, developers get their two screens, people who use Unix/Linux get a separate workstation, etc.). And, well, computers are the smallest of the costs there. What's a $1k computer system when you're working with a $4k piece of software and $6k worth of development system ? Heck. The oscilloscopes we use start at $4k each, and usually people get the more expensive ones because they help them diagnose problems faster. When the shit hits the fan and you suddenly get a production hold, you want the reason and you want it fixed NOW and not tomorrow.

This is work. Not some fscked up dick-waving contest.

Apple funded study

[arachnoprobe]

There is an Apple-funded study about this (PDF): http://images.apple.com/displays/pdf/cinemadisplay 30report.pdf

Peronally, I'll never again go without my dual monitors (20"+17" TFT). I do a lot of writing up/comparing/analysing research data, and by having two monitors it feels at least 20% faster (compared to only 1 screen on my PowerBook.). I could imagine that one big TFT would be equal, but compared by price, dual head is the way to go.

At the moment I'm looking into expanding into a triple-head setup, but as I know so far that would require a new graphics card...

Very useful indeed

[Murphy's Paradox]

My work got all of the 50ish developers and 50ish other staff dual LCD screens (replacing the CRT or adding to the already present LCD). While I can only offer anecdotal evidence, it does come in the form of 100ish people having nothing but positive things to say about the change. It just feels more natural... it lets you free up some of your internal buffer and brain power from 'remembering'. It lets us have the IDE on one screen and the Database on the other (no more switching back and forth to check the spelling)... or the help documents open and accessible... or the debugger and the system.

Two of the more definitive benefits: First in the fact that we can work in any resolution we want, but have to develop for a 1024x768 target system. This means we can set the second monitor up with that hideous resolution to make sure the GUIs/websites/whatever look good without having to constantly readjust the resolution (very good if you are doing web work and can refresh with a click of one button). Second in the fact that we use Remote Desktop to connect to other systems (App/DB servers), so being able to put the app system on one screen of the workstation, we can install and test the system without ever having to touch the Alt key. It also speeds up debugging to have the workstation and DB next to each other so that you can watch changes as they happen. Lastly, and again this is purely anecdotal, I feel more integrated with the work now. I don't have to context switch nearly as often, thus taking my mind off of what I'm doing in order to alt-tab to the right program (possibly taking a dozen seconds if I have too many things open and have to search for the damned thing I need). It just feels more natural... it lets you free up some of your internal buffer and brain power from 'remembering'.

I'd neve go back to a single

[BigBuckHunter]

I generally split my monitors into two separate tasks. On the left is my e-mail and productivity apps. On the right, I do my actual work. The other benefit is that our corp environment is windows and our prod environment is RHEL. Depending on which office I am working from, I wither have two computers connected via synergy, or a windows instance on the left and a Linux VM on the right. It's a pleasure to be able to copy a Java stack trace out of k/g/e/term and paste it into an e-mail to a developer in Outlook.

Overall, I feel that two 19" screens make me more productive at work than a single large (24-30") screen.

BBH

Re:I'd neve go back to a single

[I_M_Noman]

On the left is my e-mail and productivity apps. On the right, I do my actual work

Am I the only one who sees the humor in this?

Re:I'd neve go back to a single

[pasamio]

More the truth of the matter. I was once asked by my manager who was moving to Linux on the desktop full time what I used for mail notification with Evolution. I told him simply that I didn't. It was pointless for me to have any application notifying me constantly that I had new mail as it interrupted my work flow and I can easily rely on being emailed at least once an hour. I see this time after time in the GIS sections where a "you've got mail" notification popup will appear whilst in the middle of something completely frustrating the guys as they carefully reselect things. I get enough emails that if its urgent I have the suggestion to ring me. That way reading and responding to emails is in one big chunk, typically three times a day.

Re:Forget extra monitors

[walt-sjc]

I don't agree. I use two monitors AND virtual desktops. It's much more productive to be able to refer to things on one display while you are working on the other. While virtual desktops are handy for some things, such as working on separate projects, they are not a replacement for two monitors. When I'm on my laptop (single screen obviously) I find myself constantly flipping desktops, min/maxing windows, etc. which is annoying. A single monitor can be as productive as two if it's huge, like one of those 30" displays. Even then, my two 21" flat panels give me more physical display area for a fraction of the price of the 30" displays. My two LCDs also use less energy than one crt, and that minimal electricity usage is made up for in increased productivity.

Already standard in many environments

[uradu]

At my company most of IS has standardized on dual displays. I know very few developers that are still slugging it out with a single display. Here the trick is just to justify 1600x1200 versus 1280x1024 panels. I'm happy to say I have two of the former, and I pity the fools who don't. In fact, I could easily see a use for a third, but perhaps that's just getting greedy...

Re:Forget extra monitors

[jamesh]

It kinda goes without saying that having 2 monitors when you only really need one is a waste.

An advantage of 2 physical displays is that instead of printing a design spec or whatever to a printer, you can just open it up in the second display and start coding. I'm not sure how many pages you'd have to not print to offset the manufacture and running costs of a second monitor though...

Overlapping windows

[seebs]

My experience, from the amiga and elsewhere, is that the problem is window-shuffling. If you can't have two monitors, use virtual desktops, with no more than one application per screen.

Ion3 ftw.

Re:Overlapping windows

[julesh]

If you can't have two monitors, use virtual desktops, with no more than one application per screen.

Just doesn't cut it. For some reason I don't understand, adjusting to the display of a new application when you switch desktops takes substantially longer than moving your eyes from one app to another.

Re:Overlapping windows

[seebs]

Interesting. This hasn't been my experience at all, but then, I'm probably abnormal. I will say, it can take a while to get used to it.

It's a prooven fact...

[Hymer]

...that larger screen area makes you more productive, I can't remember where I read it but there have been at least to studies of the subject, one stated a productivity increase of 80% when going from 15" to 19".
It doesn't however matter how you increase your screen area, two smaller monitors are as good solution as one large (and two small good are better than one lousy large) and you may run two in different resolutions (wich may be the ultimate argument for keeping two monitors).
--
Where I work, I make the rules...

Two!

[hansamurai]

I've been using dual monitors for years at home, but I don't have an extra one at work yet. I'm still relatively new, and though many people do have two monitors (and waste them enormously by setting the monitors at some grotesque resolution like 800x600 or 1024x768), I need to get the balls and ask for it.

Just two?

[Mongoose]

In the game industry, I have seen people with 3+ monitors and various machines configurations. Often you'll have one monitor for your IDE and/or debugger and the application or game on the monitor. Then you toss in people monitoring server / client interaction and various game console dev kits for a third+ monitor. The more screens you have the more crap you can observe at once -- it is that simple. Trust me when I say it's easier to test multiplayer bugs with more than one machine -- it's just common sense.

If your employer is like mine...

[pci]

If your employer is anything like mine, spending more money to make me more productive isn't even close to a priority.

We have justified a second monitor about 50 different ways and the answer is always no. In fact they have let us spend enough time justifying the second monitor to have paid for a nice 24" LCD from Dell.

Now the part that really bothers me, some people have laptops, and they are given a monitor "so they don't have to look at that little screen all day." Everyone uses the monitor as a second display, but the director just doesn't see that, oh and the best part is that apparently I don't need a laptop either.

And this isn't the first company I've been to that thinks like this. Repeat after me "you're lucky to work at such a wonderful company"

hah

four

[Russ Nelson]

http://russnelson.com/quadruple.jpg

Re:four

[julesh]

Wow. Your desk is even messier than mine. Congratulations! ;)

Re:four

[aicrules]

One of my coworkers bought an extra monitor so he could have three at work. He actually has an eight monitor set up at home that looks like the set up used in that uber realistic hacker movie password: swordfish. The difference being, I can actually see my coworker truly using all eight monitors because he's insane fast when working.

We just did this one!

[Rob T Firefly]

You're not really productive until you have seven flatscreens suspended around your desk. Only then can you build a 3D virus that will help you break through the firewall of that 1024-bit encryption.

Only 2? I've got 33 monitors at work desk!

[Adeptus_Luminati]

I have 3 of them hooked up to 1 PC with 2 video cards. One of the video cards is a dual card and the other is a motherboard built in. It took a few hours of fiddling to make it work, but now I can actually drag windows around across 3 monitors. Why do I need those 3 monitors? For network monitoring tools. So where are the other 30? Well ok, I admit, it was a sensasionalist headline, but they do exist... sort of. I've got a virtual desktop software running on that PC which gives me 9 more virtual desktops, and since each desktop is 3 monitors wide, that alone accounts for 27 monitors! So that makes it 30... the remaining 3 are:
1) My main monitor where I actually do work. I managed to get the only 19" monitor in the company and I run it at some oddball high resolution of 1450x900 or something. It was the max I could make it go without getting fuzzy.
2) Those 3 monitors hooked up to 1 PC, in actual fact 1 of them is hooked up to a switchview device where 2 other computers are connected. So then I can switch to 2 other PCs I have, for a total of 4 PCs.

So in reality I have 4 PC's at my desk and 4 monitors, but end up with 4 PCs and 33 monitors! Mwahaha....

Now just wait until I install VMware and get like 3 OS's per machine!!!!!

Somebody make me some extra eyeballs.
Adeptus

PS. At home I have a single 24"... paid a tonne for that, but man what a beauty, it doubles as a widescreen TV screen! Samsung "244T"

Great for Fantasy Sports

[us7892]

Yeah, I like to keep Sportsline and ESPN up on my second monitor, so I can watch the daily fantasy news and waiver wire, as well as email, while my "regular work" is displayed on my first monitor. It keeps me highly productive, because I'm not constantly context switching from "regular work" to check on the various fantasy league standings and news.

Of course, it helps that the boss is in the same fantasy leagues and does the same thing with three screens. I need a third LCD to keep up...

New card? not neccassarily

[way2trivial]

matrox dualhead2go or triple head2go.. look at matrox's site- they are coming out with 'digital' extensions that up the resolution possible..
my main pc theortically, could drive 6 monitors with one card (a quadrofx4500 admittedly)

Re:New card? not neccassarily

[arachnoprobe]

How is the quality of those devices? I'm myopic and actually prefer DVI-only.... Cards are limited as well: I'm on a PowerMac G5, so my card choice is limited to a) AGP and b) mac-compatibility. Maybe I have to upgrade to those PCI-Express things.

Re:New card? not neccassarily

[way2trivial]

No personal experience, just knew they existed.. and were on-topic.

contemplating buying a dual2digital when they come out in may to make my main desktop a triple setup....

Re:Forget extra monitors

[computational super]

diff tools (see full-width code lines side by side, one on each screen).

Well, for now, anyway. Give programmers a couple of years of working with two monitors at 1600x1200 resolution apiece, and they'll just start sticking 5000 characters to a line. You'll need four monitors to see the diffs side-by-side.

Feels More Productive At Least...

[Greyfox]

I feel a lot more productive if I have enough screen real estate to keep overlapping windows to a minimum. I like to keep one screen for IM, e-mail and web documentation searches and one for editing code and doing development stuff on other machines on the network. This seems to work out VERY well. Having room for the sprawl may really only save me an extra minute or two a day but this will more than make up for the price of the second monitor within the first month.

I find that the wide screens on my Apple systems feel spacious enough as well, even though I tend to have more window overlap with them. Expose may have a lot to do with this, though, as it makes finding the right window exceptionally easy. I believe you can find expose clones for Windows if you're using that OS, might be worth looking in to. If they work even remotely close to how the Apple one does you'll find it difficult to live without it pretty quickly.

absolutely two

[painfulrectalitch]

Swithching between applications via alt/tab, once consumed so much time that my nose hairs grew to a length which caused them to become entangled in my trackball mouse. A co-worker was able to cut the mouse cable with a pair of fiskers and I escaped relatively unharmed. I was one of the lucky ones. The mouse dangling from my nose, now serves as a reminder of the dangers of one monitor work habits.

hell yes, I'll never go back

[way2trivial]

but I don't have to..
\
one pc at home has a 24wide, landscape, and a 19inchwide portrait just to the left (only place I could mount the arm)
the others- at home (main pc#1) and on my desk at work, 24 dell wide main, landscape.. 20in wide portrait mode (turned 90 degrees)
this means my main screen has 1920 wide X 1200 deep, and the side has 1050 wide, and 1680 deep.
my start/task bar is horizontal on the right smaller portrait oriented screen, runs from the top to the bottom on the left side of that monitor
and set VERY WIDE, so each open app has a long ass name.. right now in fact I see full labels of
"
slingplayer
using two monitors makes you more productive... (this browser window)
inbox- microsoft outlook
sales brochure finalv2.pub-microsoft publisher-print p...
"
etc.. the point is, I'm not seeing little cryptic buttons at the bottom task bar in 2-3 rows..,
and my browser window really is full screen,
when I need to switch windows, I can find the one I want in a heartbeat.. I can have 40-50 items running down the side of the screen... every doc and open program has a long descriptive name in a list top to bottom, not 2-3 rows running under my running app.

+ when I want to look and feel print documents I can work on the portrait monitor and see the whole page at once, and when I'm making webpages to shoot for 1024 width, I pretty much know to a T where to resize my taskbar to nothing/26 pixles wide to have a 1024 desktop on the right...

I'm sorry.. having one large 30" monitor is not the same to me.. takes too long to arrange windows and tile them.. the simple ability to doubleclick maximize on the monitor you are in, is much better than constatntly shifting and tweaking windows to be side/side on a large monitor.

(course, next up would be a 30" wide, with 2 24" rotated sides... somthing I am seriously considering for my next #1 box at home-)

It works wonders

[Warbringer87]

You can try to show people HOW it helps you. Like drag them over and show them how it helps you, all the stuff you do to become more productive. You can always send them this. Also this. is a pretty good one. Just some googling will bring up a swathe of articles claiming statistics, usually up to 50%, so at the very least you can use those, or figure out what studies they use.

Personally, I've got a widescreen laptop, and the added screen real state made me start wondering if I should switch to two monitors to increase it even more! Now I have an old CRT screen to the right of me, usually it has all my documentation/references open while I work. For art programs, especially, it is just unbelievably valuable, been thinking about getting an LCD screen for a while, because the CRT is currently too bulky and too small to place where I want it to be (its like 2 feet away, not quite how most people use it). Not to mention, during breaks, I just switch the secondary to watch TV on it, while I can still do small bits of work.

Yes I'm productive during my breaks as well, its easy when you do something you enjoy.

Virtual desktops work well, when done right

[gweihir]

I use fvwm2 with a 3x3 layout. I found that if I have less than 3x2 desktops, I am not happy. With 3x3 I am. I have developed conventions on what to place were and I can have 3 or more projects open at the same time, some with more than one screen.

So, no, two monitors would not make me more productive. Two is not enough by far!

But then you can't maximize

[oni]

what you can do with multiple monitors that you can't do with one large screen is quickly drag an open window to the second monitor and then maximize it. Those two actions take less than a second. Setting up two windows side-by-side on a single monitor takes much longer. Sure, if you have *only* two windows open then you can tile them. But usually you have a dozen or more windows.

We could fix this by having something like "half maximize"

Re:But then you can't maximize

[ergo98]

We could fix this by having something like "half maximize"
I tried to implement exactly that in Windows -- a global windows interception handler that caught and handled maximize messages, with the intent of doing steps of maximization (e.g. 1/4 the screen if smaller than a quarter, 1/2, full).

Re:But then you can't maximize

[oni]

yep. It's a good idea. It would also be neat to have something like mouse gestures so that you could "throw" a window to the left-half of the screen or the right-half or whatever.

Re:But then you can't maximize

[adonoman]

NVIdia has something like this already where you can split the screen into as many sections as you want.

Re:Forget extra monitors

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Unless you are actually needing to see more things at the same time, extra monitors are a waste of desk space and electricity

It sounds like you have never actually used two monitors at once. It's only about 10,000,000% better than virtual desktops.

THREE Monitors

[KermodeBear]

I do web development for a living, and I find that having three monitors works the best for me. I have the web browsers on the left, all of my code in the middle, and my documentation on the right. No need to waste time alt+tabbing around, switching desktops, etc., etc. I find it to be very helpful. I think that four would be overkill, though.

I would imagine that for any kind of development, two is better than one. For some, three may or may not be as useful, but as I said above, I like three.

Re:THREE Monitors

[UncleRage]

Right there with you.

My workstation at the shop currently has two 21" CRT's and I'm about to slap an LCD between them.

At home, where my workstation is split between sound recording and 3d work, I use three LCD's and a projector. Okay... the projector is probably used more for flicks and the odd game, but it is fun view modeling work with as well.

*Me bellows with glee*
Honey! Come see the life size cave troll!*
*Honey responds bemusedly*
I thought you said that those bulbs were expensive...
*Me sheepishly defends original statement*
But, baby... It's a cave troll!

Re:THREE Monitors

[carolsim]

Hello People: I code websites on an Intel iMac hooked up to a cheap GEM monitor I picked up from TigerDirect. I can run Mac X on the iMac and have Parallels running Windows or Linux so I can see what sites-in-progress look like in IE or Konquerer.

When I'm not checking sites in Windows or Linux on the GEM monitor, I can put NeoOffice, BBEdit or Photoshop files on the GEM monitor while I have the backend admin of Joomla, ZenCart, ClickCart Pro or Expression Engine open on the iMac.

Two monitors also comes in handy when I'm preparing web video and audio with various programs.

OK...I also keep my favorite iTunes Shoutcast Jazz stations on the GEM monitor also so I can listen to music while working.

I have to admit that having 3 monitors would be even cooler. I wonder if an iMac will support three monitors. Hmmm...I do have an extra USB port with nothing in it.

Re:THREE Monitors

[sr3d]

I'm using dual 17 monitors right now and thinking about getting a 3rd one. Can I ask you which addtional hardware that you use for the third screen? I have an ATI X300 card with VGA, DVI, and S- outputs only. Thanks!

