Do Developers Really Need a Second Monitor?

jammag writes "It was an agonizing moment: a developer arrived at work to realize his second monitor had been taken (given to the accounting dept., to add insult to injury). Soon, the wailing and the gnashing of teeth began. As this project manager recounts, developers feel strongly — very strongly — about needing a second monitor (maybe a third?) to work effectively. But is this just the posturing of pampered coders, or is this much screen real estate really a requirement for today's developers?"

Comments

Ten points if reading this on your second monitor!

[ewg]

Ten points if you read this post on your second monitor like I did!

Maximize

[jimmyhat3939]

My opinion is this is largely a consequence of how the Maximize functionality works / has worked.

The ability to half-screen maximize by dragging a window to the left or right side of the screen helps quite a bit -- this is in Windows 7 and newer builds of Ubuntu (IIRC).

My typical reason for wanting a second monitor is the ability to maximize documentation/help stuff on one monitor while the other is reserved for the code itself. I find I work much slower on, for example, a laptop where I constantly have to switch back and forth between different windows to get at what I want.

Re:Maximize

[quickOnTheUptake]

I've never in my life maximized a window . . .

I call bull.

Re:Maximize

[arielCo]

In Compiz the closest option is the Grid plugin (screenshot), which in turn was inspired on WinSplit Revolution. The current ideas for future features in Compiz would bring on par with Win7 behaviour and even better, like:

• Make the grid size reconfigurable instead of the fixed 33%,50%,66% sizes (ie. Maybe an even better option is to retain the 2x3 grid, but allow the user to specify how big the grid blocks are.)
• Perhaps assign a layout per workspace or hotkey to switch between grid sizes
• In addition to the horizontal 1/2 and 2/3 cycle, it would be great to have a vertical 1/3 and 2/3 cycle. -- Unfortunately that gives a cycle of length 9 when combined with the horizontal cycle. Unless you can think of better shortcut keys.
• Have a way to "group" 2 (or more?) windows (and horizontally organize this group). Concrete example : i like to have 66% of my screen occupied by Firefox and then 33% split in 2 for skype+pidgin contact lists (all of these windows full height).
• Sticky windows - adjacent windows to the one being tiled get resized along with the current one. We would need some way to toggle stickyness to allow a 2x1 layout to be changed into a 3x1
• Original Size (KP5 cycle). Sometimes when you open an application, it has a "typical" size to match the look and feel of the app. For certain circumstances, one might want to use grid to tile it for a brief period of time. It would be useful if grid could remember all windows "start size & position". Makes sense to be a toggle of the KP5 cycle.
• Laptop Keyboard without numberblock - I use grid on my laptop without a numberblock (and I can only assume that KP means numberblock). I overwrote the shortcuts simulating a numberblock with the letter K in the middle. Any chance you could make an alternativ and intuitive default for laptop-keyboards?

Re:Maximize

[tknd]

It isn't just maximize. It is also because certain apps and even websites are designed to take up your entire screen, and the DPI or pixel density on current displays is abysmal.

If documentation on a webpage is taking up my entire screen in order to be usable, I have to keep switching back and forth in order to get work done. If the IDE is designed to take up my entire screen, now anytime there is testing I have to switch back and forth to understand what's going on.

Pixel density comes in because it limits the size of the fonts we can use. Anything lower than 8pt or 6pt becomes too pixelated to be readable. Yet my smart phone has a dpi about 230dpi and I can read much smaller fonts with ease. Meanwhile my current 17" monitor at work only has 90dpi!

If you want to easily increase productivity, give everyone 2 monitors. Not just the devs and engineers, but also the accountants. Being able to read two full size documents of anything whether it be a spreadsheet or a page of code WILL increase productivity.

The excuse against multiple monitors is ridiculous. In the past a single 17" CRT used to cost $300 in 1990s dollars. These days a 19" LCD monitor can be found for $110.

Re:Maximize

[Grishnakh]

It isn't just maximize. It is also because certain apps and even websites are designed to take up your entire screen, and the DPI or pixel density on current displays is abysmal. ....
Pixel density comes in because it limits the size of the fonts we can use. Anything lower than 8pt or 6pt becomes too pixelated to be readable. Yet my smart phone has a dpi about 230dpi and I can read much smaller fonts with ease. Meanwhile my current 17" monitor at work only has 90dpi!

Current displays are pretty much all 1920x1080, as that's the same resolution as HDTV. For my 24" screens, that comes out to about 91dpi, which means they haven't changed too much since you got your monitor about 10 years ago.

