[nunez]

I don't know how folks can use a ton of screens like this. I had four 32" monitors at one place and it was incredibly overwhelming.

I've been rocking a single 27" screen for years. Even that's too big. I prefer 24" screens but it's difficult to get a good one.

I can hold context in multiple virtual spaces, and key bindings make switching between them super quick.

I guess this is in the same camp as "I don't understand people who leave 75,000 tabs open."

[Dries007]

What resolution & DPI is I think far more important than how many displays.

I have 4. 1x 1440@27", 1x 1440@24" and 2x1080@24". If I had known 1440@24" would die out, I would have bought 3 of those instead.

For me the ideal would be a 16:10 24" screen with the same density as the 1440 16:9 models. It's the perfect size & resolution for desktop use in programming / engineering. I'd buy 3 of those, but they don't exist from reputable brands.

I don't want a single ultrawide because I like the (narrow) physical borders. It lets me organize stuff just how I like it. It also makes working with different sources easier. My desktop is plugged into everything, but I can put a laptop or embedded board onto one of the side monitors if I need to.

How I've set up mine:

- Middle 1440: Main work, usually fullscreen IDE with 2 columns of files open.

- Left 1440: Documentation, usually 2 windows side by side.

- Top left 1080: Media, usually in the background. Needed chat programs (different customers use different tools) side by side.

- Right 1080: JIRA, task lists, notes, research, running tests, running instances of programs being developed, ...

This avoids me having to use virtual workspaces to layer context. It's like a great big tool wall in a workshop:

  The idea is simple: First Order Retrievability. That is, you should never have to move one tool to get to another. That in turn affords the fastest, most efficient way of working.
  ~Adam Savage

[skydhash]

LG has 4k 24 inch monitors. The DPI is amazing (not so much for color fidelity).

[maccard]

>to layer context

Such a good way of capturing it.

[bemmu]

I'm doing some light gamedev, and with two 28" screens I feel like I could use a little bit more screen real estate.

The situation where this still feels lacking is when I'm trying to solve a problem and have a 3D game view, source code, object list and properties, debug output, debugger (watched variables, call stack) on one screen. Then on another screen I'll read documentation of whatever I'm trying to fix.

Productivity clearly had a jump when I added the second monitor, and I think I could get some boost still by either having larger monitors, or perhaps one big bigger curved one with two monitor inputs.

[maccard]

Also games. 3x24 inch screens felt like the best balance to me. I had 2x27 and 1x 24 for a while, but I dropped back to 1x27 and 1x24 and prefer it. That's what I roll these days

[Rudism]

I agree. My opinion is that once you've trained yourself to use virtual desktops efficiently, multiple monitors becomes more of a hassle than a benefit.

I think multiple monitors is the solution for people who would rather solve the problem by spending their money instead of the effort it takes to configure and become accustomed to switching between virtual desktops. Given that it is a strict biological limitation that the human brain can only focus attention on one thing at a time, I don't believe there is any valid argument for why moving your eyeballs between physical monitors is any better than hitting a key combo to switch between virtual desktops on a single monitor once those key combos have become muscle memory. Additionally, the number of physical monitors you have is limited by how much money you have to burn and how much physical space you have to place them, whereas virtual desktops are theoretically unlimited.

[sfink]

They're not all for the same purpose.

There are some things that don't need to be actively looked at most of the time, but need to be visible so that you know when something happens that you do need to pay attention. You could do it by polling—put it on a virtual desktop and switch to it every so often—but that adds latency and can be even more distracting than having it visible in the corner of your eye. Think of things like Element or Slack or a dashboard that tracks bugs/issues/alerts.

Then there are reference displays that you look at on demand. Most of the time switching virtual desktops is good enough for this, but not if you're following along with a sequence while actively working.

Then there are things that are just big. Perhaps you're displaying an autogenerated graph, or you're using an information-dense tool (maybe with multiple relevant layers).

Not to mention wanting to consult things while on a video call, which constrains the screen to use based on camera positioning.

I very actively use virtual desktops, yet I have two external monitors in addition to my laptop screen. Most of the time, I really only make use of one of the external monitors, but situations arise that require both. They arise frequently enough that I notice the lack (eg when I'm fighting with my configuration and only one is working, or I've loaned one monitor to someone else). And when I'm mobile and down to just the laptop screen, I definitely notice and even adjust what I'm working on to avoid losing productivity.

[NikolaNovak]

It depends somewhat on your job.

When I was a techie I tried to be focused on one thing at a time as much as possible. Still liked two screens though!

In many other roles though, having your email and your working document open, or having excel and PowerPoint open, or help docs and your code, or the operational plan and the server terminals, et cetera, are massive efficiency multipliers.

Basically I'm at a place where one monitor feels claustrophobic, especially if it's just the teeny laptop monitor. 2 are enough. 3 is nice. I wouldn't know what to do with 4 32" ones either!!

[microtonal]

Same, one 5k 27” screen and I’m completely happy. I might consider 6k screen, but definitely not multiple screens.

[nunez]

If it's the Studio Display that you got, I got that same monitor a month ago and I absolutely love it.

[tetraca]

You categorize your screens. One screen for dev work, one for communication, and one for documentation/browsing. That way you can alt+tab between your primary work tasks with a tiny eye movement.

[dheera]

I used 2 screens for a while but I went back to 1. I would do 3 or 1 but not 2. 2 was bad for my neck. And I can't fit 3 screens on my desk.

[whiddershins]

For film composers (niche, I know) each screen can represent a distinct task all of which are happening simultaneously.