Re:THREE Monitors

[kramulous]

When I first broke the monitor/DVI barrier, I used a Matrox Triple Head 2 Go. Very Useful. Make sure you have a video card good enough to support 5700x1400 pixels (I run three 23" Apple monitors of one video card - 30" of the other)

Re:THREE Monitors

[brxndxn]

That reminded me of shaving for some reason..

Re:THREE Monitors

[Doppler00]

I just ordered my 3rd LCD monitor yesterday. It's just amazing how darn cheap these have become and how much the quality has improved. LG's 1680x1050, 22", 2ms, 3000:1 contrast ratio. $380. This is far superior to any CRT in almost all regards.

My main LCD is 24" 1920x1200 and i have a 19" 1280x1024 2ms. My wish is to someday get a 30" to replace the 19", but now I'm thinking that practically, that won't fit on my desk.

Re:THREE Monitors

[UncleRage]

The Asus mobo I recently upgraded my home station to (sorry, can't recall the model... I'll look it up if you'd like) offers vga & dvi off the motherboard. Combined with a 7600GT, that provides a total of 4 outputs. However, I only run one monitor off the mobo (the middle 19" portrait orientated LCD), and have the my seconday (left) LCD on a KVM with the projector.

Not all motherboards allow you to use the onboard video with the PCIx (or AGP, if that's your case) activated. However, this particular Asus does, which was the main selling point. That might go standard with the Nvidia 6150 chipset, but don't quote me on that.

At work, I've got the same 7600GT running the tandem CRT's and have an older GeForce 3 PCI card installed for the third monitor. As it has dual output, it should run an extra monitor if I so choose -- but, with limited deskspace at the shop, I probably won't go that route.

Just hide the damn thing

[Sponge Bath]

Come audit time, stuff the extra monitor under the desk or pile some binders on top of it.

If anyone gets too close to it, smack them on the back of the skull with a lead pipe and put the body in the cubicle of someone you don't like.

This advice brought to you free of charge by /. and Sponge Bath.

Programming typography

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I actually had your post down as interesting rather than funny, but in any case, I doubt it will ever happen.

As anyone involved with typography and graphic design can tell you, the length of text lines that humans can read comfortably is pretty short. Guidelines vary, some based around numbers of alphabets set at a typical reading size, some more formally expressed in terms of angles through which the eyes move. The end results are fairly consistent, though: on a modern 19" monitor, with a full-screen window open, at a typical resolution of say 1280x960, and with the user sitting at a typical distance from the screen, the text is already far too wide for most people to read it optimally.

Now, programmers perhaps suffer less from this than those working with ordinary text documents, because most programming languages use some form of indentation to represent things like block structure. Thus the lines within any given block -- those which the programmer will most likely want to read over in sequence -- tend to be shorter. Even so, it's also undesirable to nest too deeply in most programming languages, which limits the effect of this style. So, while old guidelines about 80 character line lengths are rare these days, restricting individual lines to 80 characters between their first and last visible text probably isn't a bad idea.

In other words, I don't think most programmers will ever write lines much longer than they do today, no matter how big monitors get. It will simply be uncomfortable to read them, and therefore they will adopt a different style where lines are broken at natural places, just as mathematicians have long done when typesetting equations.

And yes, this does all have implications for window managers, particularly as widescreen monitors seem to be becoming more popular on both desktops and laptops. I'm slightly surprised that the mainstream hasn't yet given up on the idea of maximising a window to the full screen, and provided some concept of zones, so you can lock a window to fill exactly the left or right half of your monitor, say. Such a viewable area is far more useful on the sort of physical sizes and resolutions that are seen for high-end screens today, for everything from web browsing to editing documents, and even for code on the wider screens.

Re:Programming typography

[lazy-ninja]

I'm slightly surprised that the mainstream hasn't yet given up on the idea of maximizing a window to the full screen, and provided some concept of zones, so you can lock a window to fill exactly the left or right half of your monitor, say. Such a viewable area is far more useful on the sort of physical sizes and resolutions that are seen for high-end screens today, for everything from web browsing to editing documents

I know this isnt the main stream that you or I are probably used to (or wants to associate with), but AOL's newest (free) platform for broadband (aol openride I think it is called) users does pretty much that. It breaks the screen in to 4 parts, Web browser, email, buddy list, multimedia/file browser.

Re:Programming typography

[MightyYar]

I know annoying Mac users always come out of the woodwork and annoy everyone, but I won't let that stop me... Mac OS has never had a "maximize" button, and instead has a control (the green button in OS X) that toggles between the user-set window dimensions and the "optimal" dimensions. Optimal is decided by the app. On a web browser, it is wide enough to fit all of the content... iTunes uses it to make itself into the little mini-player... Photoshop kind of smartly fills in the space between the toolbars. But now that you bring it up, it would be really cool if you could assign different parts of the screen to different applications... Zones is a really neat idea.

Re:Forget extra monitors

[antifoidulus]

I think you mean ^advantage^disadvantage

Much more productive!

[SirJorgelOfBorgel]

I started using multiple monitors when the Matrox G400 came out. I am a developer and I can say it really boosted my productivity by a large margin. It my previous job I used 3, which I personally see as the optimum number - more gets confusing (sounds stupid, but it's true), less is well, less (how very un-Zen of me!). I mostly used it with email and visual design on the left monitor, code on the middle monitor and the running program and documentation on the right. (Sadly enough it seems most of todays IDE like you to have everything on one screen). These days I only have two (i'll put in a 3rd soon again though) and it is acceptable. 3 over 2 is maybe a 10% increase in ease of work, 2 over 1, in my case, easily doubled my productivity. The number of times you have to switch between different applications just for a glance, need to have a reference for something handy, or need to type in one window something related to what you can read in another window, etc, is enormous. Ever since I started using it, I've been recommending it to everyone who works a lot behind their computers, and a lot of them have taken up this advice and not ONE person is less than ecstatic about it - developers, designers, administrive (type monkeys), alike. It's hard for me to imagine a user that would NOT benefit.

Justifying it may be hard depending on exactly what you do and how your bosses/managers are. If you can get away with claiming a 5% productivity boost (which is way below the real world, IMHO) it easily pays itself back in a few months. The question is if the person in charge is sold on that point alone.

I've also tried these virtual desktops and such, but really, it does not compare, whatever people try to tell you :)

No, but two monitors on two computers does

[justthinkit]

I've been a big monitor hound for quite a few revolutions around the Sun but I've never liked two monitors on one machine, even when programming. I would way prefer having two or more computers near at hand. There is no multi-tasking like two completely separate machines, you can do a true test on a second machine/setup, and distractions like the help center thing someone else mentioned go where they belong -- on a separate computer.

Having said all that, I think we are not far away from the "Your desk is your monitor" systems with six 1920x1200 or four 2560x1600 LCDs -- touchscreened, of course, with one keyboard to control them all!

Re:No, but two monitors on two computers does

[Venerable Vegetable]

Using two computers has some serious disadvantages over just two monitors.
1) Copy paste won't work.
2) You'll need two keyboards and mice.
3) Windows opened from within a program can't be moved to the other screen.

Having two computers obviously has advantages as well, but for regular office work I strongly prefer one pc with two screens.

Re:No, but two monitors on two computers does

[Bill Walker]

How about one pc with 2 monitors, a second pc that I connect to? Processor-intensive stuff gets done on the remote connection pc (for me, mostly monte carlo runs & bulk data updates), and then you still have a reference screen and a work screen for everything else. And you don't need two keyboards.

Re:No, but two monitors on two computers does

[Venerable Vegetable]

Yeah then you have the best of both worlds. However that is not as easy to set up and support so I doubt most IT-departments will do something like that.

Re:No, but two monitors on two computers does

[egomaniac]

Virtual machine software is far superior to the setup you describe. I do Windows software development under Mac OS X using virtual machines. I have one VM for doing actual development and one or more VMs for doing testing, and I can run all of them at the same time without messing up my host OS. Plus you get all the advantages of virtual machines, like being able to easily copy them and move them to different physical machines.

Plus I can copy / paste between all of the OS's as well as drag and drop files between them. There really is no advantage to having more than one physical computer with a setup like this. Of course you do need a fast system with lots of memory, but that's not hard to accomplish nowadays.

Re:No, but two monitors on two computers does

[justthinkit]

At work:
I was giving a preference. I would rather, for example, one machine that is loaded to the gills, with a 24+" monitor and a modest second machine [say a 20" wide screen, gig of ram, 2+gHz cpu]. In this situation I assume I am in an office, so I have a network so, in a sense "cut and paste" does work (you can save a file to a shared network folder, to be reopened on the other one -- opening "tmp.txt" is a 5 second process at most, one more for Ctrl+A, another for Ctrl+C -- switching physically would take more time than this, so this a non-issue). But really, cutting and pasting would all happen on the primary machine. The secondary one is for "misc" -- other stuff that would cramp your style, have long periods of time where it ties up one or more resources, etc. And it would be perfect for testing -- for sure you are not c&p from a test machine -- because you want to test on something different from what you develop on, to test dependencies, etc.

(2) Two keyboards & two mice is one way to do this. Just as viable is a KBM setup -- then you have leveraged your 2560x LCD. Regardless, neither of these "extras" costs much.

(3) Who moves windows? I sure don't. I size and place them about once (might move it once or twice) a day). If I don't want it visible (e.g. a help file) then I minimize it. Clicking on its Start bar tab restores it to its exact previous location -- moving it is so much more cumbersome, time-consuming and inexact by comparison.

At home:
This is the best place for multiple computers, IMO.

(1) kids [we have 3 boys] want their own (yet I can load it down at times without them noticing)

(2) old computers never die at home, they just gather deeper levels of dust. People's home offices are multi-room. We don't have this kind of physical space at work. So computers become like TVs, one in every room except le salle de bain. Each relic can be used, at least to a point -- e.g. an old pc dedicated to a certain printer, or a movie watching station, etc. None of these scenarios is benefited by one multi-monitor setup -- the user/keyboard becomes the choke point, and Garfield The Movie can't be watched on screen two while you program the next BT on screen one.

(3) home tasks are more time-consuming and less-interrupted (for me anyway, YMMV). If computer in room A is near the TV blaring TLC, I'll "alt-tab" into the other room for a while, maybe to clean the malware or do/force/check updates, or play 3D Ultra Pinball Thrillride in peace, etc.

Re:No, but two monitors on two computers does

[justthinkit]

I couldn't disagree more. Two tasks that both need the DVD drive, and heavily, will not benefit from a VM. There are countless other things that VMs are useless for as well. VMs are good for servers, allowing them to sandbox apps and get around limitations/reduce the number of beige boxes in the A/C closet. A VM is a kludge, 2nd best to multiple real computers and/or multiple monitors.

As to your specific situation, I am not at all convinced that a VM is better than just testing the thing "straight up" on your dev machine. Maybe only useful if it crashes things. You crash things a lot?

The whole point about 2nd (& nth) machine testing, is to test on different platforms. By defn a VM accesses the same stuff as your test machine. Also by defn you don't know what a specific combo of hardware, peripherals and software will do to UltiAp.exe until you try it.

Re:No, but two monitors on two computers does

[Venerable Vegetable]

Well this is a rather pointless discussion as it comes down to work circumstances and personal preference. I was merely pointing out some things that won't work well with two seperate computers. For you they are obviously not important, but for me, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, they are.

Re:No, but two monitors on two computers does

[Firefly1]

Having said all that, I think we are not far away from the "Your desk is your monitor" systems with six 1920x1200 or four 2560x1600 LCDs -- touchscreened, of course, with one keyboard to control them all!

Hmmm, take another look at Tron; take specific note of Dillinger's desk I wonder how viable such a thing is...

Re:No, but two monitors on two computers does

[justthinkit]

Much as I like that movie I don't have the time to fire it up at the moment. Perhaps you can elaborate on what the limitation is of this virtual desk?

Re:No, but two monitors on two computers does

[Firefly1]

A pair of potential hitches I can think of, actually:

• the monitor imagery is presented as though it is sheets of paper atop the desk - this might not be comfortable for extended viewing; and
• with no tactile feedback with respect to where your fingers are, it's possible for an inattentive typist to find said extremities drifting from the 'home row'...

The first of these can be corrected by altering how the imagery is presented: for a quick-and-dirty representation imagine, if you will, a glass-topped desk with an actual CRT suspended beneath it in such a way that when you look down at the desk, you see the monitor face-on, instead of at an angle. Examples of such a setup can be found here and here.
Note, too, that in the case of Dillinger's desk, only the 'keyboard' seems to be a touchscreen. If one were to recreate it today, one would need to either make the whole combination of 'keyboard' and 'monitor' a touchscreen, or add a concealable trackball... in either case, a 'screen lock' button (much as the buttons on portable MP3 players and mobile phones can be locked to prevent accidental actuation) would be a good idea.

Re:No, but two monitors on two computers does

[justthinkit]

I agree about the tactile feedback. There might be two markets/products here: the majority of people having the touch screen/virtual keyboard, and developers/data entry types having an embedded keyboard surrounded by screens.

Re:No, but two monitors on two computers does

[egomaniac]

I get the sense you haven't actually dealt with VM software, since you seem to have some misconceptions.

Two tasks that both need the DVD drive, and heavily, will not benefit from a VM.

Umm... why not? I have two drives in my system. I can give one to each VM if I need to. I could hook up an external one if I really needed more, but I'd more likely just attach an ISO file to one of the VMs and have it pretend it was a real drive.

My system also has four processor cores, meaning that even if I have a couple of VMs and my host OS all doing heavy processing, my system is still fast and responsive.

A VM is a kludge, 2nd best to multiple real computers and/or multiple monitors.

Well, I do have multiple monitors -- that's irrelevant to the question of whether VMs are better than separate physical computers. Why on earth are you calling it a kludge, or inferior? I've tried both setups and I vastly prefer VMs.

By defn a VM accesses the same stuff as your test machine.

Umm... no. By definition a VM accesses the virtual hardware defined by the makers of the VM software. Each VM has the same virtual video card, network adapter, etc. regardless of the real hardware in the system. The only piece of hardware which is "really" visible to the VM is the processor, but given that all major operating systems run on the Intel chips in my box, that's not all that relevant.

The whole point about 2nd (& nth) machine testing, is to test on different platforms.

As far as I'm concerned that's what the QA department is for. Most developers only test their software on a single hardware setup except under special circumstances. Obviously some developers have special needs -- folks doing heavy graphics work need to test on multiple video cards, and in that case a VM is obviously inappropriate. For a typical developer, I don't see how having the second machine be a virtual computer instead of a physical computer is a disadvantage.

Also by defn you don't know what a specific combo of hardware, peripherals and software will do to UltiAp.exe until you try it.

If you're concerned about different software, VMs make the job easier rather than harder. I have access to dozens of VMs, all with different versions of Windows and combinations of software installed. Do that with your measly two physical machines.

Also, just out of curiosity, how often do you see hardware-specific bugs? I'm sure it's different if you're a game developer or whatnot, but for the software I develop on a daily basis I have only seen one hardware-specific bug in the last ten years, and that only happened if you weren't using the latest drivers. Again, VMs are obviously a no-go for game developers (they're just barely starting to emulate 3D hardware in the first place), but for people developing business applications and such I can't imagine they're running into too many hardware-specific issues. I'm certainly not.

Re:No, but two monitors on two computers does

[justthinkit]

I have two drives in my system. I can give one to each VM if I need to. I could hook up an external one if I really needed more, but I'd more likely just attach an ISO file to one of the VMs and have it pretend it was a real drive.

Uh, yes you can give one to each VM, just as you could use either in a non-VM setting. I said, two applications hitting one drive -- think one DVD. Most common example I can think of -- you get an application on CD/DVD and want to install it, then back it up to network. With two machines you install it on the machine you want it on (probably that primary machine) then you pop the disc out, put it in the other one and your main machine is now completely free (to reboot after the installation, for example).

Why on earth are you calling it a kludge, or inferior?

It has the drawbacks of an emulator -- higher memory usage and inferior performance. A second machine is 100% efficient at the tasks you give it and it alone to do. A VM (or emulator) competes with everything other application, for every resource.

The whole point about 2nd (& nth) machine testing, is to test on different platforms.

Your non-answer.

So we agree that a VM-using main dev. machine can not do 2nd to nth machine testing.

If you're concerned about different software, VMs make the job easier rather than harder. I have access to dozens of VMs, all with different versions of Windows and combinations of software installed. Do that with your measly two physical machines.

Recall that this is a discussion about being productive. If multiple VMs are needed, either my main machine or backup could have them. They are not precluded, I am merely saying that VMs on a single dev machine is not as good as two machines (that may or may not have VMs on one or both of them).

Also, just out of curiosity, how often do you see hardware-specific bugs?

Right now there are all kinds of machines with them -- think "This machine is Vista capable", then when you test it turns out to not be. So your glass ap is opaque on that machine. [By the way, I don't recall saying you used 2nd thru nth machines to test for hardware bugs. You use them to test for software bugs in your new program.]

Also, it is not hardware bugs but hardware limitations that you ferret out with 2nd thru nth machine testing of your new software. Sure it runs great with 4GB, 256MB video & RAID5, but why does it run like a dog on Susie's machine in accounting? Can you optimize around this, or will there have to be some hardware upgrades? etc.

The Rule of Megatonnage

[starglider29a]

"A distribution of 2 Billion sticks of TNT will do more damage than a 1MT device."

I wish that I could have an array of small monitors, specifically tasked. I'd like to have a chat client maximized in a 512x384 screen, so I don't have to do anything to read "LOL". I'd like to have my Perl scripts running in their own screen, instead of having a DOS window pop up in front of me every 5 minutes.

I wanted to make a Mac SE/30 serve as a second monitor, for starters. But chickened out. Maybe even crack an iPod screen as a mini-monitor... stuck on the side of my 20" like a stickie note. I can buy a 640x480 digital picture frame... Can I make it into a monitor? Even an array of cellphone screen, tiled. I don't need 1024x768 to see the radar from the weather channel. But I do want to see the storm sneaking up on me out of the corner of my eye.