Seriously, you need to find a new job. Any place that sticks engineers with 17" monitors is not a good place to work. If they're too cheap to get you a good $200 display, they're also probably cheap in many other ways too, like salary. You'll probably get a 30% raise by quitting and getting a job somewhere else, assuming your skills are in demand.

Yes

[OverlordQ]

But is this just the posturing of pampered coders, or is this much screen real estate really a requirement for today's developers?

When debugging a web-app I find it infinitely easier to have my terminal windows open on one monitor with the code and logs and then use the second monitor for my browsers so I can actually see things *as they happen* instead of trying to do lots of switching.

Re:Yes

[MBCook]

This was the killer app for me. The ability to watch server logs while doing things in a web browser. Being able to easily monitor something without having to switch windows with your active task or make things a few lines tall to fit them both on your screen.

In my current job, I only have one monitor, but it's widescreen so it serves that same purpose pretty well. I can have one window off to the side and the browser on top on the right. I can't see everything, but I can see the log well enough to know when I need to change window focus.

At my last job many of the people (down to administrative personnel) ended up getting second monitors. They mostly ended up as outlook monitors, and didn't seem to help their productivity much. I can only think of one person who made real use of it, but she spent lots of time comparing large spreadsheets and compiling data. For most of the non-programers, it was just a "I want two monitors to look cool and busy too" kind of thing.

Re:Yes

[DarkOx]

Don't be a snot. That Outlook monitor probably makes a real difference to allot of those folks. Usually its a matter of the company not having efficient work flow and other tools but plenty of people in the business office side of the house just LIVE in E-MAIL. Being able to look at letter and an order entry type screen at the same time means the world to them.

Just like being able to watch tail, while you do stuff in your application means the world to you.

How big's your desk?

[01101010001010001010]

Ask a non-developer how big their physical desk is, and whether a 18inch desk would be big enough for their work. Surprise surprise - it isn't big enough for a developer's work either.......

Monitors are cheap, so why not?

[walterbyrd]

I bought a 24" monitor a few years back for $170, and a 23" last black frideay for $109. Why fuss about such a minor expense? If two monitors make developers 1% more producrtive, or just make developers feel "pampered" then why not?

Re:Monitors are cheap, so why not?

[mseeger]

Even simpler, the search&removal, the complains, the complain handling: all probably have cost more than another monitor....

Re:Monitors are cheap, so why not?

[LWATCDR]

You can never have too much screen space as a developer. It is that simple. Even if it to run the Debugger in one and the application in the other. As many people pointed out that a monitor costs what? $150? $200? That is how many hours of pay for the Developer?
Even worrying about it a clear case of Penny Wise Pound foolish.

Re:Monitors are cheap, so why not?

[GreyWolf3000]

The cost of buying a second monitor for one developer is immaterial. The cost of buying second monitors for every developer isn't.

Re:Monitors are cheap, so why not?

[Lehk228]

it still is, if you have 40 devs that comes to $6000, which is jack squat compared to the salary of 40 devs

Re:Monitors are cheap, so why not?

[Rob the Bold]

It must be nice to be able to consider $170 + $109 a minor expense.

Did you even read the summary? Of course it's a minor expense. TFA is about a paid developer. He's presumably working indoors, with lights and a desk and chairs and HVAC. And did I mention that the developer is paid?

Re:Monitors are cheap, so why not?

[rsborg]

The cost of buying a second monitor for one developer is immaterial. The cost of buying second monitors for every developer isn't.

Really?
Lets put things into perspective here. $200 for a decent 2nd monitor (we're not talking IPS Cinema displays here) compared to:

• 1% bonus (avg 80k salary = $800)
• Any decent proprietary software license 1 seat (avg. $300)
• 5 hours of productivity (at 80k salary = $200)
• ...etc.

The dual-monitor solution of days yore has been solved with stuff like DisplayLink or Thunderbolt (or by good gfx cards if your desktops are beefy enough).

I even have a 3-monitor solution for my home setup - A macbook pro, with 1 displayport 32" HTDV + 2 extra monitors running on the 2 separate USB2 channels (one is on a hub). Combine this with a mounting solution like this and you've can easily get 2 browsers and dozens of terminal windows all open simultaneously. You could easily setup a dual-display rig for $300 in addition to an existing monitor.

Well

[Greyfox]

The company down the street seems quite happy to shell out another $200-$300 to keep that $120,000/year developer happy. If your developer is any good, maybe he'll just go work for them.

Re:Well

[SomePgmr]

Whoa... for 120k/yr I'd write everything in stone with a chisel if they wanted.

Re:Well

[sprior]

In next years Slashdot: Do Stone Tablet Developers Really Need Safety Glasses?

