|
2 works for what I do but I use a laptop always in "feet up" mode so I suffer along with one screen and side by side if I have to.
|
|
|
|
|
Oddly, I'm comfortable within 1 to 6. I've been doing a lot of work on a laptop recently with just 1 screen, and my desktop has 3, which is awesome, as I often have multiple browsers, IDE's, and other documents open. I've used 6 (spread across a couple computers using Synergy to share the mouse and keyboard) which was a huge advantage when I was having to remote into several different machines as well as keep my development environment open. Never had the opportunity to use more than 6, but the way I see it, the more the better.
Of course, a couple of these babies[^] would do too.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
After reviewing many comments, in which 3 is the most common term, I think I am lagging behind for having 2 laptops only.
I will from now on purchase more screens only.  JK, I will stick to using one machine for each purpose. 
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
I use two. Generally one for VS and one for SQL.
I see Philips now have a cheap 40 " UHD monitor for the same price as their old 28". It has software that allows you you set it up with up to four virtual monitors.
Looks good. I just need to get work to get one as a test
modified 22-Aug-15 16:12pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I will consider this 40" option for myself also.
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
Most have 1 or 2 screens, occasionally 3, and this guy in question has 6.
In my work, my system is so powerful, that it GOES UP TO 11 ![^]
|
|
|
|
|
Terry Pratchett was asked why he had six monitors. His reply: "Because I don't have enough space for eight"
Two is brilliant - orders of magnitude better than one. Three, I'd like to try. Four, I could fit in - just - but I'd need a new video card, which means a new PC as it's only half height. Six? I could use it. I don't think that for what I do, it'd be that much of an improvement - but I didn't think two would make that much difference either.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm.
*Makes plan about going to the nearest market to purchase a bunch of new screens for system!*
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
At work I have only five on my main machine. It supports six but I don't have room for the other one as I also have my laptop plus another screen to provide a total of seven. ...and I use all of them almost all the time. One for email, one for SQL, two more for VS (sometimes two projects simultaneously), another for remote access to a few servers and I also have to support four different browsers (IE, Chrome, FF & Safari) so I run tests on the other screens and then there's CP, Google and other stuff.
At home I manage on three, across two PCs but with one keyboard and mouse using Input Director (a tool like Synergy).
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
For me, it's not a matter of number of screens, but total real-estate, aka resolution.
I have a 40" 4K TV (3820x2160) and a pair of 24" monitors (1920x1200) on my desk.
The 4K display by itself provides you with a ridiculous amount of space, but I'm not going to give up the two other displays I already had.
There's no going back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am always amazed how people can manage more than one screen. I had 2 for a while at office and never really made any good use of it. I am probably way too much used to Alt + tab and Ctrl + tab.
|
|
|
|
|
Just being able to have Chrome or a PDF open full screen on one monitor, while coding fullscreen on the other makes it soooooo worth while!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am using 2 (24" - 1920 x 1200) Screens. And it really makes the difference.
I have tried using 3 screens, but that's too much. (Apart from the functional part - You often look stupid when trying to find windows on it  )
So IMHO 2 is the right setup. Anything less or more will affect the productivity.
... and 6 - he must be really using his revolving chair instead of alt+tab.
|
|
|
|
|
I use two, and I could make use of a third. I don't think I would like the whole row-on-top thing.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
The other advantage of having multiple screens is that when your cat decides to sit in front of one and stare at you (probably plotting revenge for the flea killing liquid I just applied to the back of his neck) you can continue to use the other one...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Does that protect from an angry girl (intending to avenge), too?
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
Unlikely, but perhaps worth a try.
I'd suggest that a bunch of flowers and some chocolates might work better though. Failing that body armour.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
I think would find it hard to efficiently use 6. However, I currently use 3, and I do find that I run out of space at times, I don't like having to minimize my windows while working. I would have my IDE on one, my browser one another, and my reference pdf on the third. Depends on what I'm working on I would also use my ssh client, I like to give the old putty a window of its own.
|
|
|
|
|
I use 3 Dell u3011 30" monitors. I would hate to use less. I have one for my current IDE, one for a browser for testing and looking up anything I need on Google or StackExchange, and one for a console or database, depending on the task.
I can't imagine what I would use six for, but I'm not going to argue with someone who likes it - and the geek in me says "I'd love to try it."
|
|
|
|
|
I been using 3 20 inch monitors for 8+.
I used 2 at 1 job wasn't the same, plus they skimped on the size.
I would need 2 minimum.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it really depends on personal preferences. I switched to 2x24 about 3-4 years ago and didn't look back. In this past year I updated to 3x32 - main work area (VS/SQL), communication (email/Skype), and task list/miscellaneous. The two side monitors are in portrait mode. I still ALT+TAB, but I don't have to do that as much. A quick glance to side monitors lets me see what I want without needing to play through the multiple ALT+TAB sequences. It's easy to argue I have WAY too many windows open (I likely do), but it's my working style and it works well for me. Given how cheap monitors are now it's not hard to justify the cost vs. productivity savings. Heck, it used to be $2k for a 19" CRT, so getting 3x32" LED for less than that is awesome. Plus I get a nice tan
Six monitors wouldn't work for me - can't imagine craning my neck upward constantly (I can only imagine the top monitors being useful for monitoring status vs. working desktop space). Six monitors seems overkill to me, but if it actually works for him (vs. him just trying to make his workstation look kick-ass) then who are we to judge?
|
|
|
|
|
I use 4 at home:
Monitor 1 - Code
Monitor 2 - Web Browser (for code)
Monitor 3 - Web Browser (for research)
Monitor 4 - Other (Music, Youtube vids, RDP sessions, log viewing (tail -f), etc)
At work I only have 3 and I can say that i do miss my 4th monitor...
I guess it is one of those things: once you have it you don't want to be without it.
Eric
|
|
|
|
|
Way back before we had personal computers I sat at 6 desks at once. One for my typewriter, one for my adding machine, one for my desk calendar, one for my stapler, one for my pencil cup and one for my phone.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