Oh, and how about a cellphone screen to output a 320x160 webcam ;-)

Salary per hour? Not really!

[dereference]

If your salary is $50 an hour, then every second you spend on unproductive things becomes a very visible cost, especially if those seconds add up. Your fallacy is highlighted above. Most "employees" are not paid by the hour. Contractors, who are paid by the hour, simply don't complain about unproductive work conditions provided at their environment by their customers. They'll happily take the extra time required to do their job with the tools at hand; it's the capitalist way, after all.

My guess is that you've simply conflated two issues. You've forgotten that any employee on a salary will simply be expected to put in overtime to compensate for any inefficiencies. It costs the company exactly $0.00 for a salaried employee to simply "waste" those precious extra seconds that you claim will add up. They add up to nothing but more "free" hours put in by our protagonist for the company served.

If the bean-counters at the company don't see that, they're effectively incompetent. Which usually points to bad prospects for the future of the company. The bean-counters know exactly what they're doing. They're extracting more value (your time) from you at no cost. That free productivity (salaried--unpaid to the employee--overtime) looks great on the balance sheet, compared to the price of an extra monitor. If you can't see that, I think you might need to re-evaluate the target of your insults.

Uh... Google, anyone?

[timothyf]

Try the links here: http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&q=d ual+monitor+productivity+study You'll even get a Slashdot article linking to a study done on it: http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/1 0/09/137232&mode=flat&tid=137&tid=196 See, that wasn't hard...

One really big monitor is best

[weazzle]

Where I work, we all have 24" wide screen monitors. While this is enough for me, many add a second monitor because it improves their productivity.

This was discussed before

[eam]

Check out the previous discussion:

http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/26/03 9251

Re:This was discussed before

[tuiterwyk]

And this discussion, with some 3rd party studies
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/1 0/09/137232&mode=thread&tid=137&tid=196

Re:This was discussed before

[eam]

Good catch. That's the one I was looking for. ;-)

it's a no brainer.

[Churla]

If you have to look at output while editing anything two monitors tends to be more effective.

I actually started using a dual head setup years ago (think pre-AGP days) when I had two PCI cards pushing monitors and Windows 2000 had just finally gotten a semi-automatic way to span them. And I've never gone back.

You'd think "ALT-tab" wouldn't be such an effort... until you don't have to do it.

My wife made fun of it, until I upgraded my CRTs to 19" LCD. Giving me a spare CRT to hook up to the second video port on her nVidia card. Then she found the ability to have research and documentation up on one screen, and whatever she was working on on the other. She's also never gone back.

At my work they have been moving us to Thinkpads for almost all of our production network boxes (test racks are a different matter). They got us docking stations with monitors for when we were in the office. Then I realized instead of that I could use the laptops screen as primary and the docking station screen as a second monitor. On top of that the LCD's they got for us were some nice Dell model that you can rotate to portrait mode. You don't want to know how much faster and easier is it to scan a dual column diff when you have portrait mode...

From a money perspective, if a second LCD monitor costs your company $150, and you make $40 an hour all it has to do to pay for itself in a year is save you 3 hours and 45 minutes. Over a 200 day work year.... Meaning about 1 minute and 12 seconds a day and it pays for itself.

Re:it's a no brainer.

[ornel]

I also have one of those rotating Dell 19" LCD monitors and a second 17" CRT I had lying around. Unfortunately there is no way to rotate only one monitor when using TwinView (Nvidia), so my LCD remains horizontal...

Re:it's a no brainer.

[Churla]

Yeah, the thinkpad I have has an ATI chipset video card in it. I had to hack the driver with a reg hack to get it working, but I can rotate one or the other monitor.

Re:it's a no brainer.

[zCyl]

If you have to look at output while editing anything two monitors tends to be more effective. ...
You'd think "ALT-tab" wouldn't be such an effort... until you don't have to do it.

I'm with you that two monitors can be more effective for some tasks. But you can gain MOST of the advantages of this, even on laptops, by simply using multiple desktops in software, which you can switch between by pressing Window-1 through Window-4 or so. Most Linux desktop environments support this natively. Windows can be made to support multiple software desktops by installing a tiny program called MultiDesk.

This approach allows you to divide your work more effectively, browsing in one window, documents and articles in another, editing in a third, music in a fourth, or however your usage divides most naturally. I find this makes me much more efficient than having to switch between dozens of windows cluttered on the same desktop.

Re:it's a no brainer.

[smart_ass]

I've been using multi monitor set-up for a while, but found that the rotation seems nice, but for text sucks, because then ClearType cannot work.

Cleartype makes text SOOO much nicer to read. To throw that away is impossible for me.

Re:Forget extra monitors

[Brian_TheIAMdude]

Sorry, but dual monitors did make me a lot more efficient. I'm not a programmer, but a User account and User access administrator. I manage probably 25K to 35K user accounts across about 25 different network applications, and the extra monitor work wonders. A fellow contractor left and my PC had two video ports on the motherboard. So I snagged the now unused monitor and rearranged my desk so that I could have both 17" CRTs going at once. I didn't ask my manager first I just did it. Reason 1: Duh! Dual monitors! Reason 2: Desktop couldn't come by and reclaim the 2nd monitor if it was in use. My manager was so impressed with the setup that she put it on a list of things she had to see happen for the department. Well, when I was converted to an employee here at H&R Block and the company moved into our new corporate headquarters we all got shiny new Dell 19" LCD panels on our desks. My boss went to the director and told him about my experience with the 2 CRTs and how much more efficient I was while I had them. She flat out insisted that all of us, employees and contractors alike, in our department, get a second 19" Dell LCD panel. We had the monitors for about a month before our Desktop folks secured the right video cards for our low-profile boxes. Once they got off their rears and got us the video cards, our productivity went way up. Now other departments want the same setup, but they can't justify to their directors why they need them. Our group had no problems justifying the added expense given that each of us manages a huge number of account across several systems. I do move things from time to time, and when I log in on Monday mornings I have to do a bit of rearranging since my VPN connection at home has only has one screen, and so when I log in everything loads on my Primary screen and not the secondary screen. Not a big deal. I could fix it so it would do it, but I just don't care enough to take the time to do it... Yes, I want to replicate the experience I have in the office at home. No, I can't afford to do it, yet...

Hack the system

[ElectricRook]

Bean counters will be bean counters. Use ignorance to battle ignorance.

Put a label on the monitor saying "Do Not Inventory". And sign the note illegibly.

The bean counters will either ignore the monitor, which you want. Or they will count the monitor. If they count the monitor, then put the monitor in an empty cube, and make it look like it is connected to a computer. If there is no name on the empty cube, make a name plate for the cube. The name on the plate must be "M T Box", and explain to your cow-orkers that the cube is being held for the new Chinese intern. If there is no empty cube, get a keyboard, and make it look like there are two people working in your cube. Explain that you have to share your cube with the new Mexican intern named No-Say Yama...

Re:Forget extra monitors

[QuoteMstr]

Oops! Yes! Thanks... I posted that before I'd had Coffee this morning. Somehow my comment still got modded up though.

Give a monitor to your boss!!!

[anss123]

Worked for me, now she swears by it and even the secretaries come snooping for spare monitors. Heh.

did this long time ago - got the company to pay

[thomasa]

I justified our developers doing this a long time ago. Having to open many windows and switch between them is a time consuming thing with one monitor. Having two is a great thing. Larger monitors are too expensive. Two are cost effective.

Close, but not quite.

[oneiros27]

It was brought up as a thread in How To Get Rid of the Cubicle?.

And I only know this because I answered this exact question in that discussion.

Great for reading documentation

[airship]

I'm a Technical Writer, and my major objection to delivering documentation electronically is that users constantly have to switch between windows to read it as they work. Screen real estate is just too limited to keep both open and get anything done. With a second monitor, you can display help files on one and do your work on the other. To me, it's as good or better than working with an open manual, and has at least three advantages. First, you don't kill trees. Second, it's easy to ensure that you always have the latest version of the documentation at hand. Third, your eyes don't have to adjust from looking at a screen to looking at paper, to looking back at the screen, etc.

On a personal note, when writing documentation I'm often working with a bunch of different source documents. To be able to keep one or two of these open on one screen while I write on the other would be a godsend. Maybe I'll ask for another monitor myself.

Just buy yourself a freaking monitor

[mveloso]

Just buy yourself a freaking monitor and bring it to work. A good widescreen monitor is only about $200. If you're lucky, you'll have an extra video out on your machine. If not, then pick up a crappy video card.

If it'll make your life that much easier, don't wait for your employer to do it; just do it yourself. Why are you waiting for your boss to approve of it?

It's really very odd

[GuyverDH]

In the company that I work for, a majority of the IT staff use laptops for better or worse.

All of those, except for myself, use their laptops with the tops down, connected to external monitors.

I have mine set where the laptop is to the side of the monitor, and I keep e-mail, browsers, etc up on that, then the external monitor has my x-windows running on it.

It has greatly improved my efficiencies in that I can find documentation online (such as FAQs or manuals or how-to pages and read them, cut and paste - all without having to minimize, restore, maximize any screens. It's been a great timesaver, and I've also been able to catch messages that may have scrolled by without being seen if I'd been reading the next step in a how-to while the 1st step was processing behind a window.

Multiple monitors can help you become more efficient.
Multiple monitors can help you become more accurate (side by side comparisons - especially if the external monitor is a wide-screen format).

The amount of time that it takes me to perform a certain task, that requires multiple steps, with information needed from an e-mail for each step, is much less than a counterpart who uses only one monitor.

Re:Forget extra monitors

[denobug]

Unless you are actually needing to see more things at the same time, extra monitors are a waste of desk space and electricity. Get some virtual desktops set up and connect them to your function keys (or alt-function keys). If you then only open any given app on the same virtual desktop you can jump back and forth very quickly.

Thats essentially doing the same thing as alt-tab constantly between applications, and I have found that to be wasting a lot of time if you cannot reference one thing and move your eyeball straight across to another application. Sure it is workable. However when you are constantly doing referencing like 100 times in a single task, it is much more productive to have a dual monitor setup, have each application maximized, and being able to referencing across the same view.

Recently some of my tasks requires me to design, look up reference documents, while having the actual data on three different screens (sometimes the information can only obtained by remote into another computer!). You can prob argue that I should build a program to automate some of the work, but with each program in its own proprietary format, it is much simpler to just have at least two of them on two seperate screens at the same time.

Re:Forget extra monitors

[Znork]

"I'm not sure how many pages you'd have to not print"

About three or four 500 page manuals or reference works (print or purchase them). Ten cents per page isnt uncommon for printing, and a monitor can be had around $150-$200.

A second monitor pays for itself fairly fast once you start figuring the cost benefits of going paperless.

good for layout

[gEvil (beta)]

I do page layout and having two monitors is definitely a productivity booster. I keep the main InDesign window on my main monitor, with the original Word document or PDF or whatever fullscreened on the second monitor. If I ever need to refer to the original for formatting or to verify the accuracy of something, it's always right there ready to go. Also, it gives me extra space to keep some of the lesser-used floating palettes open without obstructing my main workspace.

Not quite...

[Svartalf]

Considering that that Apple 30" monitor costs roughly $1500-2000 versus $600-700 for two good 20" displays
(Yes, I've recently priced BOTH for the reason that I want and need more display space to work with...)
and has nearly the same screen real-estate as the Apple monitor, you have a difficult selling point for the
bean counters- programming typically, unless it's for a 3D studio or similar, doesn't need unbroken screen
real-estate; it just needs a good active display space that is half again to double the screen real-estate
space that we see with a 20-22" monitor.

It may be that the Apple monitor's better (and it is...) but the freaking cost of the silly thing makes
the two display configuration more needed than one would think.

Re:Not quite...

[Achromatic1978]

Forget that. I just bought a Westinghouse L2410NM. 24", 1920x1200, 8 bit. HDMI, HDCP, Component, S-VHS, Composite, D-sub, 1000:1, 8ms. Able to operate in portrait mode.

Buy two, or even three, use in portrait mode. Two will get you 2400x1920, a little square for my liking, three will get you 3600x1920, for only $150 more than the 2560x1600 Apple ($650 apiece).

In contrast, the Apple 23" has less viewing angle, no HDMI (nor indeed anything but DVI), twice the response time. Design looks good, but so does the Westinghouse.

I know I'm happy with it.

Re:Not quite...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Try $360 for the 22" displays. I just got one from newegg.

Re:Not quite...

[Svartalf]

Try a combined price, next time. You just repeated what I just said... :-)

Debugging

[goatpunch]

Not sure if anyone's mentioned this (browsing on my phone so not viewing all) but 2 monitors are more or less essential for debugging an app with a non-trivial UI. Nothing like the pain of trying to squash a debugger into 1/2 the screen.

Uhm... isn't this pretty obvious?

[lord sibn]

If you know the equipment audit is coming up, then you temporarily "lose" the second monitor.

At least, that is what I do when i know audits are coming up and such things would impact me negatively.

Re:Salary per hour? Not really!

[King_TJ]

Sure, most I.T. workers are on salary ... but even the "tightest" company has to realize that you can only ask people to work so much overtime before they become disgruntled and quit. (And often, before it even goes that far, they become extremely unproductive, because they're upset with the working conditions - and do their best to slack off, to compensate for the long hours they're expected to pull.)

There's really no such thing as "free productivity". Even if it's "standard practice" to squeeze 10 hour days from your salaried workers vs. 8 hour days, those 2 extra hours you demand from each of them is getting chewed away at by unproductive things (like a user shuffling around windows and constantly resizing things, due to lack of monitor screen space), if you don't address those problems and correct them.

WTF

[hpavc]

Damn dude, the lost of time due to your crying about a second monitor most CFO's would say you just spent the cash just then. What does a very cheap second monitor cost? Get that if you have some doubts, a used 17" crt. If you think it makes you more productive, which I have no doubt it will if you were productive to begin with, then shoot for the real deal.

Are there any opinions about two 30" monitors?

[erwejo]

Reading the threads there has been a lot of, if you can get 2 monitors, it is as productive as a 30" screen. But is there any benefit to two 30" monitors? Does anyone have this setup, was it worth the extra $$$.

Re:Are there any opinions about two 30" monitors?

[Churla]

The only dual 30" setup I have heard of was a friend playing the "Exactly what is the most expensive 8 core mac I can build" on the apple website ;)

It's called alt-tab

[shagymoe]

...and what's so hard about it? I'd rather alt-tab than swivel to look at a different monitor. I'm forced to use windows at work and don't remember now if it is alt-tab on linux, but I'm sure there is a similar option.

Re:Forget extra monitors

[aj50]

It sounds like you have never actually used two monitors at once. It's only about 10,000,000% better than virtual desktops.

It sounds like you are actually needing to see more things at the same time. In other circumstances, two monitors are a little better at most.

"opportunity cost"

[Anonymous Coward]

"investing" money *is* "spending" it if you've invested it someplace where it will earn you less than you could have earned elsewhere.

I know this is /. so people will post the cute-but-sooo-wrong stuff, but I would at least have expected moderators not to tag it as "Insightful."

Re:Salary per hour? Not really!

[yakumo.unr]

Yes, brilliant, because everyone knows overworked tired, miserable workers produce better cleaner, well documented more efficient code. Fortunately, though sadly few, there are companies now that happily understand this is NOT the case, happy, well slept workers with regular hours, work faster, more efficiently, and produce better results, and those benefits far outweigh a very negligible cost.

At my work we got a choice

[silicon not in the v]

I work at a semiconductor company doing chip layout design. They came through about 6 months ago with upgrades offering the choice: One 24" LCD, or two 19" LCDs. Everyone in my group opted for the dual screens. It is absolutely the bomb because of what the parent poster mentioned. Total square inches sounds good, but managing that space (and trying to look at it) when the height and width are both too big is problematic. Having two discrete viewing areas is a huge improvement.

When doing layout design, it's a very visual, graphical thing. However, the layout is being done to match a schematic, which we also need to have open for reference. Plus there are other utilities and tools in the software for managing your list of layers you're viewing, lists of design rule violations to be cleaned up, etc. Having the layout maximized on one screen is great, while the schematic, etc. are on the other screen for reference.

I'm a positionally oriented person when it comes to windows in my workspace. When I had just the one monitor, I used to arrange the windows around toward different corners and edges of my screen. They were sized big enough to see, so they were very overlapping in the middle. It's a Linux station, so I had my window behavior set for "focus follows mouse", but not to automatically raise windows. I set a hotkey to raise/lower windows, so I could just point to an exposed edge of the one I wanted and hit the key to raise it. Or I would sometimes just point in the middle of the screen and start hitting that button to cycle through the windows I had going on.

Re:At my work we got a choice

[Teancom]

I was one of the sysadmins pushing those monitors out. And (like other people mentioned in this thread), there was a *lot* of whining about "they got one before me!" Enough such that we had three groups where the managers just decreed that "everyone in my group will get the 24", there will be no duals, and that's final." So you do have to account for people being stupid...

Why not just buy one?

[nonetheless]

20" LCD monitors are ~$200 from Dell, and I imagine even better deals can be found. My company had 17" square LCDs as standard; I found a 20" widescreen much more useful, so I just bought one.

I figure I often spend more than that in a month on games, a new graphics card, etc. for a computer that I spend, at most, an hour or two a day on. Why not put a little into the one I spend eight+ hours a day staring at?

Just make sure they don't take it away from you on the next audit -- put your own lock on it.

Your boss called and said...

[Hognoxious]

I agree - now get BACK TO WORK!

ha, ha

[wolfman_jake]

I have 6 :-P

It's a mysterious advantage

[silicon not in the v]

I found this quite a lot, that you don't know the benefit if you've never tried it. For people who have only ever used one monitor, it's impossible to understand how good two is. They have gotten pretty good and efficient at dealing with the issues through alt-tab and virtual desktops and such. Doing those things has become such second nature that they don't seem bothersome. Once you give two monitors a try, though, and give it a few days to start realizing how your work becomes easier and faster, you feel you can never go back.