Second monitor is for /.

[olsmeister]

The second monitor is extremely useful for keeping a browser open for reading Slashdot while I 'work.'

Re:Second monitor is for /.

[Provocateur]

Of course, /. is open in a text-mode browser, so it looks like seeerious code work on the console.

Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep a browser open to slashdot visible all the time. if I didn't have a second monitor, how would I get work done?

Re:Ten points if reading this on your second monit

[Kaffien]

Oh yes! I love dual screen monitors. 2x22's at work and at home I wanted dual screen so bad I have a 24 and a 17. Proven to make workers more productive. Not sure if it's because they can work on both or keep work on one and Slashdot on the other. That way work occasionally comes in to peripheral vision and reminds them they are supposed to be working.

It enhances productivity.

[TheGeneration]

If the company wants the programmer to be more productive they'll give them two monitors. That way they can run the application on one screen, or documentation, and have the IDE open on another. Having to toggle between windows while cutting and pasting, or looking for fine detail differences between output, and code is a real real real suck ass aspect of coding.

This could of course be fixed by giving them a larger monitor and fixing the way maximize works in the OS.

Easy answer

[jd2112]

No, but monitors are cheap and programmers time is expensive. A second monitor will usually improve productivity at least to a small degree so it should pay for itself pretty quickly.

Not just developers

[langelgjm]

It's not just developers. I originally discovered the benefit of having a second monitor at a coding job in college - one screen for code, another for a browser to test the code and read documentation, etc.

After that, I bought myself another monitor for my desktop. Two came in great handy for translation - one monitor for source document and reference works, other monitor for your translation. It came in handy for reading electronic documents and taking notes/outlining. It's great for any job where you deal with lots of text, and need to be able to compare different documents, synthesize them, etc.

I'm now up to three. There are diminishing returns, obviously; the third isn't strictly necessary for me, but highly convenient. Any more than this would be tought for me to use effectively, though I suppose a square arrangement of four could be useful for some people.

Re:I think it's kinda silly

[IICV]

Have you ever gone from two monitors to one, though? You don't make it clear in your post.

If you haven't, try it sometime (disconnect your second monitor or something). It's incredibly painful.

I need two monitors

[LordNimon]

I would go crazy trying to develop on only one monitor. In fact, I could use a third, but it's not worth getting a new video card for it.

Also, from the article, the idea of a second monitor being a "perk", comparable to a free lunch, is stupid. A second monitor is a tool to do work that directly affects productivity. A free lunch is just another way to get paid. The two are completely unrelated.

Re:The second monitor is pretty vital to me.

[Applekid]

That accounting department might really have needed it.

I *don't* code, I build spreadsheets for a government finance office. Usually I'm translating a spreadsheet that's been helpfully locked into .pdf form by another government agency back into a usable spreadsheet, and being able to glance back and forth without sacrificing the full screen view is sanity preserving.

I'd wager anyone that uses a computer for work would benefit from a second monitor.

The real issue, as I see it, is that Accounting needed a monitor so instead of ordering one they took it from an employee that already had one. To the submitter of the story, as a project manager, why aren't you removing the developer's obstacles? Using a term like "wailing" makes it pretty clear what you think of the lowly developer on a personal level, but why are you asking us if they really need it instead of enabling him/her to do their job as they see fit?

I think it's needed

[KingSkippus]

I know this is may be kind of a weird concept, but not all of us have all of the nuances and documentation of the languages in which we work memorized. When I'm developing anything, I always have at least one window open with my IDE/editor, at least one window open (many times multiple windows open) with documentation--a window to which I refer to with such frequency that it would seriously hamper my efforts to have to click or alt-tab around to find it, at least one browser window open with Google and/or its search results, and most of the time, a window open with the project on which I'm working, and sometimes a debugging window as well.

The more code I can see at one time, the more productive I am, period. The more documentation I can see, the more productive I am, period. As for the project, it depends.

So yeah, I do think it's needed. Without dual monitors, every time I alt-tab, it costs around five seconds or so of down time while I try to get my bearings. It may not sound like much, but it happens literally hundreds of times during a coding session.

Re:I think it's needed

[snemarch]

When you consider that an eight hour day actually means 6 hours of productive work time, waste an hour of two in meetings, now your down to 4 hours of productive work, 20 minutes starts to look like a big deal.

I fully agree - but not everybody lives in the real world... it's easy to think an 8 hour work day means >=8 productive hours if you're a basement dweller, or still in college with a Ritalin prescription.

Re:I think it's needed

[uncqual]

Agreed.

