|
I have 2 PC's and 2 x 22" wide LCD displays. I use a utility to remote control one PC. I run my developer tools on one while email, browser etc... runs on the other. Works out great.
|
|
|
|
|
Not saying anything else is a whole lot better, but here's how the suckage breaks down on My OS of Choice:
- Windows can be in one of three states: minimized (hidden), normal (arbitrary size/position), maximized (fill current screen). Switching between these states is much, much faster than resizing in state #2.
- Switching between applications re-orders all top-level windows (roughly in the order they were last given focus)
- Two less-than-full-screen windows on the same screen can quickly be switched between by clicking in an exposed area.
- Switching between two full-screen windows on the same desktop requires the use of the taskbar or Alt+Tab.
- Switching between two windows on separate screens can be accomplished via the taskbar, alt+tab, or by simply flinging the mouse onto the appropriate screen and clicking on an exposed area of the desired window, regardless of whether the windows are full-screen or not.
- There is no mechanism for the window manager to preserve the relative Z-order of multiple top-level windows belonging to a single application. Therefore, when such windows exist on a single screen along with other top-level windows, they easily become "lost" behind the top-level windows of other applications, and require the same tedious mechanisms described above to bring into focus.
- The default window positioning algorithm tries to "cascade" new windows, even if sufficient free space exists on the desktop to avoid overlapping existing windows.
In short, with multiple screens i can put an application on its own monitor, quickly maximize it, switch between it and another app on another screen, and keep it together with any other top-level windows it might own without losing them behind other apps. This approximates the functionality i used to get by carefully tiling, positioning, and resizing windows on a single desktop, at a fraction of the cost (for some tasks, i used to spend insane amounts of time on this - at one time, i had Explorer windows that never got closed because when they did i would have to spend time carefully repositioning them again. I had config files tuned to each machine laying out editors. Etc.)
Citizen 20.1.01 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
|
|
|
|
|
I use one 19" wide screen at home and two 19" standard monitors at work. I have just recently gotten the second screen and love if. If I could afford a monitor/card at home I would go for a second one.
djj vs.
|
|
|
|
|
One computer I have is hooked up to three 15" CListCtrls, though it's very hard to use multiple monitors/CListCtrls.
"What if you guys are ever lost in the woods? Or trapped in a really dark place? Or if minesweeper.exe is missing from your aunt's computer?" - Jeff Atwood
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. Binding multiple CListCtrl is hard.
I now use a 24-Row CListCtrl and think about a 30row in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
One small 17" (inch) monitor is enough for anyone.
"What if you guys are ever lost in the woods? Or trapped in a really dark place? Or if minesweeper.exe is missing from your aunt's computer?" - Jeff Atwood
modified on Tuesday, July 8, 2008 1:41 PM
|
|
|
|
|
I thought so also but after working with the second monitor a lot of the tasks I do became much easier.
djj
|
|
|
|
|
Speak for yourself. Or go into politics :P
...or did I miss the irony: '17" ought to be enough for anybody.'
|
|
|
|
|
19", if you're desperate.
"Cookies are delicious delicacies." - Mozilla Foundation
|
|
|
|
|
Lol, and who could ever use more the 640k of ram or store more than 1.44mb
|
|
|
|
|
The Dogcow Farmer wrote: One small 17" monitor is enough for anyone.
Yeah, if it's a MP3 player. :P
|
|
|
|
|
I'm 2x20" I like this better than one 24" because at 1600x1200 on each I have more actual desktop space.
I guess if money were no object I might vote for a main 24" with two 20"'s on each side.
|
|
|
|
|
and it's just great!!!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
When I was in school, working at home, etc...I had never used more than one monitor. I in fact remember arguing with my first boss -- because I was content to use one monitor and he thought I needed two. It really didn't take that long to get used to -- strike that -- ADDICTED to. I don't think I could ever go back to one monitor again.