Re:Salary per hour? Not really!

[mcpkaaos]

Time != productivity

Re:Forget extra monitors

[letxa2000]

Yep. Saying that virtual desktops are better than real desktops is like saying virtual reality is better than reality. Whatever. :)

Right

[Venerable Vegetable]

I didn't need two monitors either, had the same arguments as well. "Waste of desk space and electricity, can just as well use virtual desktops and alt-tab". But then my employer put a second monitor and if he is ever going to come back to his usual penny scrounging senses he's going to have to pry it from my cold fingers.

The most obvious difference over virtual desktops is probably that you can read data from one program and enter it in a different one. If you have to continuously switch desktops for such a task it's going to be much slower.

But what I use it for the most is to have a reference guide, manual or letter I am replying to in the other screen to be accessible within the glance of an eye. Which is a lot faster and more comfortable than switching back and forth all the time.

Also I often have to multitask with two programs, and when I say multitask I mean I have to swith between both programs several times a minute. In such cases two screens give you a much better work experience.

Re:Forget extra monitors

[SydShamino]

On the hardware side, having the schematic and layout up and visible at the same time is a tremendous productivity saver. The software even supports cross probing, so I can, say, go down the row selecting symbols in the schematic, and they are automatically selected in layout. I also have my computer set up to give focus to the window my mouse pointer is in, so I can jump back and forth selecting, grabbing, and moving parts very quickly.

If you work with research and design software, like LabVIEW, having the front panel and block diagram both visible at once is also a lifesaver.

When simulating VHDL, having the simulation control windows (hierarchy, console, signal tree) maximized in one window while have the wave outputs maximized in the other makes it much faster to see both.

And, of course, any time you need to reference one thing to produce another, a second monitor can reduce the amount of printing required. This can be as simple as having a spreadsheet with raw test results up in one monitor, while writing up a formal report document in the other monitor.

In summary, the productivity improvement is significant enough that the excuse "Salaried people would be expected to get the job done anyway" is irrelevant. No one would expect me to work as many hours as it would take to do this work with one monitor, when I already work more than 40 hours with the productivity of two monitors.

(And yes, I'm monitoring a simulation in the other monitor while I typed this!)

Reverse the question

[flyingfsck]

"Will a small 2" screen make you less productive?", "Will a small 1x1mm screen make you less productive?". Now the answer becomes obvious.

You could possibly ask for larger screens based on medical reasons - are you wearing glasses or lenses? If you were in Canada, then you could ask for a larger screen since the company has a duty to accommodate a disability.

Re:Forget extra monitors

[Venerable Vegetable]

Well in that example the saved desk space argument really brings in a lot of weight.

Cheap employers have higher turnover costs

[alispguru]

The bean-counters know exactly what they're doing. They're extracting more value (your time) from you at no cost.

Skimping on tools or environment spending does have a measurable impact on the bottom line, if it increases the turnover rate. Replacing a knowledge worker costs one to two times their salary (look at some of these search results).

Before praising the bean counters, ask them if they know what the company's turnover rate is for those jobs, and how that compares to the average for their competition. If they don't know those numbers, they aren't counting all the relevant beans.

Re:Cheap employers have higher turnover costs

[dereference]

Before praising the bean counters, ask them if they know what the company's turnover rate is for those jobs, and how that compares to the average for their competition. If they don't know those numbers, they aren't counting all the relevant beans. I'm hardly "praising" the bean counters. Apparently many of you have mistaken "understanding" for "advocacy" in my post. I don't agree at all that this is the best (or even a good) way to count what is "cost" and to increase productivity. I only noted that a bean-counter will, in fact, see the world in that way.

The real problem is at the executive levels, who base decisions purely on the bean-counter approach. Executives (who, incidentally, I believe are far too highly compensated these days) should take a grander view of "cost" into consideration. They're the ones ignoring these other longer-term costs.

There is obviously a "cost" of having an unproductive, disenfranchised, and simply burnt-out work force, but this never figures into the decision process. For public companies, it's all about shareholder equity, and the executive planning horizon is seldom beyond the current quarter. Few executives have earned a smaller bonus for overworking their people; generally quite the opposite. These soft costs are unfortunately harder to quantify, and it's not the job of the bean-counters anyway. The bean-counters are what they are; I've not praised them, but there's no reason to believe they're evil, stupid, or incompetent. If anyone is to blame, consider targeting the executives who base their decisions entirely on the counted beans.

Depends on your job

[splatterboy]

In the graphics and animation industry - it's a borderline standard (ok, standard luxury) to have two monitors. The new 30" monitors or dual monitor setup doesn't turn heads where I work, I have two 24" but wish I had one 30". For general computing it really is excessive. I don't know about programmers but I can see where it would come in handy...

One girl I work with uses a single 24" and doesn't use key commands or expose (osx) to switch between open apps - she just shuffles and clicks, all the while comlaining that she can't see or find anything. She refuses to go dual or get a bigger monitor - desk-estate is more important to her than screen-estate but it takes her more time to do simple tasks requiring multiple apps.

Having a manager who refuses to give their workers the proper tools to do their job is a real drag. If you can't see the value in a given piece of hardware or software you shouldn't be a manager.

Quit Your Job

[bill_mcgonigle]

If the bean-counters are too stupid to invest in good working equipment, don't bail them out.

I'd go further: if his managers are so dumb that they won't let him decide he needs an extra $200 monitor to improve his efficiency - he should start apply for better jobs immediately - somewhere where he won't be infantilized. In such a place his creativity is undoubtedly being stifled and he's hurting his career for it.

Welcome to Search

[etherlad]

How 'bout this:

Multiple Monitors Increase Productivity

I used 3 monitors at one point

[crovira]

I was using
  a 15" Apple monitor for compiles, execution status and reference guides
  a 17" Apple monitor for coding and controlling the GUI as well as most other tasks
  a 21" Apple monitor for final quality control GUI and color correction.

The bean-counters just need to know that you have the equipment allready so it requires no additional expenditure on their part and it would cost them money to even move it to another desk, so do nothing and tell then they shouldn't either.

Not extra, essential

[Penguin's Advocate]

Every employee at my company has at least two 20+ inch LCDs. I seriously can't imagine work with only one monitor. Even the interns get at least two 17" LCDs. (To be fair, we're game developers, but still). It would take forever to get anything done with one screen.

Re:Forget extra monitors

[Firethorn]

probably thought you were attempting to be sarcastic.

Yeah, I love dual monitors when I program. Reference materials on one screen with the code on the other.

My brain just isn't set up to handle desktop switches well, I tend to loose my train of thought vs just looking from one screen to another.

Seeing two things

[iabervon]

In my office, there are two people with dual monitors and the rest have single monitors. The people with dual monitors have things they want to be able to refer to without other stuff going out of sight. Personally, I have only one monitor because the other space is reserved for a scope, which I use for debugging a lot more than I'd use another screen.

Of course, I have small windows for my code (80 columns wide, in a little font), and so there's room on the screen for a datasheet in a window behind it, such that, with the margins next to tables and figures, the code don't overlap those at all, and only a bit of the text is hidden. And I generally want to finish reading the section of the datasheet, and think about it while I flick the mouse (focus follow mouse) to the editor window, so that's not a big deal.

Re:Forget extra monitors

[pnaro]

I've been using dual monitors since about 1989. My current setup includes my 17" MBP and a 30" wide-screen. I like the laptop as my main computer so I always have everything I need regardless of where I am. When at my desk, the 30" is invaluable as an extra screen. I keep email, IE (via parallels) and IM on the 17" and BBEdit (text editor) / FF, Safari on the 30". It really helps when doing development. VD is a nice feature, but this setup kicks more ass and lets me work faster.

Cheap Efficiency

[neowolf]

I'm probably echoing what others have said, but...

Monitors are cheap. Even decent-sized flat panels can be had for under $300. If you are a typical IT worker- they are probably paying you that much every 1-2 days. If having two monitors allows you to work more efficiently/effectively- then it should be easy to justify.

I used two monitors many-many years ago when I was coding. It was a lot more efficient to have my output on one screen and my code/debugging on another, than toggling back and forth. It was difficult "back in the day" because it was really only possible to get one VGA display and a monochrome or CGA display going at the same time, and in-general- only high-end CAD and video editing software, as well as some IDEs of the time supported multiple monitors. (Note: this was pre-Windows.) Eventually as computers and video advanced, and Windows came into the picture- I just stopped devoting the extra desk space to an extra monitor.

After working for many years with one monitor, I decided a couple of months ago to pull my laptop out of its dock at work and use my desktop monitor as a desktop extension. Wow- what a more efficient arrangement. I keep critical server and database monitors in windows on the desktop screen while I work on the laptop one. A quick glance keeps me updated on the status of my servers, while I can continue to work without touching my mouse. If I'm coding or doing Web site updates- I can display my results on one screen while coding/debugging on the other. I quite literally save hundreds (if not thousands) of mouse clicks and windows switches a day, which makes me a lot more productive. It also allows me to react much more quickly to problems. If I just toggle to a server monitor every once and awhile, I might miss something. If it is in my peripheral vision and I glance at it regularly- I'm much more likely to catch a problem before it worsens.

I suppose an argument could also be made that it is a healthier way to work. Fewer mouse or key clicks means less chance of repetitive strain injuries. Switching your focus from screen to screen also has to be much better for your eyes than focusing on one screen all day long.

Actually- I've been giving some thought to where the "sweet spot" would be for number of monitors. I think at least one or two more would be helpful (although they would start to dominate my desk), but I think more than that might be too much to deal with.

Re:Cheap Efficiency

[dowhat]

just want to respond to something i've read in this forum, now, dozens of times - decent monitors are NOT cheap. $200 is NOT cheap. even $100 is not cheap. $50, perhaps, is reasonable - possibly 'cheap'.

Try Google Scholar

[bafarmer]

You might try searching on Google Scholar for some academic articles on the subject. It tried this quick search http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=multiple+monit ors+productivity&hl=en&lr= and got quite a few relevant articles.

If you really want to be thorough and get good support for your case, go ask your local reference librarian for help. I'm sure he or she will be able to get you enough evidence to quiet the people at your company who are tormenting you.

Re:Salary per hour? Not really!

[GNU(slash)Nickname]

Contractors, who are paid by the hour, simply don't complain about unproductive work conditions provided at their environment by their customers. They'll happily take the extra time required to do their job with the tools at hand; it's the capitalist way, after all.

Now that's quite a broad generalization.

I'm an IT contractor, and I make it a point to draw my customer's attention to inefficiencies in my work environment. Why? Because it's in my best interests to maximize my productivity.

First of all, I truly enjoy my work, and working efficiently increases my personal satisfaction with the job at hand. It also allows me to proceed to the next interesting challenge that much sooner.

More importantly though, the more productive I am, the happier my customer is. In a business where my personal reputation is what gets me the next contract and supports my hourly rate, a happy customer becomes an asset I can take directly to the bank.

Re:Salary per hour? Not really!

[Venerable Vegetable]

Maybe it's different in the USA, but where I live (also a capitalist country) most salaries are based on a fixed work time, usually 38 or 40 hours a week. Overtime is paid, usually at 130% wage or more. So you can correctly convert a monthly salary to an hourly one.

Employers very well understand that increasing an employees productivity is a good thing. They just don't always understand that a second monitor will do that.

But even if overtime is unpaid, letting your employers work efficiently is still a good thing. They might even start doing other useful things in the time they gained! I know I do.

Work around the audit

[Anonymous Coward]

Hide the previously discarded monitor above the false ceiling until the audit is over.

Yes!

[daub84]

I work at an insurance office, where increasingly we are seeing manuals and other content digitized. It helps are underwriters greatly to have the manual on one screen, while using it to do their rating on the next. We are working (with the big boss fully behind it) to move everyone to dual screens. We are also working on going paperless, now we can have whatever piece of paper would have been on our desk on the second screen.

It's also great for surfing porn on one screen while firing off an email to your boss about how busy you our on the other >)

Only Two?

[ianmac47]

I started using a second monitor about 18 months ago. I do graphic layouts and its great working with photos on one monitor and the layout on the other; or the text content on one and the layout on the other. Just the other day I was actually using a third-- Technically I was using my laptop and the desktop with two monitors, but it was terribly efficient at the time as I was entering some data into excel on the laptop and pulling up data on the desktop at the same time. In the office next door to me, a law office, every employee, lawyers and staff alike, are outfitted with two monitors.

Re:Multi-Monitor support at work is essential

[ketan324]

My firm doesn't have less then 2 monitors per user, I particularly have 4 monitors, and it DEFINITELY increases my productivity. I had to switch to 2 monitors temporarily and I had a significant decrease in my ability to multi-task and even efficiently complete my normal tasks. Energy costs and desk spaces are inconsequential; average industry desk space should be able to accommodate to at least 2 monitors, and using multiply flat panels not only uses less energy than a single CRT but also is better for the eyes. Of course making a case for multiple monitor support you will have to prove that it is necessary time and time again.

Business case

[nihilatron]

Quantify the costs/benefits to the company of buying you a second monitor. How much more productive does it make you? Can you quantify the benefits somehow, either as increases to the bottom line, or recouping lost opportunities? (You might not be paid by the hour, so labor costs may vary - think situations where your higher productivity could save the company money.) Formulate a logical argument. Write a short business case - one or two pages long. Not too long - you just want to make your case, not be pedantic or boring.(Google how to write a business case.) If you can make your case, and your boss/company is somewhat rational, you should have your monitor. Good Luck!

Anecdotal experience of larger monitors

[RageOfReason]

I don't know of any formal, empirical studies on the matter but from my own experience of using ever larger monitors (with a corresponding increase in resolution to get more information overall on the screen) I find my productivity has indeed increased.

This all depends on the type of work you do of course. In my case, if I'm looking at web sites a 24" monitor (my current) makes no difference over a 17" monitor because I'm not relating the information on one part of the screen to another.

However when I'm doing diagram based design (e.g. UML class modeling) it makes a big difference. I can effectively hold a larger amount of information in my field of view and relate more distant parts of the diagram to each other. I'm effectively able to work on a larger piece of the puzzle.

In fact |I wish I had a 30" monitor (or two monitors to give similar pixel count); then I wouldn't have to print out a Word document which I refer to when working on the class model. Unfortunately my laptop's video card won't support either.

It is all about bandwidth

[DanielJH]

The larger discussion is one about bandwidth. It is the bandwidth from the computer to the user that ultimately matters to being productive. More screen realestate (larger monitors and more of them), fast accurate mice, touch typing, and special input devices are all part of increasing this bandwidth. Other areas include speed of the computer (needs to be responsive), and design of the application and windowing system.

The design of the windowing system is incredibly important, and the place where Linux really shines. MS Windows/Office have things in the system that slows the user down: Delays and slow animation when opening menus, delays after opening up applications, non-resizable windows, lack of good virtual desktops, no resistance when moving windows, and lack of focus follows mouse. While on this topic, it is depressing to see KDE and GNOME heading in this direction. Linux diversity helps me solve this problem. Thank you Enlightenment.

For the record, my work setup consists of 2 24" flat screens 1920x1200 connected to a Linux box using e17 and an additional 24" monitor connected to a MS Windows machine that uses synergy to make the entire display feel like a single computer. Each linux monitor is also using 5 virtual desktops.

Re:Hidden ? Obvious. Irrelevent.

[mhall119]

I tried this line of reasoning once, but on a much larger scale. I proved that an automated system could save hours of work each day. Adding in the hourly equivilent of the effected employees salaries, I could show a cost savings in the tens of thousands of dollars annually.

My response was this: "If we can't fire someone or cut someone's pay, it doesn't save any money". It made me furious, how could the reject the logic behind my math? Only later did I come to understand their reasoning: All the work that needed to be done was being done for what they are paying the employees. Taking away work to be done, without taking away pay going to the employees would not save money.

So to justify your second monitor you either have to show a real money reduction of cost, or a real money increase in revenue. Your efficiency is your responsibility, not the company's responsibility. After all, why should they pay more tomorrow get you to do the same job you did yesterday? Its often easer to replace you with someone more efficient at the same cost, than to increase your cost to make you more efficient.

As an aside, whenever I make proposals for automating processes now, I don't calculate how much work I reduce, or how much more efficient I can make it, I calculate how much revenue they are missing out on because their processes can't handle the extra work, then show them how automation would let them handle it, and therefore gain the extra revenue.

Sometimes two monitors DO pay off..

[rickb928]

particularly where time is the limiting factor.

Stock brokers, mortgage brokers, emergency services personnel, and others who are always in a time crunch value speed and efficiency. These workers benefit from mutliple monitors.

Programmers should, also, but for reasons previously mentioned the *real* cost of inefficiency is nil. For a stock broker, the cost of inefficiency is lost profits, or worse. Mortgage brokers live and die by deadlines, rate changes, and beating the other guy to the punch. It may or may not be honorable, but that's the business.

Contractors, of course, are just widgets. Let them struggle with whatever is available.

ps- I'm a contractor.

Dual Monitor is extremely useful

[dmsuperman]

I have a dual monitor setup at home (dual 19" monitors, both free :) ) and I can say it's a great setup. I have my monitoring software as well as media player on the right monitor, with my web browser and what not on my left monitor. When I'm programming, I'll move the browser to the right and use it for reference, and program in the left. While working with graphics (photoshop, 3d modeling, etc.) It's very nice to use both screens. I usually have any reference open on the right with all the workspace modules floating on it, and on the left the image I'm working with is maximized allowing me to see the whole thing. When gaming, when games don't support dual monitor, I can use the second for a walk-through or something. I tried turning off my second monitor for a day and went nuts, once you use dual it's very hard to use single monitor. On top of that, I use virtual desktops as well, for a total of 4 desktops (2 desktops, 2 monitors), and while it has it's advantages, the extra space allowing for 2 programs to be open is definitely worth it.

