[huffmsa]

> So, why do we spend money to display several things at once?

Because there's a higher cost to switching windows than just switching where you're looking.

This isn't just a developer / office worker debate, the aviation industry has done it too. Having dedicated displays is almost always better than having to cycle through windows until you find the one you want.

[oftenwrong]

I guess it depends on your usage. Under my tiling setup I usually already know which "workspace" is the one I want, and how to summon it directly with a key combination. No cycling.

I find it quicker and easier to change workspace than to turn my head. For me there is one optimal display position, so I always want to be using it.

I also might have 10 workspaces, but I don't have 10 displays.

In the past I have used a three display setup where the workspace I summon gets pulled to the centre display, swapping with other workspaces, which may be displayed on the peripheral displays. However, I found that I never really liked looking at the peripheral displays while I worked, so I switched to using a single display.

[zepolen]

I've found it slower.

I gave up on multiple monitors because I can't carry them around with me and many times I like to work away from the desk.

As a result I'd find when I'm on the laptop, my work flow would deteriorate because I'm used to multiple windows rather than the alt tab sequence.

So I made the decision to only use a 15" screen for everything, heavily depending on alt tab.

As a result I've developed a muscle memory where there is zero thought alt tabbing to any window.

This keeps my eyes in the same place - which decreases the tracking/fatigue involved and less context switch.

However, using a second monitor does increase productivity when using a monitor behind the laptop for multiple log tails - mostly because 15" is not enough to show that data.