Fortunately however, we can likely even eliminate the need to consider morale with a simple bit of accounting that suggests that even a savings of 50 seconds per day may make financial sense.

If one assumes an 8 hour work day (well, it could happen), 50 seconds a day is 50/(8*60*60)*100 = 0.17% of the workday. If the fully burdened cost of a developer is $150K/year (including salary, benefits [insurance, 401(k) match, ESPP, bonuses, tuition reimbursement...], SS taxes, office space and related expenses, computer resources, HR costs, amortized recruiting costs, and the like), the 50 seconds a day of improved productivity is an annual savings of 0.0017*$150K = $260.42. If a monitor lasts about three years (seems reasonable -- most places I've worked they are not replaced that often), the savings over the life of the monitor is then $781.25. This is more than sufficient to pay for the monitor, electricity for three years, and some IT overhead of ordering/installing/maintaining the second monitor. One thing that I've not factored in is the need for dual headed graphics adapter -- that would change the equation a bit.

Second monitors lead to increased productivity

[MAXOMENOS]

So, apparently, says the research to come out of Microsoft's User Interface group. Quoting:

The research study required users to complete several different tasks, switch from one task to another, and remember data. None of the study participants had used multiple monitors before.

The first study revealed that the users' productivity increased by 9 percent. Further studies showed even greater increases - at times up to 50 percent for tasks such as cutting and pasting. Mary Czerwinski, the VIBE research manager, is excited about her group's discoveries, asking, "If you're able to squeeze 10 percent more productivity out, do you know how much money that will save?"

One of the user studies that the VIBE group did required users to navigate through a series of doors, and then back their way out. They wanted to test the user's ability to remember a series of actions on a small display versus a large display.

"The interesting thing is that they try to get it right. We found that memory capability is considerably improved on a big display over a small display. There's something about engaging the peripheral vision that improves your spatial memory of what has gone on," said Starkweather.

They've also found that additional monitors greatly help women in computing. See same article.

My own experience with this is that I perform better when I can get more pixels in my field of view, regardless of screen size, as long as I can read what's going on. An additional monitor improves both constraints. In contrast, when I have to work with a laptop and an 800x600 display, it's like sipping information through a straw. This is regardless of other factors like network bandwidth. Your mileage may vary.

What?

[ErikZ]

If you're unable to splurge 130$ on a second monitor, the company is in trouble.

Another way to phrase this question is "Do you *really* need all those pixels to do your job?"

That doesn't apply to everyone

[Wrexs0ul]

Before I stopped for some slashdot I had a bunch of windows open for development:

- NuSphere PhpED
- Firefox with phpMyAdmin open (and HeidiSQL behind it)
- Putty on the Asterisk server I'm testing the app on
- The web gui for my app

It's really nice seeing the result of my code on the server in real-time. Since both the GUI and Asterisk interact with MySQL directly it's great being able to refresh phpMyAdmin while I run through the motions of testing, and doubly-so to manipulate SQL statements then paste them into PhpED.

Do I need all those open at the same time? No. As much as having a rear-view and side mirrors on your car can be replaced by constant shoulder checking. It's a hassle with just one monitor, and with the extra screen space I'm able to save excessive alt-tabbing.

-Matt

Answer isn't universal.

[DdJ]

The answer isn't universal -- it depends on what your development target is and how your tools work.

Here's a specific example. Know when having two monitors was awesome for developers? Back in the days when one of those monitors was attached to a VGA card, another to a MDA card, and you were debugging full-screen graphical apps under MS-DOS. You could run the full app on the VGA screen, but run the IDE and debugger on the monochrome screen on the same system at the same time. There was no way to do anything comparable with just one monitor.

But if you're programming for the web? Or for an Arduino? Or for an Android phone, testing/debugging real hardware? Some individual work habits may make some developers more productive with more screen real-estate, but not due to anything inherent in what they're doing.

Re:I think it's kinda silly

[Chris Burke]

Emacs window with several panes to view code. 4-5 terminals for compilation, greps, test runs, and other such things. That pretty much takes up a full 1600x1200 screen. If I need to view a lengthy debug log, maybe grep'ed subsets of said log that I want to cross-reference with other logs, that is really handy to have up on a second screen so I can see both that and the code and the execution output. And when I'm viewing waveforms, or using other graphical debug tools, then that's a shoe-in for needing a second screen. Ideally that could be a third screen, with debug output on the second, and code + terminals on the 1st.

I can never have enough screen real-estate, and it has nothing to do with dumb applications wasting it.