Monitors are Cheap

[Maxo-Texas]

So worst case, buy one for 80 bucks and bring it in. Or splurge 169 and get yourself a 19" flat screen.
Clearly mark it as your own.

I upgrade my own hardware like this until the company catches up once in a while. It makes my job much easier.

Re:Salary per hour? Not really!

[Phillup]

Contractors, who are paid by the hour, simply don't complain about unproductive work conditions provided at their environment by their customers. They'll happily take the extra time required to do their job with the tools at hand; it's the capitalist way, after all. I'm a (self employed) contractor that charges (and gets paid) by the hour.

And you can bet your ass I let the customer know when their stupidity is costing them money!

Why be a contractor if you will do stupid shit just because someone is paying you? That is what a salaried job is for...

Just tell them

[kybred]

1) If it was really a discarded monitor and would otherwise just be sitting in a storage room, there's no additional cost to the company for you to have a second monitor.

2) Can't you just tell them that you feel you're more productive with two monitors?

Emphasize liability, not productivity

[ColoradoAuthor]

Can you get the company nurse (or whoever is in charge of ergonomic audits or workers compensation) to endorse your setup? Your second monitor is greatly reducing the amount of mousing you need to do to switch between applications, and that, in turn, reduces the probability that the company will ever need to pay for expensive medical treatment. When my dual CRTs started wearing out, the way I got dual LCDs was by asking the company nurse to "prescribe" them. Keep in mind, too, that a dual monitor setup is mainstream--it's only in your company that you're an early adopter. Nearly all of the 100+ engineers where I work now have had dual 19" LCDs for a few years now.

Swivel?

[DeadCatX2]

If the two monitors are placed next to each other, I don't see how you're going to have to swivel. Do your eyes not move in your head?

--

At my company, it's standard operating procedure for all developers (keyword: devs) to have two monitors. (one guy even has three! and yes, he needs all three; he debugs a full-screen app on one, while still using both other monitors)

I haven't used alt+tab while I've been working there. Ever. Go ahead, try and write a program that hooks the Windows global keyboard hook, and count how many times you alt+tab in a day.

Now, all those times, that you hit alt+tab, and you have to tab through to the program you're interested in, and then you have to let go, and then your eyes have to adjust to the new layout of information on the screen, then you read the part of the web page which has the description you're interested in, and then you have to alt+tab back, and continue typing... ...all this time I spent continuing to type in my IDE, because I can just look with my eyes onto the other monitor to read the web page that tells me what I need to know. Hell, I don't even need to look back at my IDE, I can just keep typing in it if I wanted to.

And this happens every time you alt+tab. I mean, the lack of break in focus from alt+tab is worth it, to me.

Not everyone will benefit from dual monitors. That's why I say check alt+tab usage. If you're alt+tabbing hundreds or thousands of times a day, you could really benefit from more monitors.

Bonus points for extra hotness - get a widescreen monitor, and put it in Portrait mode. Now you can read more web page or data sheet without having to scroll.

Re:Forget extra monitors

[mlwmohawk]

Sorry, extra monitors rock.

In my office I have two 19" 1280x1024 monitors on an NVidia card. It is just so much easier to work. Seriously.

(1) Since most all documentation is digital and not pressed trees, I don't have the luxury of a book on my desk, but with two monitors I can leave a PDF on one monitor.

(2) Since I have two pretty large monitors, I can look at API docs, technical articles, AND my development environment merely by moving my eyes.

When I have to work on my laptop, I feel so constrained, and it takes so much time to work because I have to constantly switch windows or desktops, its just a pain.

IMHO you need either a large monitor or two monitors because there aren't any books anymore. My brain's memory registers get filled up when I work, I don't have any spares to flash memorize API docs, API examples while I am writing code. It is easier, and quicker, to simply glance right or left.

Re:Forget extra monitors

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Blockquoth the AC:

What you can use is focus-follows-mouse.

Unfortunately, what I need in this case is focus-follows-eyes. If I remembered to move the mouse to the other screen, I'd probably remember to click there, too. :-)

try virtual/multi desktop instead of 2 monitors

[Locutus]

The only time you can REALLY justify a dual monitor setup is when your primary job/task requires you to quickly see a whole lot of data at one time. Otherwise, use a multi-desktop configuration where you can assign quick-keys to switch views from one desktop to the other. UNIX and Linux desktop systems( CDE, KDE, Gnome, etc ) and probably others have always had multi-desktop support so you can run apps fullscreen in different desktops and with a keystroke you can instantly switch to the specific desktop. Toggling through the apps with the task-switcher( Alt-Tab ) isn't efficient since you likely vary the number of apps running at one time and switching to a specific desktop will get you right to the data or app you want/need to see.

Again, unless you absolutely must simultaneously see a ton of data which can only be efficiently done with 2 or more monitors, you'll probably have to snowball your IT department into thinking you need the extra monitors. One thing you might try is to tell them you have epilepsy and a quickly changing/flashing display window could trigger an episode. ;-)

2+ displays are easier but saying it's required is gonna take some work. IMO.

LoB

Re:try virtual/multi desktop instead of 2 monitors

[Todd Knarr]

Not quite, really. I'm working on a project now that involves a relatively small amount of data. I'm redesigning an application, and a large chunk of the code needs simply transcribed with relatively small changes to accomodate different data structures. That doesn't really involve much, two editor windows (original code to be transcribed and new code as I write it) and a model window showing the new data structure layout. Despite that not being much data, it's a lot easier on a dual-monitor system where I've got enough screen real estate to have all three windows open with sufficient context on each to see everything at a readable size. On a single-monitor system I'm constantly having to bring windows to the top to read them and then remember exactly what I read as I bring another window to the top to type in the new code.

For me, most of the time a usable window occupies more than half of a screen horizontally and vertically. When my windows don't, and I can fit them all on a single screen without overlapping, a single monitor works well. But once I have either so much data in a single window or a sufficient number of windows that I can't fit it all on one monitor without having windows overlap or scroll, multiple monitors are the only way to avoid page-flipping.

Re:try virtual/multi desktop instead of 2 monitors

[Locutus]

hmm, "large chunk of code" sure looks very much like what I said about dealing with a large amounts of data at one time. But, it sounds like you could probably use a tool like guiffy ( http://www.guiffy.com/ ) instead of a 2nd monitor.

Remember, I said that often a 2nd monitor is nice to have but selling it as a required tool is going to be tough if your IT people are not easily fooled. Using virtual desktops will often work in saving time. And if the new asset has to be tracked, inventoried, depreciated, recycled, etc, there's more cost involved than just the purchase price.

Does Microsoft Windows even come standard with virtual desktops? If so, what version of MS Windows finally got this? I've seen just so many Windows users have a hard time with the concept of running 2 applications at one time and I think the only way they would even consider running two applications would be if they had a 2nd monitor. I guess if they can't get training on the concept, throwing hardware at them would probably make them far more productive just because they'd not have to waste time starting and stopping applications all the time.

LoB

Re:try virtual/multi desktop instead of 2 monitors

[Todd Knarr]

A large chunk of code needs to be transcribed, but I'm not working on a large chunk at a time. I go routine by routine, and each one is only 20-40 lines long. That's pretty much one vertical screenful, 80-100 columns wide. It's not huge by any standard, but it's enough that I can't fit both routines on a single monitor at the same time without overlapping windows and obscuring parts of the code that I need to look at. It's the equivalent of working with 2 sheets of paper at once: easy if you've got 17" to lay them side-by-side, a real pain if you've only got 12" and have to have half of one sheet covered up.

Re:try virtual/multi desktop instead of 2 monitors

[Locutus]

got it but understand that we are talking about screen space here. The phrase "huge amount of data" was/is relevant to the concept of the subject at hand and that is related to screen space and multiple monitors. If, for some reason, you must have an editing window fullscreen to see 20-40 lines and things like changing font size, screen resolution, etc are unworkable then sure, you obviously must have a 2nd display and might also want to see about having your eyes checked. ;-)

Again, I would recomment a fullscreen window running a diff tool like guiffy for what you mentioned. Good luck.

LoB

Re:try virtual/multi desktop instead of 2 monitors

[Todd Knarr]

A diff tool helps not one bit with editing code. Remember that I don't care what the differences are, I'm reading the original code and writing new code. I don't need a diff of the old code (and diff against what?), and there isn't any new code to diff until I'm done writing it (at which point why bother diffing something I'm not working on anymore?). You're suggesting the right tool for the wrong problem.

As for eyesight, my corrected vision at monitor distance is 20/10 thank you very much. But 20-40 lines of code in a fixed-pitch font, plus bits of vertical whitespace to seperate logical bits of code, plus editor menu-bar, status-bar and other in-window UI overhead, plus window-frame overhead, adds up to more than you seem to imagine. Ditto horizontally. And the window doesn't need to fill the whole screen, exceeding half the screen width or about 2/3rds of the height is sufficient and that's really easy to do.

Re:try virtual/multi desktop instead of 2 monitors

[Locutus]

I give up, you need toolbars, buttons, staus areas, bells whistles and the kitchen sink to and therefore require two monitors to edit your code. That's great and I was just silly for thinking otherwise. Good luck.

LoB

Re:try virtual/multi desktop instead of 2 monitors

[Locutus]

yikes, what a shame. I guess running two more more apps on Windows is a power-user kinda thing to do. ;-) wow

LoB

Re:Forget extra monitors

[JesterXXV]

Not sure if that was a joke. But I don't think it's true. I write code for my eyes to parse, and I can't parse long lines very easily. I suppose there might be some crappy programmers out there who never bother to read their own code, but I don't think they need two monitors to enable them.

An actual study

[jameshowison]

Chuck West and Roy Schmidt (2006) Dual Monitor Productivity Study in Proceedings of IFIP 8.2 OASIS Workshop, Milwaukee, WI. p 83 http://www.ifipwg82.org/OASIS2006_Proceedings-LR.p df

That's just an abstract, but they may have published the full article by now, check Google. Or email the first author, Chuck West: west@bradley.edu

Depends on applications

[Sebastopol]

where i work, we all have laptops and desktop LCDs, so it is possible to work with two monitors.

downside is: when you switch back to mobile, all the settings are hosed, and when you reset them and switch back to desktop, ... hosed again.

plus it is a big hassle to make sure applications pop up in the right windows, and making sure XP remembers that.

i program in linux through vnc, so i never really need more than one screen. even when i debugged device drivers, one screen was enough. when i edited tech docs, one screen was fine. so after 20+ years in the industry, i have never been satisfied with 2 monitors, and have done just fine with one.

i think the only apps that need it are animation/photo editing. otherwise, this is just about the coolness factor.

Re:Salary per hour? Not really!

[dereference]

Now that's quite a broad generalization. No disrespect was meant here. I was only trying to indicate that a totally different dynamic applies if the workforce, as a whole, is paid hourly. Unless a very significant portion of the workers are paid by the hour, these kinds of inefficiencies will go undetected by the bean-counters.

I'm an IT contractor, and I make it a point to draw my customer's attention to inefficiencies in my work environment. Why? Because it's in my best interests to maximize my productivity. Again, this was never intended as slight against those paid by the hour. In the work where I'm paid by the hour, I would never endure such an inefficiency without making the customer aware of it and trying to help fix it. I'm not saying that you, or I, or anyone else is taking advantage of the situation. But there are certainly times where the customer is unable or unwilling to remove the barriers to efficiency. Ultimately it's their calculated decision to make, and it's totally unrelated to the main point of my post.

justification

[Jbcarpen]

You say that you dug up a discarded monitor? In that case the justification is simple, the cost to the company for you to have that extra monitor was zero, therefore any extra productivity as a result of having it is a net gain.

Even better with one in Portrait mode...

[PRMan]

I do this all the time. I put my second monitor in portrait mode, so that way I can edit Word documents and view web pages and source code in portrait mode, which is far preferable. At my old work, I used a monitor that people were going to throw away and fixed it and just put it on my desk sideways. Sure, a few people thought I was a dork, but then they wondered how I got my work done so fast. (Besides, truth be told, they thought I was a dork before this anyway.)

I mean, why do we have everything in landscape mode, anyway? The only reason is because at the beginning, it was the only way to fit the 80 columns required by languages such as Cobol. Also, 80 columns matched the output of your original dot matrix (in text mode) and typewriter-style printers. That's the only reason and we're stuck with it today. People get stuck in tradition and are unable to analyze things for themselves.

So, currently, I have a 16X9 laptop screen which is great for videos, spreadsheets, e-mail, graphics, etc. And a Samsung LCD flat screen that rotates to portrait that I use for documents, source code and web pages. If I need to code from a document or web page, I can always move it fullscreen to the other monitor.

real good

[kriswd40]

I do a lot of web developement and i find two monitors to be incredibly helpful. I can code on one monitor and view the results of said coding on the other. In addtion, I can keep my coding window at a high resolution and keep the other monitor at a lower resolution that is more along the lines of what I would except the typical consumer to have. Thus not only does it make me more productive, but it makes for a better designed site too.

Re:Salary per hour? Not really!

[frequnkn]

Do the bean counters actually read slashdot? I don't care about beans, I care about quality and deadlines. It doesn't matter how cheaply we can develop something if it's crappy and five years late. The are plenty of people out there that... oh, wait :-)

If your organization sees quality and timeliness as 'hidden', I suggest you run away. Like, really. Stop typing, stop reading; stand up, turn around, and run like hell.

-Foo

Too many monitors

[Darktyco]

One of my old bosses had six monitors on his PC. Whenever he clicked anything on his taskbar it always took him a while to find out what monitor it actually opened up in. On top of that, he always felt the need to fill all six screens and would choose to do so with applications that completely taxed his system's resources. I would estimate that his productivity was cut in half as a result of this sillyness but he didn't really do that much work to begin with.

yes two is better

[houghi]

http://houghi.org/shots/slides/dualscreen.php
And then obviously use also several desktops.

What I do is e.g. make a site in one and look at it in the other. Or just run something in the background that I want to keep an eye on, while doing something else on the other screen and see what the effect it has.
http://houghi.org/shots/wmaker/index.php

Unfortunatly I do not have two screens at my job, although I need to constantly monitor something. Not possible to do.

Re:Just tell them

[__aaclcg7560]

He should just hide the monitor in a box and stick it in the dark corner of his cube. The company can't audit what they can't see. This technique worked successfully at several companies I worked for.

Printing costs

[Dwonis]

I don't know if it makes me more productive, but having two monitors saves me a ton in printing costs.

I often need to have reference material visible when I work (the alternative is to switch back and forth on a single monitor, which, when feasible, is still hugely inefficient). Prior to having a dual-monitor setup, I would print out whatever manuals, source code, etc. that I needed. With dual monitors, I just open whatever web page or PDF file I need on one screen, and do my work on the other.

It works the same way with web development. I'll have source code on one screen and the browser (possibly inside VMware) on the other. It works rather nicely.

If you want to convince your boss to give you dual monitors (assuming you need them), don't just say, "It will make me more productive". Point out specifically how it will improve things.

Abandoned monitor...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should they care if you are using an "abandoned" monitor? I started using an "abandoned" monitor at work after running dual-head at home... (I brought in my own 2nd video card to drive it) Since then all systems we buy come with dual-head support on the video cards. I eventually replaced the "abandoned" crt with one of the new 1600x1200 LCD monitors... It started with just myself... Less than 2 yrs later EVERY developer except one in our office is running dual-head. You could not drag us back to single monitor kicking and screaming... (We would just bring in our own second monitor and/or video card at our own expense...)

Your best bet is to point out that using the "abandoned" monitor is providing improved productivity at "no additional cost" to the organization since the 2nd monitor was collecting dust in the corner till you put it to good use... Let them know that if they find someone else that "needs" your monitor and does not have one that you will readily give it up... (as long as they allow you to bring in your own 2nd monitor from home to use so you do not lose productivity. You can readily buy used 20" CRTs for less than $40 these days...)

If they ask you to "prove" increased productivity due to dual-monitors try flipping the tables on them. Tell them as far as you know there have not been any studies done on the improved productivity but you have noticed the improved productivity yourself and you doubt they will EVER find ANYONE who has used dual monitors for more than 2 weeks that claims there is no increased productivity.

Re:Abandoned monitor...

[skiflyer]

Why? There are plenty of studies showing that dual monitors provide a benefit. Sounds like he'd be better of just finding them. Since it sounds like he's dealing with PHBs I'd start with a nice Microsoft article http://research.microsoft.com/displayArticle.aspx? id=433 Googling "dual monitor productivity study" gives plenty of answers to this question, whereas asking slashdot apparently leads to a lot of tangents (have you seen the first half of the responses, it's something about hidden costs and government companies who print money, I don't know, I skimmed alot) It's true though, the studies are pretty useless as anyone who's used one will attest, it's just better. The question, in my opinion, is what's the right number... 2,3,4... I think our biggest rig monitor wise is around 18 (not a developer), but I think 4 is the right number for me, though 3 suffices pretty well.

Re:Salary per hour? Not really!

[krbvroc1]

Your fallacy is highlighted above. Most "employees" are not paid by the hour. Contractors, who are paid by the hour, simply don't complain about unproductive work conditions provided at their environment by their customers. They'll happily take the extra time required to do their job with the tools at hand; it's the capitalist way, after all. You generalization is full of horse feathers. As a 'contractor' myself, I view my time as very valuable and loudly complain about unproductive work conditions. Typically much more is expected from me, both from my employer and myself. I've left several assignments in the past or asked to transfer off the project because of unproductive environments. In fact, to generalize the other way, I find most of the 'entrenched' 'employees' are content with the unproductive status-quo. Typically, as an employee, they have more to 'lose' if they complain. I've spent numerous 'extra time' automating things that others do the 'old fashioned way'.