So:

- video reference

- synthesizers

- daw/waveform playback

- score

I wonder what other professions might find value in a similar setup.

[dylan604]

i'm in the same vein but more film/video post production in general. most of the time, in addition to how ever many monitors attached to the computer, there is at least one reference video monitor (that can be properly calibrated) that only receives a video signal from whatever software is being used. with only 2 computer screens, one screen has my timeline and preview windows. the other monitor will have all of the bins and effects controls and other various windows. if i'm in a real edit bay with dedicated scopes i'll prefer those, but if i'm slumming it at home i'll have to make room for them on one of the monitors too (usually tabbed behind the source monitor).

[yieldcrv]

I think thats good because you can manipulate the second screen without juggling the mouse pointer

I think those are the best use cases, input is a much greater bottleneck with additional screens if its limited to keyboard and mouse modifying those windows

[bdcravens]

Most of the time I'm using 3: 2 big screens (often browser on one, IDE or similar on the other) and my laptop (usually terminal, or Slack, or a similar auxiliary app). It feels no more complicated to me than swiping between phone apps, and definitely simpler than someone with a carefully curated WM setup.

My screen size has gone up over the years, but that's more a matter of aging eyes than information density. :-)

[threeio]

Doesn't always work this way but:

Smaller Monitor: Comms (email, calendar, slack, etc) -- often times I have this vertical (top email/cal and slack below) and it doubles for viewing dashboards for stats during troubleshooting.

Bigger monitor: Focus work (terminal, development env, etc) - normally split in 3 columns

Laptop Screen: Browsing (research, WebUI interfaces, entertainment, etc)

[switchbak]

I think a lot of this depends on how you arrange your windows.

I've used a bunch of monitors in the past, but found that my neck started to hurt after looking to the side too much. And having the bezels right in the middle of your view makes the most valuable real estate effectively unusable (unless you have 3!). 4 32's would be way too much for me, no doubt.

Having a single widescreen monitor has been better for me. Most of the time I'm not maximizing its use, but when I want to combine a bunch of views at once, it's quite valuable. Like when I'm running a performance test while keeping tabs on a bunch of monitoring.

I think you're right that virtual workspaces are great, especially if you dedicate them for discrete purposes.

[jmbwell]

I have my primary display in the center, directly in front of me. Whatever needs my primary focus for my current task goes there... Outlook for email, vscode for code, Terminal for admin, web browser when web browsering, etc.

To my left is for monitoring things, previewing things, and reference. Browser for checking changes to code, logs for monitoring changes to system, documentation for thing I'm working on, etc.

The result avoids the bezel in my direct field of view, avoids strain and RSIs from awkward posture, and, incidentally, kinda degrades gracefully when I'm at home with only one display or traveling with only my laptop's display.

But the second display to my left allows my peripheral vision to monitor things for changes without diverting my focus, and helps me keep documentation or source material for comparison handy without having to switch away from the thing I'm working on.

[RealStickman_]

I've had a single monitor for a long time, but I've recently come around to dual monitors. It just makes working with additional information on the second screen so much easier. Indo spend more time shuffling windows around now though

[hotnfresh]

I rarely feel a need for even two monitors unless I'm doing GUI development. Much of the time I just work off my laptop directly, not plugged in to anything (probably should knock it off for ergonomics reasons, though....)

[brainlessdev]

Totally off-topic, but while reading this I was thinking "that is exactly what I would say". Then I saw your username... it looks like we share not only a taste for monitors but also a surname!

[nunez]

No way! That's cool!

[brettermeier]

I'm more of the 75,000 tabs faction, which is probably why I use 3 monitors. I prefer to have all the windows I'm actively working in open in parallel. With one monitor, the handling is too fiddly for me and the windows are much too small. If only one thing is in the foreground, I sometimes lose the context or the constant jumping back and forth annoys me.

Edit: Just looked it up, there were like 30 tabs ;) But also more browsers, because it gets too much in only one.

[c-hendricks]

I'm similar. The idea of dedicating desk space, two extra cables, the compute to power the displays, and electricity, to show something like email seems incredibly wasteful to me. Not to mention, do people that do this not feel cramped when they don't have their full setup?

I've also never been a "maximize the window" type of person. Buying an ultra-wide was a huge help tho I will admit.

[maccard]

My preference is 3x 24 inch screens. In theory, I'd like one of them to be a tablet or a touch screen device that sits underneath the other two.

It basically boils down to one screen for "the app/website/whatever" one for code, and one for a reference. I _can_ hold contexts, but I also have tools to do that for me.

[RugnirViking]

ive always said that going from one screen to two is a big jump in productivity. Comparing things between two windows is a very common task in almost all workloads. However I think three is already too many, and brings something between barely any benefit and a net negative. More than that seems superfluous, even for cctv or stock brokers. Attention can't be split that easily. Personally for most of my working life ive had three, as in two 24" and a laptop, but I usually either just have spotify fullscreen on the laptop all day or turn it off if I can.

As for putting two windows side-by-side on a single screen? I don't know, it always felt clunky to me. A lot of things are designed to be landscape 16:9.

[ryukoposting]

I'm a 1.5 screens at work (laptop + 24" external monitor) and 1 screen at home person. Life has enough distractions.

[croisillon]

almost everybody at my job has 2 screens, i'm sorry but i only have one brain

[maccard]

I've got a keyboard and mouse, but spend most of my day using just the keyboard. That doesn't mean a mouse isn't useful