Re:I think it's kinda silly

[The Dawn Of Time]

While I'm certain you're the most productive and intelligent genius to ever walk the earth, there are actually 7 billion other people and we don't all work like you, so maybe denigrating our tools and workflows because they aren't what you prefer is... you know... arrogant and dickish?

Re:How much does a monitor cost?

[TheCarp]

Its true.... a monitor is maybe an extra under $200 for a rather nice one. Hell I paid $160 retail and I love my new screen.

Given what that is as a fraction of even an entry level developer salary, the fact that its equipment that will get depreciated (can't forget that), lasts at least 5 if not 10 years or more (on average and honestly I doubt we are going to see so much improvement in size/resolution since we have hit the point of diminishing returns for most applications) etc.... lets just say, I think if the company can't justify spending that, even if it is just to keep a developer happy, then it speaks very poorly of the company.

If $150 and a bit extra electricity is such a big problem, the company finances are fucked and you should worry. If its not that, then management is overly into micromanagement and is making very short sighted decisions based on their view of needs rather than focusing on keeping everything running smoothly and their employees content. Either way, i would say that, if they don't listen to you and fix this,.... its time to put resumes out before they tank or make life miserable.

Re:How much does a monitor cost?

[Altus]

Seriously, between salary, benefits, the cost of a computer and the office space that a cube takes up, a developer is a very valuable resource. If throwing a couple of hundred dollars worth of monitor at him is going to make him happy (who cares if it actually makes him more productive) then its money well spent.

Niggling over a couple of hundred bucks will end with your developer leaving for a more profitable company and leave you stuck looking for someone to replace them, how about that for the value of a second monitor.

Re:I think it's kinda silly

[elrous0]

Speak for yourself. I won't be happy until my workspace looks like the NORAD control center in Wargames.

Re:I think it's kinda silly

[elrous0]

And, yes, that includes having Dabney Coleman running around.

Re:Maybe, maybe not?

[Altus]

You know that "coders" are generally working and editing in one window while viewing the finished product in another right? The fact that our tools are text based doesn't change the work flow that much.

LCD Monitors bad. ASR-33 the best web development

[jerryasher]

You use an LCD Screen! Poofta!

I develop HTML5 based robotic heart surgery machines running on top of jQuery beneath AJAX served by node.js off of an Amazon mounted Rackspace Cloud written in Clojure, and I've had it with LCD Screens, CRTs, and so-called editors.

On even days I punch my code into an ASR-33, and on odd days, I just toggle the code directly into the main memory. And on transcendental days, I use very fine magnets and rearrange the domains on the hard drive.

So don't you get all hoity toity to me about your ability to code with only one screen! You're a bloody wanker is what you are!

Re:I think it's kinda silly

[Walt Dismal]

I agree, it's silly to assume you're more productive with more than one screen. That's why my physical horizontal desktop is 1 foot square, because there's no need ever to have more than one piece of paper visible at a time on a desktop. Also, when I eat rice, I only put one grain of rice on my plate at a time. That way I never overeat. Although getting enough calories each meal is little difficult.

Re:I think it's kinda silly

[Anthony Mouse]

So do "developers" need a second monitor? Probably not.

No, probably not... unless they run a debugger on their code, or read documentation, or want to compare two different source files to one another, etc.

Look, monitors cost ~$200 once. Programmers cost ~$80,000/year. Just buy the second monitor.

20 for your 3rd, and 40 for your 4th.

[alta]

how many points if I'm running this on my 4th?

1st - code view, full screen.
2nd pallets/toolbars etc (either in dreamweaver or eclipse)
3rd the output, results, test, whatever you want to call it.
4th this one switches a bit. Sometimes the database manager, or a putty to the server. Even mail or IM distractions...

Re:Maybe, maybe not?

[Cytotoxic]

Any decent IDE is likely to be better with multiple monitors, not just interface design. Even working in SQL is better when expanding your IDE across multiple monitors. I would argue that spanning an IDE across multiple monitors is a much larger boost to productivity than spanning a spreadsheet across multiple monitors. And I'd also argue that it is pretty damn cheap to buy and run a monitor, so if your employees can use one, give it to them.

I give all of my IT staff multiple monitors, even the help desk. Come on people, you spend the better part of 100k every year even for cheap IT staff. Why would you chintz out on a lousy couple hundred (tops) for a second monitor? That's just crappy management practice.

Yes!!!

[superwiz]

In fact 3 monitors are probably ideal. Development, as a mental process, involves a lot of switching between medium-term and short term views. It also often takes context switching. I prefer the development screen in front of me, the api descriptions on one screen and the details pertaining to the context of the project on the left. I like having 3 screens when I write code for the same reason that I like to do math on the dinner table. Bringing multiple contexts together takes a lot of space.