As a contractor in this situation, if I found a second monitor increased my productivity, I would simply go by my own monitor and bring it in to the office if they will not provide one.

So not only is your generalization inaccurate, but I find it personally offensive.

Not as much as a good window manager will

[Theatetus]

The real crippling weakness of Windows is that, ironically, it's window manager is really really bad. Yes, I know there are tweaks and add-ons that render it as capable as something like metacity or gnustep (to give two basic examples), but it's still so stuck-in-1995 that I think it's not worth salvaging.

Why are you switching between applications, for instance, rather than between desktop contexts? Shouldn't your desktop manager allow you to switch between virtual desktops? Or (God forbid), rotate a semitransparent cube to the face that has the appropriate set of applications on it with a mouse gesture (people ooh and ah when I show them Beryl's wobbly effect, but the real reason it's useful is that cube)? Why should all your windows be in one visual space?

Re:Not as much as a good window manager will

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

Microsoft provides a free virtual desktop manager as a part of PowerToys that works pretty well.

Why stop at two

[theeddie55]

at home i use a three monitor setup with a windows computer and a linux computer, the third monitor is on a switch box to be used as a second monitor for either computer, for my work on website design i've found this quite invaluable.

Multiple monitors are a necessity for me

[Sierpinski]

The first day I got to this job, I started looking around for an extra monitor, and I'll never be without it again. I don't know about any professional research studies, but I know there is no way I could be as productive as I am without my dual monitor setup. I have too many things going on once to flip back and forth, and it just makes things so much faster and so much easier. If inventory/audit was a problem here, I'd simply bring in my own personal monitor (or pick one up for $100 or whatever, they're cheap) and use it.

Even has I'm writing this, I have two major projects grinding in the other window, watching the progress of both. If it needs attention, I'll find out immediately and not 10 minutes later when I'm done perusing Slashdot. ;-)

You can also;

[WillRobinson]

Superglue the frames together, use black electrical tape, to go around both frames so it looks like one unit. Then remove one of the asset tags if there is on.

Set back and smile.

Re:Just tell them

[MoxFulder]

Okay, if your employer has nothing better to do than *take away* a monitor which was *discarded* because you haven't filled out the proper paperwork... then gosh, that sounds like a ship sinking under the weight of a bureaucracy.

I'm in academia, but I worked at a software company for a couple years and if I felt that something could make me more productive, I got it. Especially if it's something like a monitor that costs practically nothing in the grand scheme of things for even a smallish company.

Monitoring

[opticalmatrix]

Using two monitors at work is a good way to get more done. I work in a NOC and have 3 monitors, a laptop, 3 projection screens 7'x7' each, 2 42" TVs and a 53" plasma. Yes it might seem like overkill to anyone who writes code or your normal user, but for what I need to monitor/control all of these are required. I was allowed to design our NOC with all of this and the managment here had no issues with it.

Re:Salary per hour? Not really!

[mackyrae]

I think the way it works here is that if you are paid wages (meaning hourly) and go over 40 hours, then you get 150% for the overtime. If you are salaried though, it's "you get paid $x per week" with no exceptions. If you have a project that involves you spending 44 hours at work that week, your salary doesn't change, because your contract says "$x per week." If you're a slow worker, well, learn to work faster. There is no overtime pay on salaries.

Dualies

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I had trouble getting a second monitor at one job. Basically, the 'task switching' argument wasn't convincing them, probably because they didn't see it as a huge problem themselves. I told them that it was important enough to me that I was ready to buy the monitor myself. Once I mentioned that, they seemed to understand that it was very important to me and eventually freed up an extra monitor for my desk. I think they were pretty comfortable with it not long after when they saw how I was using it because I ended up getting new monitors a year later.

My position may be different, though. I think they thought I just wanted an extra gadget to play with. (Honestly, I don't blame them in the slightest for thinking that since I often did exactly that. Hehe.)

Hide it!

[maxrate]

Dual-monitors definately save time - I've been using a dual setup since Windows 2000 had native support. Hi your monitor up in the ceiling of your office - when the audit is over, break out the display again!

Re:Forget extra monitors

[Crizp]

In the days of CRTs I could understand this. But with LCD's? Two does not take that much more desk space than one since they're so flat. Keep them close to the wall or something. Your keyboard or laptop is usually what takes up the most space on the desk.

I used the laptop with a 17" CRT until the CRT was replaced with a 19" LCD recently -- it cleared up half my desk :)

Two Computers + Two Monitors?

[cheesyfru]

I'm using two computers: one Linux and one Windows. I have them hooked up to a KVM and a 21" CRT. On both, I use virtual desktops.

Is anyone out there using two monitors for two computers, but with the ability to juggle them between the two screens? In other words, is there a super-KVM switch that can do AA/AB/BB?

Re:Salary per hour? Not really!

[MattW]

There are lots of places which respect you, and pay you a salary, and only expect a normal number of hours.

Depends: Windows v.s. XWindows

[rikkitikki]

I'd say it depends. I would think a developer on Windows would have a better argument for multiple monitors since, despite its name, Windows is rather lousy at managing windows. A typical Windows usage model is to have an IDE fully maximied on one screen, and if anything else needs to be seen while developing, it helps to have it on a second monitor.

If the developer uses XWindows, then they are (generally) using a window manager which allows them to have several terminals, graphical editing programs and other apps sharing the same screen real-estate. A window manager allows the developer to quickly and effectively move between windows (focus follows mouse) and manage the layering of windows (Alt+F3 lower window, Alt+F1 raise window, etc). It's easier to have two windows open that partially obscure each other and quickly and effectively operate between the two. Add on top of this the added real-estate provided by virtual desktops and an XWindows user can get by with fewer physical screens. I suppose the exception to this would be if a single large real-estate application always needs to be up and visible. For example, a web developer would need a web browser up most of the time, and web browsers take up a good deal of screen real-estate.

Re:Depends: Windows v.s. XWindows

[slickwillie]

That's right. I was forced to boot XP just to run some tax software. It nearly drove me crazy switching between the browser window, the tax app and OO Calc. Under Linux, with focus follows mouse, you just position the windows so you can see the relevant portions then slide the mouse over each one. It's probably even better than shifting your head over to look at a different monitor.

Digital Copy Holder

[haggishunk]

With more and more information being digital, I find that I'm often using combinations of email reading, word processing, web browsing, pdf viewing, cad modeling (ad nauseum) software simultaneously. An example: Email comes in with a pdf attached. I read the email and open the pdf, referring back to the email for context. Then I can compare the info in the pdf to something I'm working on in my publishing software. With two screens, it's easy to have these all open and visible, enabling quick comparison and transferring of information.

Research on two monitors

[charlesmartin14]

Absolutely yes! Read the Mythical Man Month by Fred Brooks...the reference is in there. I can additional references elsewhere if you give me some time.

Wrong argument

[Peter (Professor) Fo]

It is irrelevant what others do. You have a specific case which may, or may not, 'justify' two screens.

I use two screens (2 PCs, 1 keyboard+mouse connected by IP and a brilliant small free program called Synergy http://synergy2.sourceforge.net/ ). The ability to have what you want instantly visible is brilliant. (Also this set up allows me to twiddl client and server at the same time from the same keyboard.) FWIW I try to have one sort of thing on one screen and other stuff on the other in the hope that switching is minimised and that one is used for reference while hacking on the other.

Here is the put-down for an inevitable whinge by some droid:
[Droid] : "We can't let you have that! What if everyone wanted it?"
[You] : "Then I'd be silly not to have it also."

Having said it is spurious to argue from the general to the specific, doing it the other way round isn't. So if you get the slightest whiff of grief you point out that many of your colleagues would also benefit from this productivity aid, list them and also ask if "programmer productivity is important to the company".

Two Monitors Make Me MUCH More Productive

[JoelH231]

Using two monitors makes me so much more productive. The main problem with Windows Vista and a one monitor system is that they don't integrate well when you are using a large widescreen monitor. I tested my system on a a 22 inch widescreen monitor and becasue of the inability to seperate tasks on you monitor with Vista it doesn't help for anything besides watching movies larger and viewing large websites. With a two monitor system it allows you to easily seperate tasks and be more productive. If you are trying to increase productivity get two monitors if you are trying to enrich your experience stick to a large one monitor system. Think about it...i can enjoy a double cheeseburger if i only had one hand but i can enjoy two double cheeseburgers at the same time with two hands. The cheeseburger is the same but my productivity is doubled.

Re:Forget extra monitors

[proxima]

Unless you are actually needing to see more things at the same time, extra monitors are a waste of desk space and electricity. Get some virtual desktops set up and connect them to your function keys (or alt-function keys).

This is what I do. It's the first thing I set up on a new KDE install: 11 virtual desktops, mapped to alt-1 through alt-0, alt-` (by far the most convenient keybindings I've seen). Between my laptop and my desktop I keep my applications consistent. Desktop 1 is a terminal, desktop 2 is a web browser, desktop 3 is mail, desktop 4 is LaTeX (I do quite a bit of writing these days).

Still, at home I have dual 17" monitors. Why? Because it's a huge convenience to write LaTeX on one screen, and see the DVI in another. It's also convenient to have a web browser on one screen, and IM/notes/random small apps on another. The same goes for development (edit MATLAB in one screen, see the output in another). On my laptop I have to assign different virtual desktops to do some of these, leading to much more alt-switching even within the context of one task.

Unfortunately, the way dual monitors work in xorg, my virtual desktops are one extra-wide desktop spanning both monitors. I would love to be able to assign any combination of 1280x1024 virtual desktops to each physical monitor. That is, maybe I want a web browser and a console at the same time, or later a web browser and mail. The applications could remain on their virtual desktop, I'm just choosing to view different virtual desktops for each monitor.

30 inches bah..

[tempest69]

I am a bigger is better fan, so 30inches isnt too big by any measure.. but I'll take a couple 22inchers any day for the same price.. add a couple articulated arms so that you can adjust to needs. Having a 16x9 turned to 9x16 for word is fantastic.. Then dual pages work really nice if theyre both flipped.. for games having a super wide field of view is advantageous. For coding having a run window that shows graphics in 16x9 and a code window thats 9x16 is the way to go.

Storm

mmm articulated arms... 2 30inchers...wow.

Absolutely

[spoonboy42]

Unfortunately I don't know of any particular studies off the top of my head, but anecdotal evidence certainly suggests that multiple monitors (after perhaps a very brief period of adjustment) certainly make you more productive. Granted, the increased productivity is probably equivalent to what you would get with one very large, high-res widescreen monitor, but usually a pair of SXGA monitors cost a fair bit less than a big 1080p screen.

Personally, I like to keep my IDE open on one display, while I run a build of the app I'm working on and my debugger on the other (probably with Firefox browsing some documentation, too). My Dad, who works in an office for an auto company, might run PowerPoint on one screen (yeah, I know, that's the business world for you) while he references messages in his mail/groupware client on the other. My mom, who's a librarian, can keep the circulation system on one display with a browser she uses to help deal with reference questions on the other. Alright, neither of my parents' employers gave them multiple desktops, but they'd both certainly prefer to have them.

Basically, if you do any kind of multitasking, multiple displays will help. You can see more of your workspace at a time, you don't waste time switching between apps, and its especially time-saving if you're working on something in one window that requires information from another beyond a simple copy/paste. The only caveat is that people might use some of the extra real-estate to keep timewasters like an IM client open, but a worker with reasonable self-discipline will certainly increase their productivity.

Getting rid of the monitor might -cost- them money

[Shipwack]

If your area charges extra landfill fees for monitors or other electronics, your company might have to pay money to properly dispose of the monitor. Maybe $15 (or whatever) is trivial, but letting you keep it is one less expense for them.

Monitor vs. Training Time

[Chris Y Taylor]

Ask them which would be cheaper:

Letting you keep your 2nd monitor and be productive.

Or training a new employee to do your job because you left for a better company that knows the importance of happy, productive workers.

Just the amount they'd spend drug testing the new hire would probably justify the cost of letting you keep an extra old monitor on your desk.

Here's what you should do ...

[put_the_cat_out]

If they take your second monitor away, go invest in your own and bring it into your office. (As an aside, make sure it is tagged as a personal item.) Then you will be more productive and get higher visibility the next time you are considered for a raise or promotion. IMO, it will be well worth the $100-$200 investment for a second monitor.

Joel Spolsky says so

[cgreuter]

Joel Spolsky advocates dual monitors a lot. Item 9 in this article goes into some detail on this. And here, he mentions the standard developer setup in passing (toward the end of the article).

If people at your office take him seriously (which you may be able to do just by droping his name in the right way), that might be enough.

Answer is YES

[Z00L00K]

I'm running a two-monitor setup at work, where I have Eclipse in one monitor and running web browsers and other things in the other. If I only had one monitor I would lose about 20% productivity right away.

And at home I'm running a 3 monitor setup. Running 3 monitors is just improving the productivity slightly and is more "because I can". I'm mostly doing programming at home and not much gaming.

And if your monitor still was a leftover that noone really wanted, that shouldn't cause much fuss. Check in with your manager and prove your point.

Buy it yourself

[sheddd]

If it's that big of a deal to you, and your company disagrees with letting you keep the 2nd, buy your own, label it, and use it.

How much hassle is $150 worth?

YES, 2 monitors or more is the way

[EvesNight]

I'm a developer among other things and I've been using multiple monitors for years. The case is very simple, using multipe monitors is cheaper than using one based on the increase in productivity.

Make Real World Comparison

[theatrecade]

Compare to having an actual bigger desk and be able to work on things more efficiently. If you had a small desk like in elementary school (one monitor) or the desk of an actual productive human being (2 monitors). We all grow up technologically and once you have dual monitors there really no way to go back to one

many ppl use multiple monitors these days

[Mean Ass Troll]

there are many arguments you can make here.

citing some arcane study may not have the impact you are looking for.

cost benefit analysis is what a company wants to see

so you argument should be

cost: 0 , monitor was discarded

benefit 1: "This has made it much easier to do my job"
benefit 2: if work is easier, i should be able to do more of it in the same time frame

argument 1: even if its only a 1% increase in productivity it is worth it, because the monitor cost 0

argument 2: this is also a perfect oportunity to study the benefits of addtional monitors, and possibly decide if purchasing them are worth it also

argument 3: CSI has tons of monitors, and they always get the job done in less than an hour

argument 4: with 2 monitors i can actually do work, while waiting for a group in World of Warcraft

Re:Forget extra monitors

[dim5]

I'm not sure how many pages you'd have to not print to offset the manufacture and running costs of a second monitor though...

Don't forget to add in the cost in time of trips to the printer.

yes AND already answered on /. !

[GURU Meditation 8000]

hi,

yes, two monitors can make you more productive. there has already been an article on slashdot
about this:

http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/1 0/09/137232

and there are also:

http://www.netlobo.com/dual_monitor_productivity.h tml
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000012.h tml
http://lifehacker.com/software/dual-monitor/dual-m onitors-increase-productivity-168488.php

Re:3 monitors...

[stephentyrone]

1280x1024 is "standard" resolution? 1997 called. They want their CRTs back. 1. company buys you 2 20" widescreen LCDs (preferably 24", but that's clearly a pipe dream at your firm) 2. you can actually see your work 3. profit. No, really. I run 3 20" widescreens at work (1 dedicated to each of two development machines, 1 on a switch between the two), and have my laptop (1440x960) and a 24" widescreen at home. Both setups are great. Both make me much more productive. At this point, I can't imagine how painful it would be to go back to 1280x1024. Everything about that aspect ratio is wrong for getting work done.

USA Today article should help you

[Still Having Fun]

There's a USA Today article that cites a Microsoft study which found that "workers increased their productivity 9% to 50% by adding a second or third monitor." The entire article can be found at http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/kimkomando/ 2006-03-02-two-monitors_x.htm This was the best I found, but there are a number of other web postings on the subject. I just did a Dogpile search using the search string: monitors productivity. Everyone in our office now has three Dell 20" monitors, and we've found that multiple monitors significantly speed our software development. I can display my IDE on one screen, my help documentation on another, and my actual test application plus support programs such as simulators and database displays on a third. It's a no brainer. Best of luck to you!

Corporatocracy

[falconwolf]

Yes, that is exactly right, all things being equal and fair. That is hardly the case, often large companies maintain their market share not through capitalism but through good old fashion organized crime (Enron), or through good old fashion communism (state enforced monopolies, such as telcoms). What US is becoming is a Corporatocracy, which is just soviet style communism with a better marketing department.

Instead of Corporatocracy I think "Corporate Aristocracy", which Thomas Jefferson warned of, works better. He saw corporations as one of three threats to natural rights, the other two being government and organized religion.

Falcon

Re:Corporatocracy

[alexo]

The number of times Jefferson has been mentioned lately on /. makes me think that with only a moderate investment (a shovel, some magnets and a length of wire) I could provide the USofA with a cheap source of energy.

Be Practical

[Coward Anonymous]

Don't give your employer a chance.
Before the audit, put the monitor in the trunk of your car. When the audit is done, return the monitor to your desk. It's a lost monitor that nobody is looking for anyway.

flip side

[GunFodder]

This is true, but the flip side is it costs the company nothing to make an exempt employee work for 5 minutes longer.

Yes it does... oh, wait

[c0d3h4x0r]

I was just about to reply and offer my overwhelming evidence showing how dual monitors boost my productivity.

Then I realized I was using my second monitor to post to Slashdot.

Oops!

Triple Monitors are the Way to Go!

[joeodne]

I find it amazing how anybody can work with just one monitor. Way back in the day I started with one, then went to two LCDs...one being a 17 and the other a 15. Now I have three, all 19 digital LCDs and I could not be more productive if I wanted to be. One monitor has all of my system management utilities, another has the all important email and the third has Slashdot :) I also somehow managed to get a 42" lcd on the wall for server log viewing...that is nice too...

