[garyrichardson]

First up, my initial comment was a bit harsh. Sorry. Should have been phrased more like a question.

Here's what I was imagining: I've worked with 30" monitors in the past and I found that there was a trade off between what I could view at one time vs panning my eyes around. I can entirely take in a 15" mbp at about arms length, but I have to move my head slightly to see from bottom corner to opposite top corner on a 30".

I'm guessing a 55" inch screen is about the size of 12 mbp screens in a 3x4 block (based on the size of my 55" tv). At about 3' away I would only ever be able to see about 1/3 max. Multiple that by 2 screens and my chin would swivel from shoulder to shoulder to see two of them.

More screen real estate is better in general, I just can't imagine it's comfortable to work with so much space I need to move around to see it all.

[yantis]

That makes sense. I don't think I really swivel that much as I just slightly turn my head which gives me basically two monitors of screen. So basically I have my main screen which is full view. I turn my head slightly to the left and I see half the left screen. Same goes with the right.

The other half of the screen on both the left and right sides are used for less common things like email, dashboards , etc (though most of my right side is used for that too.. its a lot of space hehe).

So in reality you may have three big screens but you are really only using two without actually swiveling your head (one + half + half).

If I want to use the far half on either of the side monitors I do tilt (which is why they mostly have static stuff).

Though for everything you need to kind of break it up in sections because your eyes are moving around a lot if you are trying to do stuff with the whole screen (ie: if you play a game its harder because you have to keep looking at the four corners to get all the info), but for programming and other stuff you might use a split screen or triple split and just be working on X file in a part of the screen.