Re:I think it's kinda silly

[stjobe]

Look, monitors cost ~$200 once. Programmers cost ~$80,000/year. Just buy the second monitor.

Amen.

Do I NEED a 2nd monitor...

[Derekloffin]

No. I likewise don't need a broad band connection, a decently fast computer... hell, I might be able to manage with some paper, a pencil and candle light just so long as I can get that code into the computer at the end. However, would that hurt my coding speed, oh yeah. A second monitor is like any tool for a job, you can probably get by without it, but like trying to clean your house with a toothbrush, it won't be nearly as cost effective.

Putting in perspective

[david_thornley]

I can't believe a decent developer comes cheaper than $100K/year in the US, counting everything. A decent, perfectly usable, monitor will run something under $200.

That means that, if the corporate budget was sane, providing the extra monitor would be worth it if it improved productivity by 0.2%. If taking the monitor away cut the developer's productivity by one half of one percent, it's costing the company more than it's worth within five months. If the developer's claim of reduced productivity is even slightly true, that's a real false economy.

The morale effects alone will probably drive down productivity by full percents. When the developer thinks the company isn't willing to spend $200 to keep him working as accustomed, the developer is likely to get a feeling that the company doesn't care how productive he or she is, and will lose motivation and an edge on hard problems. When management takes the attitude that the developer is whiny because he or she is trying to hang on to his or her tools, bad things are going to happen.

With the time needed to adjust workflow and habits to the reduced screen estate, as well as some time complaining and trying to make a business case, it's likely the developer will lose four hours very fast, and there's the money saved from not just going out and buying a monitor for Accounting.

People may not want to work for a company that does things like that. Does management have any sort of handle on how much productivity staff turnover costs them? And, of course, if the developer has any substance to the claim of reduced productivity, even in the sligh

Re:Ten points if reading this on your second monit

[cashman73]

Ten points if you read this post on your second monitor like I did!

Posting this from my second 24" display right now! =P I do molecular modeling and virtual simulations of proteins & macromolecules, so the added visualization space is a huge plus. It's especially nice to be able to view the entire protein one screen, and all of your data and/or literature on the other. It's also nice when running VM or connecting to the Windows Citrix Server on one screen and doing real work in Linux on the other -- it's almost like having two computers.

At home, I run a 22" monitor via DVI and a 40" television primarily used as a monitor connected via HDMI. While it would be nice to run two 40" at home, that could understandably be a tad overkill,. . .

Re:I think it's kinda silly

[gandhi_2]

No joke. Would we be having this conversation if someone form accounting stole his chair?

Next week:
Do developers even need chairs?

Virtual Desktops

[sd.fhasldff]

My opinion is this is largely a consequence of how the Maximize functionality works / has worked.

My money is on the complete lack of virtual desktops on Microsoft's platform.

Yes, there are third party apps that add the capability, but I don't know a single Windows developer who uses them. On the other hand, I don't know a single Linux developer who DOESN'T use them... (now watch Slashdot provide countless counter examples).

Developing on a system without virtual desktops *or* a second (at least) monitor is a huge pain in the ass.

Re:Virtual Desktops

[pjt33]

I don't find virtual desktops to be any more useful than tabbing between windows. They still don't let you see multiple large windows side-by-side in the way a multi-monitor setup does.

Re:Virtual Desktops

[sd.fhasldff]

Most multi-monitor users I've seen don't sit 6 feet from their cluster of monitors to allow them simultaneous (non-peripheral) viewing of multiple monitors. On the other hand, I can switch between two virtual desktops in a fraction of a second.

The only time a second monitor, IMHO, is an improvement over a virtual desktop is when you can use your peripheral vision to monitor some live

Of course, most Windows users (even developers) are so glued to their mice, that switching desktops would be a time-consuming issue.

As for the comparison to "tabbing between windows", I find that ridiculous. Perhaps inflammatory (apologies...), but I really do. It presupposes a complete "Microsoft Windows" view of the world, where every application runs in exactly one window and all windows are inherently either maximized are minimized. It's not uncommon to see Linux developers have a multitude of windows open and visible at the same time.

You can't easily "tab between" groups of specifically positioned and sized windows. (Note, I said *easily*).

Re:Ten points if reading this on your second monit

[tompaulco]

Rats, I'm reading it on my primary monitor. My work is on the second monitor.