My company recently replaced a bunch of 10 year old CRT's with LCD's (mine included). In the process, it became apparent that the screen resolution was really the most important. We all would have been just fine with 19" or smaller. The problem is, that 19" LCD's don't usually support 1600 x 1200 or higher. The next size up does....(20 0r 21...something like that). Whatever the actual size is, they're nice, crisp, clear -- and most importantly I have TWO that support 1600x1200 resolution.
Aubrey
"Tarter Sauce" = a 7yr old's version of "WTF!"
|
|
|
|
|
Totally agree. Though the thing that really gets me is the refresh rates (at least for us unfortunate few still stuck with CRT's) I can't stand anything with a refresh less than 75hz, else it is like staring at a strobe light for eight hours a day  . Of course the higher the resolution the lower the refresh rates. So I guess there is balance to be struck between the resolution and the refresh rate.
|
|
|
|
|
My preference is for both!
so my no vote is really a vote for:
d) multiple big screens 24" or larger
|
|
|
|
|
I have to agree... multiple large screens is great. Same size and resolution helps, but having 2 screens is better than one. Haven't ever really worked with more than 2.
|
|
|
|
|
Three 22 inch LCD screens seem to be just perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
As long as I didn't look at the price - yes, it sound nice
|
|
|
|
|
Big screens are big - meaning they take too much space
Especially because I really can't stand crappy LCD colours, they give me a headache and CRT screens >17" are really far too big for a normal workspace
Bigger/multiple screens also make things slower (more pixel calculations needed etc.)
|
|
|
|
|
So agree with you.
"What if you guys are ever lost in the woods? Or trapped in a really dark place? Or if minesweeper.exe is missing from your aunt's computer?" - Jeff Atwood
|
|
|
|
|
I have 3 19" CRT screens on my desk at work and I would have a difficult time working without them. However I would really like to replace the primary monitor with a 24" LCD and rotate it so that it is in portrait mode.
John
|
|
|
|
|
It's funny how 'everyone' credits Apple with such clever designs but the fact that they still have don't have a per window menu bar means working with any large desktop area requires constant back and forth to the top left of the main display unless you have photographic memory for all the shortcut key combinations (I don't and there is a limit to the number of sticky notes one monitor can bare...).
When combined with their refusal to adopt the right mouse button fully one has to wonder if all there decisions are quite as user focused as they would have you believe. I have visions of Steve Jobs stamping his feet like a toddler shouting 'no, no, no' every time someone tries to implement when of these things.
|
|
|
|
|
JavaBear wrote: It's funny how 'everyone' credits Apple with such clever designs but the fact that they still have don't have a per window menu bar means working with any large desktop area requires constant back and forth to the top left of the main display unless you have photographic memory for all the shortcut key combinations (I don't and there is a limit to the number of sticky notes one monitor can bare...).
Yeah, because the Windows task bar doesn't do this at all. 
JavaBear wrote: When combined with their refusal to adopt the right mouse button fully one has to wonder if all there decisions are quite as user focused as they would have you believe.
You're just whining. Go buy a two button mouse or hold down CTRL. You know, those things do exist for Macs.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: JavaBear wrote:
It's funny how 'everyone' credits Apple with such clever designs but the fact that they still have don't have a per window menu bar means working with any large desktop area requires constant back and forth to the top left of the main display unless you have photographic memory for all the shortcut key combinations (I don't and there is a limit to the number of sticky notes one monitor can bare...).
Yeah, because the Windows task bar doesn't do this at all. [Roll eyes]
Who was talking about the Windows task bar? Isn't the Mac Dock just like the Windows task bar? [Roll eyes, smacks forehead, picks nose]
Jeremy Falcon wrote: JavaBear wrote:
When combined with their refusal to adopt the right mouse button fully one has to wonder if all there decisions are quite as user focused as they would have you believe.
You're just whining. Go buy a two button mouse or hold down CTRL. You know, those things do exist for Macs.
FYI, CTRL left click is not the same as Right click in Windows, you Mac fan boys are SOOOO smart that your IQs must have looped back around to zero.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