WindowMaker + two monitors = terrific productivity

[talexb]

I have two monitors hooked up to my system. I run WondowMaker (http://www.windowmaker.info/) so that I can flip between 1. Mail (mutt for internal mail, GAIM for internal chat and GMail for external mail), 2. Monitoring (xterms to the servers I manage, a view of the SGE queue, a view of the incoming mail feeds, and a 'ps axf' view and a tail of the access log on my busiest server), leaving plenty left over for 3. Development (xterms into development system, browser window, gvim windows). I've had as many as six workspaces active at any time, and it allows me to leave one workspace, go do something on another workspace, then come back to the first workspace knowing that it's just as I left it.

I highly recommend it -- and if you're using an old screen, the bean-counters will probably tell you it's depreciated down to nothing already, so it's not costing the company anything anyway.

docs/collab/resolution

[mattr]

Even a separate computer is useful just to show docs.
Considering everyone from McDonalds to Goldman Sacchs usees multiple monitors it's hard to imagine them saying no, unless money is really tight. Or if you are not so productive anyway.
Perhaps you could bring it up when you make a goal or achievement.
Depends on your job but maybe being able to see a debugger while testing, or being able to monitor real time interaction is important. Say I need this because of X and show how you use the programs but how 1 screen is keeping you all bound up.
Of course if you don't really need it then you won't be so convincing perhaps.. I know developers who get these huge CRTs or whatever and then use this crazy ultra fine resolution, so they can see a lot of lines at once. It hurts the eyes!! How about mentioning collaboration? Other people can't see what you are pointing to when the letters are so small, maybe you can show how you currently use very small letters in your programming style but it is getting hard on the eyes.

Get a second PC to justify that monitor!

[wsanders]

Say you need a second PC, they will usually approve that with little justification.

Then, when the audit is over, trash the PC and go back to your dual-monitor setup.

Re:Just tell them

[KevMar]

I think he wants more than just his word to back him up.

The best thing he can do is set the manager up with a second monitor so he can see the difference. I am an avid multi monitor user. Friends and family that use my machines have gone to the same set up on there machines. At work, I did the same as this guy and eventual converted the entire department. All but one person (the new guy) now have 2 monitors.

now im up to 4 monitors. I wanted 3, but it was just as easy to do 4 as it was 3. If I had to make a cut, i would drop one. But nobody else is willing to give up there set ups.

If you can't convert others, at the very least mention the advantages now before the audit gets to your monitor. Be proactive at telling your supervisor that its needed before the auditor tells him its not needed.

Re:Forget extra monitors

[harry666t]

Virtual desktops FTW.

I really need at least 12 (twelve) workspaces to handle the shitload of windows I'm constantly using. Web browser, news reader, mail, music, IMs, GIMP, Emacs, a few aterms, GtkRadiant, pdf viewer, some games... I'd go crazy if I had to keep everything on one desktop.

And one day I brought a second monitor. I thought, yeah, now I can have Emacs on one monitor and GIMP on another, how cool... After three hours I've decided to get rid of the second monitor. Why?

Actually, it is faster to hit [win]+[arrow key] to switch to another virtual dekstop than to move the mouse pointer from the edge of one monitor to the opposing edge of the another. My hands are already near the keyboard most of the time anyway. The second screen was a little distracting, I couldn't get used to it.

Maybe multiple monitors are a good thing, many sk1llz0r3d or famous people are using dual heads (AFAIK Gates, Carmack). But to me, it's just a waste of precious space.

Here you go

[Skim123]

Would some study results from a research company help persuade your bosses?

Microsoft researchers haven't perfected the genie, but they've found a tool that can increase your productivity by 9 to 50 percent and make your work day easier. And you can begin using it right away. The researchers conducted user studies that proved the effectiveness of adding a second or even third monitor to your workstation, creating a wide-screen effect. In addition, they found out how the operating system needs to change to accommodate a larger screen area.
http://research.microsoft.com/displayarticle.aspx? id=433

Or how about this one?

A systematic study conducted by NEC-MitsubishiOpen link in new window, ATI TechnologiesOpen link in new window and the University of UtahOpen link in new window has concluded that the use of multiple monitors in the workplace increases productivity.

Granted, you have to take the results of research with a grain of salt when the team is headed by a company that makes monitors, but still...

And if they're the kind of folks that like anecdotal evidence, just send them here and here.

pay

[falconwolf]

You must be working in a "good" part of the country, though. Here in the Delaware Valley, right after the Bubble burst, the only job I was able to get was at 22/hr :(. I'm still not making too much more than that, all things considered.

Though you may only of gotten $22/hour you should keep in mind the GP said: "DCP $30/hour (remember taxes!)". The employer has to not only pay the payroll taxes but also has to pay the expenses related to all the withholdings. Then there's any benefits the employer offers such as health insurance, if offered. Employees can get insurance cheaper through their employer because the employer picks up some of the cost of the insurance, though in the end it becomes a tax writeoff. So it might end up the expenses your employer has to pay may be more than $25 despite only paying you $22. And in states that have state income taxes expenses can be even highter.

Falcon

Re:Forget extra monitors

[Chris Burke]

And when you combine two monitors and virtual desktops, what you get is orgasmic bliss!

I put things I commonly need to refer to -- my email client, system monitors, etc etc -- on one screen, stickied. What I'm working on is on the other. If I need to look at two things at once for my work, I put the other on the screen with all the sticky stuff and maximize it. It's fucking sweet.

But I work for an engineering dept, which already has large CAD groups where the benefit of dual screens is already accepted as obvious. My group took longer to get them, but I'm glad we did.

Worst Case Scenario:

[stephanruby]

If they take your additional monitor away, buy your own additional monitor. Document this thoroughly (e.g. serial number, receipts, clear label, etch the plastic, etc).

And don't ask for permission to buy your own monitor, do it first, install it first, and ask for forgiveness later. They can always refuse that you buy an additional monitor, but they would really have to be d___s to ask you to remove it (and if they did go that far, I'd suggest you start looking for another job then).

using personal equipment

[falconwolf]

Probably. Most companies I've worked with don't like people bringing in their own stuff, at least not electronic or computer equipment. My first job was in an art department, since I was new, and only 18, they put me on the oldest computer - a Macintosh Quadra 700 (which used a 25MHz 68040). The computer was ridiculously slow, and I was using something more than 10 times faster at home. I asked my boss if I could bring in my old computer since it was still several times faster than the Quadra, but he wouldn't let me. It didn't matter that I would be more productive.

Employers don't like employees bringing in their own equipment for at least two good reasons. One is taxes and audits. If an auditor were to come into a workspace where people used their own PCs for instance they would have a hassle figuring how to fit the equipment into audits. A second reason is because the employer would have to support the equipment.

Falcon

Re:Forget extra monitors

[pipingguy]

Switching latency: it's much slower to mash the keyboard to switch desktops than to move one's eye.

Old board-trained draftsmen have always known this. Most of the frustration I found with moving to CAD was with not being able to see the "full picture" at a glance and having to scroll and zoom around to interpret drawing details.

Bill Gates

[CriminalNerd]

Bill Gates uses three monitors and mentioned that taking even one away would decrease his productivity significantly. That could be a good argument to use.

Re:Forget extra monitors

[pipingguy]

anything involving applications with lots of toolbars and such (graphics, CAD)

Actually, most of the hotshot CAD guys that I know use keyboard shortcuts (modify acad.pgp for AutoCAD to your liking) for commands as this takes less mental/visual focus away from the work at hand. That's what I do, but I don't consider myself to be a "hotshot".

Others seem to like to have screens cluttered with icons and toolbars - it looks cool and techy-complicated to the casual, easily-impressed observer.

Google, Microsoft, Yahoo

[Chris Snook]

According to this guy:

http://tastyresearch.wordpress.com/work-stories/

Microsoft gives their interns dual 21" monitors, and Google and Yahoo give their interns dual 24" monitors. These are not dotcom bubble companies. They are fiscally responsible, profitable technology companies. They employ lots of engineers, and have made an informed decision that giving a huge amount of screen real estate to even their interns is good for the business.

I work for a profitable tech company, and I have dual 19" LCDs. I can also help myself to our collection of old CRTs if I want to hook up one of my test boxes, but with dual-input monitors and ssh, I haven't needed to.

Deeply imperfect information

[sash]

I still prefer to think that we just haven't found yet that solution that sucks less, and we should keep thinking on.

Bring your own discarded monitor in

[vux984]

Unless the company has a policy preventing you from attaching anything to the computer, bring in your own screen and hook it up. They're dirt cheap after all. The company can't take it away because its not theirs, and they *probably* won't make a fuss about it being there because really its not costing them anything.

If you are allowed to use your own PDA, your own USB flash drives, or your own laptop, your own monitor should be a nobrainer.

On some level I agree the company should provide you the tools you want if they genuinely will make you more productive, but there are a lot of reasons they don't. Ranging from they aren't convinced they really pay for themselves, to shortsightedness, to budget issues, to office politics (if they give you TWO, then they have to give EVERYONE two...)

If you can't convince them and its important to you just bring your own. They'd basically have to be dicks to tell you you can't do that -- of course, there are plenty of dicks out there so I wouldn't rule that out.

Salaried employees

[falconwolf]

I think the way it works here is that if you are paid wages (meaning hourly) and go over 40 hours, then you get 150% for the overtime. If you are salaried though, it's "you get paid $x per week" with no exceptions. If you have a project that involves you spending 44 hours at work that week, your salary doesn't change, because your contract says "$x per week." If you're a slow worker, well, learn to work faster. There is no overtime pay on salaries.

Salaried employees can get overtime pay. However what's considered overtime for salaried employees is 55 hours, if I recall right.

Falcon

Re:Salaried employees

[Dutch Gun]

Most programmers, as far as I understand, are classified as "exempt" regarding overtime pay.

http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/fairpay /fs17g_salary.htm

Six LCDs is the way to go

[Vaixe]

I just have six LCDs on a single computer at home, and I can tell you, from video editing or simple web, Word, Excel and Photoshop browsing, you can unleash the drag-and-drop to its full potential. Yeah, it feels I'm a teleworker from NASA of CSIS, but hey, it's quite cool to have that much screen real estate. At work, I have three CRTs, each hooked to their respective computer (linked by switch box). My job involves loads of automated work using macros. Nobody asked questions, as I output the work value of 3+ employees, so I guess they prefer keeping me and my hardware rather than adding somebody to the payroll. It's pretty neat to just hang there while the three screens work all by themselves, putting your hand behind your head, saying to inquisitive people: "I'm working! Look at my screens!"

Re:Just tell them

[David Nabbit]

Why stop at 4? How about 13? Or 18? Or 21?

Studies by Mary Czerwinski show this

[d_j_p_3]

from http://www.davidco.com/blogs/david/archives/produc tivity/:

"The workers swore that this arrangement made them feel calmer. But did more screen area actually help with cognition? To find out, Czerwinski's team conducted another experiment. The researchers took 15 volunteers, sat each one in front of a regular-size 15-inch monitor and had them complete a variety of tasks designed to challenge their powers of concentration - like a Web search, some cutting and pasting and memorizing a seven-digit phone number. Then the volunteers repeated these same tasks, this time using a computer with a massive 42-inch screen, as big as a plasma TV.

The results? On the bigger screen, people completed the tasks at least 10 percent more quickly - and some as much as 44 percent more quickly. They were also more likely to remember the seven-digit number, which showed that the multitasking was clearly less taxing on their brains. Some of the volunteers were so enthralled with the huge screen that they begged to take it home. In two decades of research, Czerwinski had never seen a single tweak to a computer system so significantly improve a user's productivity. The clearer your screen, she found, the calmer your mind. So her group began devising tools that maximized screen space by grouping documents and programs together - making it possible to easily spy them out of the corner of your eye, ensuring that you would never forget them in the fog of your interruptions. Another experiment created a tiny round window that floats on one side of the screen; moving dots represent information you need to monitor, like the size of your in-box or an approaching meeting. It looks precisely like the radar screen in a military cockpit.

"

One monitor, one laptop screen

[serodores]

If you have a laptop, I tend to find that 1 monitor hooked up directly or through a docking station, with using the laptop screen seems to work fine instead of having 2 normal sized monitors. This, for me, seems to have about 90% of the same productivity effect as two full monitors.

Re:One monitor, one laptop screen

[Kazriko]

I do the same thing with a PC in my office. I take one of the work laptops and set it next to my monitor, then link the two together with a program like Multiplicity or Synergy.

It gives you all the benefits of Dualhead except the ability to move programs between desktops. Usually, that's good enough for me. At home, I use Synergy because it supports Linux as well as Windows. With this system, I have 2 monitors and a 27 inch HDTV on three separate systems.

Dual Monitors

[Act-man]

The March 26th issue of Computerworld (paper copy, pg. 12) has a fairly complete article outlining productivity benefits.

It is to laugh.

[Medievalist]

Well, if this strategy weren't the most successful, then the long-term-thinking companies would win out in the end, no? Capitalism won't allow an inefficient system to survive in a competitive marketplace. Yes, in a geologic time scale you are correct. In fact, I predict that the "invisible guiding hand" of capitalism will correct this problem in well under a thousand years.

Yes, but for a somewhat arbitrary reason

[PhotoGuy]

I love having a second monitor. Especially on my MacBook, it works soooo much better than on Windows, plus you can easily rotate 90 degrees to have one of your monitors in portrait mode (good for viewing pdf documents, etc.) (Some windows drivers have this, but not most.)

However, the reasons for the productivity are *somewhat* arbitrary, and *should* be able to be achieved without separate hardware. Yes, increasing overall screen real estate certainly doesn't hurt, but it's the forced modality into two separate workspaces that is the real win. There's no reason that window managers couldn't chunk up my workspace (on a single big monitor) into two (or more) logical desktops, so when I maximize, or whatever, it does so within the context of the workspace, not the entire screen.

So when you have multiple monitors, the window managers or OS is forced to be designed around separate work spaces. But the same thing *should* be achievable with one high rez display. It's really quite a shame.

In any case, the two monitor/workspace thing really works well. Having one screen for core work, and one for reference documents, email, MSN, or testing your running application (with your debugger on the other screen), really is a productivity boost.

So BYO, duh. "Because you're worth it!"

[kale77in]

So bring your own second monitor if they won't provide one. They're cheap. Take it without you when you leave the company. This is no different to using your own custom keyboard at work. If I'm going to be spending 35-65 hours a week in someone's office, I'd rather do it comfortably. Get a decent leather/mesh chair while you're going. "Because you're worth it!"

A 17" laptop is not portable.

[falconwolf]

In what way is a 17" laptop not portable? To me they are vary portable. Hopefully I'll be getting a 17" Macbook Pro in the next couple of weeks but if Apple made a bigger one, several months ago I saw a 21" laptop, I'd like to get it instead. Is the size too big? I can fit 3 17" laptops, at least 3, in my backpack. Is it the weight? I regularly carry +20 lbs and I have carried +50lbs in my backpack. In whatever other way can a 17"laptop be too big? The only place I can see is if where the laptop will be used does not have the space, but that's not a problem with the laptop not being portable it's a problem with the space being too small.

Falcon

Demonstrate it

[Avatar8]

Definitely find some studies, but until you demonstrate it to someone who thinks two monitors is extravagant or foolish, they'll never see the light.

Find several tasks that you do every day and open all the windows on a single screen. Now tile them or cascade them or alt-tab through them either while the "auditor" is watching or with someone timing you with a stopwatch.

Now open all those windows and spread them out across both screens logically "paired up" to work more efficiently. Again have the "auditor" watch or have someone time you.

Examples from my work.

I have to keep server inventory up. I have a spreadsheet that I fill in while I'm on the datacenter floor and the data has to be transferred or verified with an online database (I cannot edit the database directly nor can I access it while on the floor.). Spreadsheet on one screen is where I'm typing and the other screen has the database opened so I can read it. If I had to switch back and forth, copying and pasting, I'd not only waste a huge amount of time, but I'd go crazy in the process.

Other tasks include reading a PDF or online reference page while I remote desktop into a server, reading a document while I work in a command line window or stretching Excel our across both windows, tiling the spreadsheets and jumping back and forth between them.

Most of the tasks I do break down to a "reader" and a "writer." Having these two functions on separate screens changes an alt-tab (or worse, taskbar mouse click) into an eye shift or a head turn at the most.

I would definitely hope that a brief demonstration to the auditor would be enough, but timing, studies and the minuscule cost of a 2nd monitor should give you enough ammo.

Lifehacker/New York Times article

[fletchermemorial]

I think the story you were searching for can be found here:

http://lifehacker.com/software/dual-monitor/dual-m onitors-increase-productivity-168488.php

this is a good one too, but it's written by microsoft...so i have to believe it's riddled with lies
  http://research.microsoft.com/displayArticle.aspx? id=433

maximize

[falconwolf]

To be honest, I never understood why Microsoft went with the whole 'hog the screen' mentality with their application model

This brings up one thing that bugs me about Macs, when I want a windows maximized I want it to take up all of the screen not what the OS wants. The only was I know of the get Macs to use the whole screen is to place the top left corner of the window in the top left corner of the monitor then drag the buttom right corner of the window to the buttom right corner of the monitor. I find this inefficient, especially as compared to Windows. In Windows to maximize, use all of the monitor's real estate, a window all I have to do is click on the maximize button.

Falcon

Workspaces?

[aim2future]

The writer didn't specify what environment he/she is using. In certain environments, like MS windows you don't have multiple workspaces by default and that could be a real obstacle to productivity. I see MS windows users that open and close applications all the time to not get the screen to messy.

I normally use eight workspaces in my environment, one for system things, one for mail, one for encyclopedias and such (always open), one for web browsing, two for software dev, one for virtual machines and one for office things, and I have hard to see how multiple monitors could improve anything.

I do most of my work on my laptop (M200 12" 1400x1050 screen) and don't like to be chained fast to a desk. My laptop is always with me and always on.