Re:I think it's kinda silly

[mldi]

Holy crap, AMEN to that! Vertical resolution was fine until HDTVs became popular. At which point everybody regressed and went to max 1080 high displays just so they could coin that they were "true HD" in marketing. All my pre-HDTV monitors are 1200px high. I consider that to be absolutely necessary. All my post-HDTV monitors are at most 1080 high, if even that (1050 is common). It's near impossible to find anything with 1200px high display with a reasonable price tag anymore.

Re:I think it's kinda silly

[DeadCatX2]

I use three monitors at work, too. And I go home to one. And when I do any coding at home, it hurts. Even if I take the time to precisely arrange and size all the windows on my single monitor, I still find myself alt-tabbing constantly.

If you can do all your coding on one monitor without any productivity loss, you aren't writing serious code.

Accounting != Management

[sjbe]

...This was the decision of accountants.

Wrong. That is a decision of management. Unless the manager and the accountant are the same person (rarely a good idea) fiascoes like the one you outline cannot happen because of accountants. The sole job of an accountant is to keep track of how the money in the company is spent. Their job is NOT to decide how to spend the money. That is the role of management. If the two jobs get combined, that is a potential recipe for problems and an indication the company is poorly structured but it isn't a problem with accounting per-se.

At a certain point, the accountants can become people who mostly specialize in making sure you have to expend ridiculous energy justifying what it is you do in order to do your job.

That just makes them bad at their job. That has nothing to do with accounting or accountants in general. The job of an accountant is to keep track of the money. This can be done efficiently or inefficiently just like any other job. A good accountant is incredibly valuable and a real asset to the company. A bad one... well, you know how that goes.

Oh, and I should mention that sometimes accountants ask you for information for very good reasons which you may not fully understand. Just like they don't really fully comprehend your job, don't think for a moment you fully comprehend theirs. Part of the job of an accountant is to watch for fraud and waste. I've seen plenty of cases where departments try to game the budgeting system to get resources they don't really need. The more departments try to game the system, the unfortunate but natural response is additional red tape. Obviously it's quite possible have too much bureaucracy but it is also just as bad to have too little. It's a balance that is sometimes hard to get right.

Disclosure: I am both a degreed engineer and a certified accountant. I happen to know both sides of this classic conflict quite well. A tip I give all engineers is to learn as much accounting as you can. It's FAR easier to get the equipment and resources you want if you can speak the language of finance.

It costs more than $200

[RobinEggs]

I agree with your sentiment, but there are other considerations to make in a business setting. As far as simple costs go, the sticker price on another monitor might be $200, but there are often large costs beyond sticker price in the corporate world. The purchase has to be requested formally, then approved, then ordered, received, and installed. The real cost in accounting, paperwork, and labor could be a surprisingly large percentage of the final cost. Granted, there's almost no plausible final price at which this isn't a worthwhile investment if, as you say, the developer realizes even a fraction of a point in productivity gained, but never forget that nothing is cheap in business.

The other thing is that sometimes people can be irrational weasels. If getting a new monitor for this guy inspires someone from accounting to request one for better spreadsheet management, and ultimately everyone down to the mailboy starts thinking they need dual displays, that's a lot of money and annoyance in the short run in exchange for relatively small productivity gains in the long run. Then you factor in the relatively small possibilities that some people who get more screen space will therefore require more desk space and thus better furniture to accommodate it, which could lead to people needing more square footage, etc.

And god help the company if someone decides that they don't need a new monitor, but someone else got something cool so they want a better chair. Some people react irrationally to the perceived status inequality behind equipment purchases. It's pure monkey brain at work, but it creates a lot of tiresome whining and bloated spending sometimes.

Anyway, you're fundamentally right. In almost any imaginable it's probably better to buy the guy a new monitor, but don't underestimate the chain of annoyances such a purchase might cause.

Re:It costs more than $200

[Anonymous Coward]

All that stuff about extra purchasing costs may be true, but in the case in question, we're not talking about buying the guy a second monitor. We're talking about taking away his existing second monitor and giving it to someone in accounting.

That's a totally different situation from denying him an upgrade. Taking away his existing equipment and giving it to someone else is insulting (think Milton in Office Space), and there's really no way to make it make sense from a productivity management standpoint. Developers are technical people. They are motivated by fancy electronic gadgets that are, relatively speaking, remarkably cheap compared to the bonuses and expense accounts other workers demand.

If you take a developer's toys away and give them to the accountant, he's going to think you're being deliberately mean to punish him, and is probably going to sulk about it for a while. Or he'll think you're an idiot. Either way he'll resent you and lose faith in you and perform worse. If that was the manager's goal for some reason, fine, but if his goal was to save a few hundred bucks, he's making a false economy.

Re:It costs more than $200

[epyT-R]

The purchase has to be requested formally, then approved, then ordered, received, and installed

if it costs multiple fractions of the cost of the monitor to get it to the employee, that speaks of really shitty business practices. not the fault of the employee. in this case, the monitor already exists.

The other thing is that sometimes people can be irrational weasels.

And god help the company if someone decides that they don't need a new monitor, but someone else got something cool so they want a better chair. Some people react irrationally to the perceived status inequality behind equipment purchases. It's pure monkey brain at work, but it creates a lot of tiresome whining and bloated spending sometimes.

then it's up to the company execs to grow spines and be the objective leaders they're supposed to be. this requires them to have some knowledge of the subjects they hire people to deal with...not everything, but at least the generalities. in this case they should know enough before oking inter-departmental resource transfers. you don't train a soldier to be an expert marksman and then deploy him with cheap and/or inappropriate hardware. you don't hire a draftsman and pay him going rates to use the latest autocad on a 486. you don't hire a developer at $100,000 a year and then whittle his tool set down solely to appease insecure egos. you just don't. that's terrible leadership..that costs companies money.

Re:I think it's kinda silly

[JWSmythe]

    There are two reasons for horizontally arranged eyeglasses.

    First, people tend to look for things on the same plane that they are on. Most people don't pay attention to what is up or down. They pay attention to their horizontal plane, which would be where predators or attackers would normally come from. This is due to behavior training through their life. People tell their kids to look left and right before crossing the street. No one ever says "look up and down", which incidentally is what makes potholes at street curbs that much more entertaining.

    It is a fairly simple behavior modification to extend their plane of perception to the vertical plane. It works out very well for law enforcement though, as people tend to not look up for helicopters following them. :)

    The second is ... fashion. You can buy completely round glasses, which support correction around the full field of view. To remain somewhat fashionable, eyeglasses for vision correction are rarely made to cover the full field of view. This also makes it a bastard to play pool with glasses that are not cut to give enough field of view (been there, done that, bought new glasses after losing because I couldn't clearly focus on the whole table)

    You can easily test for the first reason at many optometrists offices. They can (and will) test for "blind spots" in the field of view. If you look at the resulting graph, the area is round, not a horizontal oval or square. Well, unless you have serious eye problems.

Re:I think it's kinda silly

[moonbender]

I got used to coding on widescreen displays. It's fine. Sure, 4:3 1200px high displays basically aren't made anymore. The upside is that 16:10 1200px high displays are widely available and affordable. I don't see it as losing vertical space but as gaining horizontal space. 1920 horizontal pixels mean that I can put two 1200px tall windows side-by-side. Or, if you've got dual 24" screens, one enormous 1920x1200 for something like an IDE on the main screen and two tall windows side by side on the other. Splitting the 1920 in 1/3 + 2/3 is also very nice, as 2/3s is just wide enough for a useful browser window.

Re:I think it's kinda silly

[dbIII]

That's why I'm still on CRT. Trinatrons go on ebay for $1 while an LCD that can do 1600x1200 (or anything that can do 1200 or more high) is over $1000.

Probably not getting as high as management

[dbIII]

Sometimes the guys with the asset list in account sections think it is perfectly reasonable to lift what they need from another area without going through the departments that paid for the stuff - in their eyes accounts own everything.
I'm lucky I don't deal with that now, but previously had to deal with account bastards so pettily evil that one demanded I rush out and buy a specific expensive printer for him with my own cash and then demanded afterwards three competing quotes and a written justification of that model. After that an eight week wait for reimbursement (processed by that same person in accounts) was rubbing salt in the wounds considering at the time I was still waiting for my first paycheck (also delayed) after a period of unemployment. It's low grade petty evil and the only way to deal with it is to make them play by their own rules - take the screen back for the purpose it was purchased for and send a complaint up the tree.
When departments are caught actively stealing assets from others instead of asking permission they need to be stopped because you don't know what they are stealing without getting caught. For example finding out a projector has been stolen by another department and taken to an office interstate instead of booked out can cause a lot of wasted time and money before a presentation. It also changes the work flow where you have to ensure that you actually have the equipment some time before you need it and can not assume it's still there because you had it yesterday.
With the screen it's not really an issue about whether the thing was needed or not because nobody asked before that tool in the workplace was stolen. There's no point pretending it is anything other than theft. I think it's a sign of disfunction in the workplace that it appears that the theif is asking for the previous user to justify why they had it in the first place.

Re:The second monitor is pretty vital to me.

[Malc]

Or perhaps it goes back to the lack of social skills that many developers have.