I also have several desks (two offices at home) and one office at work where I also have desktop monitors (connected to different computers through KVM switches). These I use solely for larger jobs that need to be run for a longer time, as I couldn't have the jobs runnings through my laptop.

From the writers question I suspect that multiple workspaces, which are default in environments like gnome, kde etc are not used.

Re:Just tell them

[teknosapien]

Wait so your saying you support people who work with *your* budget and you are not willing to support them with innovative technology and make the *company* you work for more profitable? These are the people that are actually doing the "production", who you support? Maybe you need to learn how to create a realistic budget and go for that money. After all if some one is being more productive, in the end isn't that the wanted result, more productivity greater innovation and a forward thinking.

Re:Salary per hour? Not really!

[Jeff Molby]

It costs the company exactly $0.00 for a salaried employee to simply "waste" those precious extra seconds that you claim will add up.

That's just plain wrong. Sure, the cost is easier to calculate for an hourly employee, but even the most motivated salary employee is still only available for a finite amount of time each week. Every second of that time has an opportunity cost. Now, depending on a company's financial condition, they may be willing to trade a hard cost for a higher opportunity cost, but you're grossly underestimating the the education of the bean-counters if you think they don't realize that they're borrowing from future income statements.

Productivity & Monitor size studies

[staplegunn]

Here are some links to some documentation:

http://images.apple.com/pro/pdf/Cin_Disp30_report. pdf
http://weblog.infoworld.com/techwatch/archives/008 344.html
http://www.petefreitag.com/item/552.cfm

enjoy

Two monitors against a larger screen

[owlstead]

Here are some advantages of one approach against the other:
* better organization and looking at different (two) applications at the same time: dual monitors
* GUI development: wide screen monitor
* side bars, additional content: wide screen monitor (and a window manager app)
* 100 programs open at the same time: dual monitors (and multiple desktops)
* multimedia (video/games): wide screen monitor
* internet browsing: dual monitors
* email: dual monitors

At work I have significant speedups for dual monitors. But then I am creating applications where I have to debug both the client and the server at the same time. Also, when programming it is really good to have documentation next to the code. With a good IDE it is also possible to have the debug and code perspectives on different screens (e.g. Eclipse handles this *really* well). I would always go for dual monitors at work if I had the choice. Using two 17" monitors is not that expensive, with 19" you get bigger letters, but most of them are 1280x1024, just like the 17" - so only go for 19" if the price difference is neglectible.

I feel that my speedup is between 5-10% easily. So the company started saving money in about, oh, two weeks time, tops.

If you have a choice in choosing the flat screens for work:
* 4:3 aspect ratio (two flat screens does not work well, too big a turning angle for your head/eyes)
* anti-glare
* 170 degrees looking angle (if you have a rotating screen, this becomes *really* important)
* DVI is nice (better colors, less chance of syncing problems, needs a - passive - video card with dual DVI output)
* height adjustable, tiltable (forget about rotation and pivoting the screen - you won't use it)
* USB hubs are nice (but don't work well in combination with a rotating screen)
* refresh rate is not important anymore

At home I am used to watch video and play games, so I went for the wide screen. Some websites do look a bit weird on 1680 pixels wide though.

Re:Two monitors against a larger screen

[MtViewGuy]

I personally think for most home users, a widescreen monitor is better than a dual-monitor setup, mostly because home users are more likely to playback multimedia files, especially DVD playback. A dual-monitor setup is better for people with more specialized needs such as programming, running CAD/CAM programs, and needing to see a LOT of data such as real-time monitoring of financial markets.

And three are even better

[Kris_J]

I use a Matrox Parhelia at work and Matrox's TripleHead2Go at home for Triplehead. Right now I'm using 3072x768, using one new and two secondhand Dell/BenQ 15" LCD panels. At work it's 3840x1024, using one LCD panel and two old CRTs.

Contrary to what many others have said, I find that one of the major benefits of Matrox's triplehead implementation is that as far as Windows is concerned it's one screen. This not only provides maximum compatibility with software not properly written to cope with multihead, but it means I can easily grab the entire three screens for, say, a wide Excel spreadsheet, Photoshop, or some complicated bit of code. Matrox do provide software to make the single desktop behave like three screens for the purposes of maximising windows, but I have that turned off.

The Answer is Obvious

[T-Bone-T]

What would be the analog equivalent to two monitors? A wider desk. Is a desk with room for a book to take notes out of and the sheet of paper on which to write the notes better than a desk only wide enough for the book and paper to be stacked on each other?

Buy your own

[srwood]

Do what I do. Buy my own stuff. Its worth it to be less frustrated at work.

Ergonimics

[rtobyr]

Tell the auditors or management that it's an ergonomic issue. They'll be happy to let you keep a $200 monitor to save thousands in workman's comp.

A good manager should be able to see the benefits

[Douglas Goodall]

The best thing he can do is set the manager up with a second monitor so he can see the difference. I am an avid multi monitor user. Friends and family that use my machines have gone to the same set up on there machines. At work, I did the same as this guy and eventual converted the entire department. All but one person (the new guy) now have 2 monitors. The issue is screen space for non-overlaping windows. There are two approaches, a huge 1920x1080 LCD/plasma display, or several less expensive display. Once you get used to having enough real estate, the rest is physical preference. I do both. I have a 46" 1920x1080p LCD and an HP HD LCD display 1920x1200 and I use them both at the same time. The large monitor is easier on my eyes, and the extra monitor is just that much more space so I can see reference material, my code, and my debugging scenario without switching screens. If your supervisor looks over your shoulder for even 1 minute, it should be obvious how much more efficient multiple monitors are. When I have enough money, I will buy a second 46" monitor and set it next to the other one, and attach them to my Mac Pro 8 core workstation.

dude

[BroadbandBradley]

alt+Tab
there you have it, a simple keyboard shortcut and you've increased your productivity.

An analogy

[Eideteker]

Imagine that everything you do is done on paper. Every window you use is a seperate sheet of paper. You're working on these sheets one at a time, because your desk is only one sheet of paper big. Whenever you have to reference another sheet of paper, you have to take the one you're using, shuffle it into the middle of the stack of all the papers you've currently got out of the master filing cabinet, and pluck out the one you want to look at. Then you have to put that one away and find the original one to go back.

Would having a desk that is the size of two sheets of paper be more efficient? Generally, yes. How much depends on how much shuffling you normally do (hope you're not a scrivener!). Of course, not everyone runs everything in full-screen, but most people do. It's not a perfect analogy, but it does hold some water. Think of it as a conceptual exercise, and feel free to borrow it in justifying to your superiors.

Re:Forget extra monitors

[jamesh]

I was actually referring to the 'environmental cost' rather than financial...

ultramon

[turing_m]

Not sure if this has been mentioned on this thread, but I think I recall reading it on \. before:
http://www.realtimesoft.com/ultramon/overview/

Ultramon in windows allows you to swap windows from one session to the other without dragging, via a little icon at the top. Very handy.

Re:IT director? Just tell them, pointy-haired boss

[aqk]

Go away.
You sound like the pointy-haired boss in Dilbert.

  You probably got to be a 'director' in SPITE of the Peter Principle
  I've been using the 2 or 3 monitor scheme for YEARS.
    I tried to convince my (ha ha) director to supply the programmers in my company with a 2nd screen as I had - mine was purloined from a (cough,cough) 'manager' who wanted a bigger screen, presumably for his MS solitaire (He somehow never managed to learn Freecell).
    The director thought this was frivolous, and couldn't understand this nonsense.
    Now I'm 'retired', and still using four screens.
    The company? Textiles. They somehow went out of business, and the president took his millions and retired to Florida, my director (she's a granny, possibly a GREAT grandmother) is retired, and the rest of the staff are probably still struggling.
    So much for North American innovation. Lets continue to shoot ourselves in the foot.
  I bet the Chinese and Indian IT guys all have two or more screens.
    Dogbert must be chuckling by now...

Three monitors...

[rew]

History
After getting used to two monitors at work, I installed two at home. Then I wanted a video-projector, so I added a PCI card for the beamer. Then the computer got moved to a different place in the house, and my old 17" monitor stood next to it. So I hooked it up to the third video output of my computer. So now I have three screens!
my experience
I really love the new setup. The small things that are need a glance every now and then, like network load monitors, or the music player I can put away on the third screen. This frees up the two main screens for real work. For example, while designing a PCB, I can have the schematics on one screen, the layout I'm working on on the second, and man pages or documentation of the chips I'm working with on the third. Really I recommend you get a third monitor....

Re:Forget extra monitors

[DohnJoe]

no, it's because I moderated before I had my morning coffee :)

I call bullshit!

[Oshkoshjohn]

Even a three-year-old PC can run multiple copies of the same program and have several screens or tabs running. But a second monitor? This is crazy. Most cubes in which I have ever toiled have almost enough room for a single 19" screen. Two monitors? If you cannot move among several open programs on the same monitor, you may be merely unskilled.

In TV-Land everyone has more than one monitor. Some movie-land monitors are even holographic. In the real world in which we all are compelled to live this is not feasible. Get back to work or go away, but quit whining!

justifying two (or more) monitors

[trigggl]

The best thing to do is to convince the decision making bean counter that everyone in your dept. that does similar work would get more done if they had the extra monitor. If you need multiple large panels open (like I do) then they have to see in person how it will or does help you be more productive. Companies have this bad habit of wanting to treat everyone fairly. They don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it to keep departmental political battles down to a minimum. My company doesn't like giving one person two machines, so you either get an AIX workstation or a PC. My work requires both. So, rather than having to share either an AIX workstation (which doesn't work when everyone needs it) or a PC (the other engineering dept. has that problem), we run the AIX programs with a virtual machine along with our oracle based program and outlook. I may not like my VP of Engineering, but even he could see that two monitors was much cheaper than two machines and way more efficient than trying work do the work of two machines on one monitor. We had to prove to him that we needed to see both at once. I was the lucky one to show him the work we had to do and how it would really help us to work faster. I only had one monitor at the time and he saw just how tedious it was to switch between programs on one monitor. He wasn't convinced until he saw it in action. Soon after, everyone was getting dual monitor video cards and dual flat screen monitors. To paraphrase he said, "now that I see it in action I understand what you're talking about". Anyone who has worked with VPM knows that you really need two monitors for it. There are three panels, one for drafting, one for graphical file system trees and one for the main search window. I really could use three monitors. I have VPM and the wire harness program.

To make a long story short. The bean counter needs to see, in person, the need for two. Sometimes even they can see the benefit even if it's not quantifiable. My VP of Engineering asked if it will help our design to have zero errors. That left a few people mumbling. :-D

Don't waste your time

[wilec]

Just hide the dang display in a closet until the audits over. For most of us arguing cost benefit issues with bean counters is kinda like wrestling with pigs. You will get probably get aggravated and nasty before it is over and the best you will usually accomplish is to annoy them, though it is more likely they will enjoy themselves at your expense.

Wabi-Sabi
Matthew

Re:Salary per hour? Not really!

[thegrassyknowl]

The bean-counters know exactly what they're doing. They're extracting more value (your time) from you at no cost. That free productivity (salaried--unpaid to the employee--overtime) looks great on the balance sheet, compared to the price of an extra monitor. If you can't see that, I think you might need to re-evaluate the target of your insults.

It might look good on the balance sheet, but most places that ask you to fill in a time card will also ask you to book ACTUAL hours spent on a project, even if those hours exceed the contractual 40. I don't often book past 40 because I am of the opinion that if I need to work past 40/week then they are either not scheduling their projects properly or they are not providing adequate tools.

The salaried employee might get paid for 40, but work 60-80 hours a week. The bean counters are probably laughing at him. The project managers are pulling their hair out trying to work out how to get him back down to 40 because all project schedules are made on the basis of 40 hour work weeks and if you exceed that every week your project comes in over budget (on paper) regardless of whether you deliver on time or not.

Wasted time does add up and is counted. Not by bean counters, who are so narrow minded that they think everything including human life can be assigned a dollar value. It is counted by the people who really count; your project manager.

Re:Just tell them

[Varun Soundararajan]

13 is Prime and considered unlucky..
18 seems ok, as it contains 9 as its factors, but more importantly 3.
21 has 7 and 3 as its factor.
Either way, I would suggest any number other than 13.

PS: You asked me how about those numbers :), so this cant be off topic.
--
Text already reached retard limit, so no sig.

Worth It...

[DirtyAmish]

...especially at the current prices. I just bought myself two 20 inch widescreens so I can multitask better, watching video and what not on the second. $209 each from Dell. Buy your own if possible.

Re:Forget extra monitors

[MasterOfMagic]

I'm talking about short things - namely a few pertinent pages of a specifications sheet. If you are working on any sort of semi-large product, most of the time you have a printed specification that was done professionally - where you're not expending ink out of your printer to do it, or if not, you have one printed copy that everybody passes around and writes comments on, and if you need to share a page or two, you go to a conveniently located copier. It's not rocket science. That's not the main thrust of my argument though. If it is difficult for someone to switch between two windows on their computer, then I cannot comprehend how they can walk and chew gum at the same time, walk and talk with a colleague, write an email while quoting the previous parts, or drive without ramming into something. Sure, it might be a minor inconvenience, but there are solutions other than a huge monitor. If you're strapped for ink (as I was when I was a student), then bring some blank paper and make notes about the content in the other window, sort of a cheat sheet. That's what people did before printers were cheap and before second monitors had anywhere to plug in.

I'm not saying that they're not cool and I'm not saying that they're not useful. I'm just saying that it's wasteful to make the company spring for it if it is clear that they don't see the benefit. Unfortunately, those are the breaks, and that's life.

Re:Salary per hour? Not really!

[Geminii]

I'm an IT contractor, and I make it a point to draw my customer's attention to inefficiencies in my work environment. Why? Because it's in my best interests to maximize my productivity. First of all, I truly enjoy my work, and working efficiently increases my personal satisfaction with the job at hand. It also allows me to proceed to the next interesting challenge that much sooner. Seconded. I'll point out major inefficiencies in my clients' workflows for a number of reasons. Firstly, until it's noticed by the higher-ups, the money saved will usually accumulate in the budget of the guy who's paying me, which makes it more likely that some of it will end up coming my way after a little persuasion. Secondly, it looks good on my CV and the client is more likely to say good things about me / offer me more work. Thirdly, I really, _really_ do not like working in horribly inefficient environments. If I can show a massive cost saving in the first couple of weeks, the management is more likely to listen to me when I ask to have other policies or tools revamped, which makes my job easier and less stressful. This leads to further productivity boosts, which again raises my effectiveness in the eyes of my clients. Fourthly, these effects and efficiencies mean that I have more free time at a given client's workplace after I've done the day's work, and I can use these spare moments to network with other team or division managers, ferretting out possible future work. Fifthly, straightening out business problems is often much more interesting than the mundane IT scut-work I'm sometimes hired for. Daydreaming about workflows, budgets and personnel reassignment while hammering out some mindless code chunks, frobbing the 47th color tweak on the corporate background in their custom app, or compiling for the eleventy-sixth time, keeps me from going completely insane.

Time/Motion

[dmooresatx]

Cliff-

Turn off your second monitor and time yourself doing a series of normal, everyday tasks for about 15 minutes. Then turn the monitor back on and time the same tasks (be sure they are often repeated tasks). They might take you 12 minutes to do. Take the seconds or minutes you save, and multiply them by the number of 15-minute segments you spend actually on your computer in your wrokday. (e.g., 8-hour day, maybe 5 hours on the computer, 4*5=20 15-minute segments of screen time. 20*3(minutes saved)=60. You save an hour of time for every 5 hours you are on your computer. Extrapolate that for a month 20 (workdays)*1 hour= 20 hours saved a month. Multiply 20 time your hourly rate (e.g., $50*20=$1000 per month saved). That is the way business thinks. Try it.

Good luck-
dmooresatx

Re:Multiple montors are nice....

[ElectricRook]

Some people are stuck with company software and company hardware. Even when their job performance might benefit from multiple monitors.

Oh yeah, I love virtual desk tops, I use 3x3. I've been a UNIX user since about 1986. And learned about FVWM in 1995. I've had the same basic FVWM setup going on about ten years. Yes, I've had to migrate from FVWM to FVWM2, and that was painful... And just last year, I cleaned out all the cruft, and started fresh, with no (known) garbage in my ".fvwm2rc".

Internal Audit??? Are you kidding?

[Swiftouch]

This is why LARGE companies suck. Who's paying these idiots that even suggest an "internal equipment audit"? Next you'll have audits of your surfing habits, your email, your number of keyboard strokes, etc. A company that thinks that they are saving money by doing an equipment audit has little or no business being in business because you're dealing with morons who think auditing is cheaper than actually buying a second monitor for people who can get more done with one. My suggestion is get a job at a company that doesn't do internal equipment audits, requires you to use your own gear and to listen to the guy who says buying a monitor is dirt cheap compared to the persons salary sitting behind it. And please go so far as to tell your boss that if he's too cheap to buy you a second monitor that he doesn't deserve to employ a talented individual such as yourself. END.

-How much does an "auditor" get paid these days?
-Who audits the auditor?
-Again, why hire an expensive auditor rather than just buy what you need to get the job done.

Even up to 5 SVGA monitors possibly... from 1 PC

[serodores]

My point was, by changing the display of the laptop you can have an extended desktop covering the laptop's screen and an external monitor. This would enable you to move programs between desktops, and have the same effect, with the only drawback being your little laptop is powering both, so performance may be an issue, or resolution may be an issue if the graphics card for the laptop isn't so hot. On a side note, I've noticed the maximum normal monitor effect could be up to 3 monitors (1 SVGA, 2 DVI) for a standard PC that has: onboard graphics with a BIOS that supports dual monitor display, a graphics card with dual DVI outputs. This might be able to be enhanced to 5 SVGA monitors, by replacing a DVI with a dual SVGA out cable. Although I imagine that might be a bit overkill (with meager resolution), unless you're making a flashy movie with computers.