Multiple Monitors Increase Productivity 539
eggoeater writes "An systematic study conducted by NEC-Mitsubishi, ATI Technologies and the University of Utah has concluded that the use of multiple monitors in the workplace increases productivity. The study is discussed on Tom's Hardware, EE Times, and there's a detailed press release on NEC-Mitsubishi. For those of us who use multi-monitors, this is not shocking. But maybe now that it's official, IT managers will view it as a good investment and not just for gamers."
In other news, (Score:0, Interesting)
what about virtual desktops (Score:1, Interesting)
Multiple displays have been around for years - I used to work on a 9 head xterminal (still in use at the nyse) - can't say it speed up my work, but it certainly heated up the box...
(Think of the lifesize p0rn possibilities)
Separation of tasks (Score:5, Interesting)
I replaced my dual monitor setup with an 20 inch Apple Cinema Display when I got my new G5...but I am finding myself missing the twin screens, even despite the size and aspect ratio of the gorgeous new screen...may have to find a way to get another Cinema...and a bigger desk!
Re:I'd have to agree (Score:3, Interesting)
My co workers come in my office and look at my dual flat screens and think that I'm just hoarding resources. Little do they know that the money that they save from me not having to click around and precisely resize windows has paid for this other monitor many times over.
mmmm, EMF (Score:3, Interesting)
(Guess we should ask for the LCDs...)
Damn Straight... (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, it lets me put my editor (JBuilder, in most cases) on one monitor, and have a UML diagram, a specification, or a bug report, etc...on the other. And considering I was able to add the extra monitor for 300, it's totally worth it.
Neck strain? (Score:3, Interesting)
My question relates to neck strain: while I would like to try two monitors, I am concerned that the constant looking to the left or right for the second monitor (or both in the low-angle setup) would increase strain on the neck muscles and/or neck and shoulder joints.
sPh
Re:What about widescreens...? (Score:4, Interesting)
For the same effect on one large monitor you'd have to resize one window to half the screen by using the resize zones on the edges of the window, then resize another to the other half of the screen, it would take longer and thus negate some of the benefit you were trying to get in the first place.
Re:what's the use? (Score:3, Interesting)
On one screen, I don't think I'd manage to keep myself organized in the same way.
Maan
It's not new! (Score:1, Interesting)
Productivity (Score:3, Interesting)
What did I get out of it? A nasty neck headache. The monitors were setup with all graphics in one, and text commands on the second. Terrible neck strain because of the monitor placement.
Next multi monitor setup was working at an Army satellite network ops center, the telemetry workstation had 5 monitors but the placement was more ergonomic so it was much easier to handle than if all the info was crammed into one huge screen. That pretty much worked.
At my previous job (dot bomb) as we started shutting down branch offices we got an influx of extra equipment and eventually most of the people that had desktops were assigned a second monitor. In almost every case the second monitor translated into increased productivity. These people were doing things like building flash animations, editing videos or doing web programming, so they appreciated the increased screen space. Even our instructional designers were doing great because they could have more documents opened side-by-side.
Of course, it is awesome to have a second monitor if you are a gamer, but for most of us that work with a gazillion windows opened at the same time, having dual monitors (or for the lucky bastards, a huge widescreen monitor like the Apple studio series) is a godsend.
It's about real estate (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, with the same 19" monitor in my house, I can have so many more windows open and viewable with Linux than with Windows. Also, Windows in 1280x1024 resolution or higher gets unreadable whereas I don't tend to have that problem with Linux for some reason.
So I'm not so sure about needing >=2 monitors, but perhaps to enhance the GUI readability of various OS's at higher resolutions.
I find it works really well. (Score:3, Interesting)
I tried four monitors once, this was great, the only drawback was I kept loosing the mouse pointer.
Moving from 2 displays to 1 large display (Score:2, Interesting)
Our users are creative folk, working on G4s with Photoshop, Illustrator, Quark, etc. Historically, the mindset has been to keep application palettes on the smaller display while the current document is open full-screen on the larger display. Usual resolutions are 1600x1200 on the 21" monitor and 1280x1024 on the 17" display.
Our test hopes to show that users not only work faster with a single 23" 1920x1200 display, but also that the single display will save money in the long run, and make associate moves easier. It should also improve ergonomics in our smaller cube workspaces, because the thinner display can be pushed back closer to the cube wall. I do think, however, that 1920x1200 might just be too low a resolution for a 23" display.
We are also beginning a migration to Panther, and we are hoping to show that Expose makes the navigation of multiple open applications more intuitive and efficient.
As resolutions increase and flat panels become larger and less expensive, I think this trend may increase. Instead of using two large, bulky CRTs, it might be easier, cheaper, and faster to work with one large high-resolution LCD.
Definite Productivity Boost (Score:1, Interesting)
-AC
Re:Any excuse is a good excuse.... (Score:4, Interesting)
well, you're actually pretty close. not four monitors though, but four vitual desktops.
where i work there are coders with dual monitors and there is me with one monitor and (as the only linux user in the company) 4 desktops. while they maximize all their windows and spend time poking around the taskbar and moving things from monitor to monitor, i race around virtual monitors with the alt-Fx keys.
i have a very simple layout for the four desktops:
code i am working on
remote sessions
email and second remote session if needed
browser if you build for the web, the write/test cycle is as fast as alt-f4 ctrl-r. focus is transfered automaically when you switch desktiops so there's not fritzin' about with the mouse!
less monitors (to a minimum of one, obviously), more virtual desktops.
Screen space == short-term memory (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to have a 17" Apple monitor that I ran at 1600x1200 for development, solely to keep as much text as possible in my field of vision while working. My favorite monitor of all time was a Sun 20" monochrome 100 DPI screen - ran at something like 2000x1500.
Screen space is an extension of my short-term memory - it lets me deal with more complex things with less effort.
Re:what's the use? (Score:4, Interesting)
Because you don't have to press alt-tab? They already have a visible spot on the desktop.
Additionally, if you need to do a series of calculations, it takes a LOT less effort to just run through it all without even changing focus from the calculator, than to go through "get a number from app 1, alt-tab, enter in calc, alt-tab, get another number, alt-tab, enter in calc, alt-tab, get another number...".
And that only deals with interactive tasks such as a calulator. How about something passive but informative, like the task manager (or top, in the *nix world), where you need it visible to make use of it? I can't even count how many times I've avoided a crash because I noticed the CPU use suddenly spike as some app began behaving poorly. If I didn't have that window always visible, I'd never see the usage spike until the machine started to crawl, by which time the opportunity to kill the offending process may have passed (Windows Media Player does that on occasion, just brings the machine to a crawl and leaves no choice but to reboot - But if you catch it within about five seconds, the machine hasn't totally stopped responding and you can kill it).
I don't claim you can't do things almost as well with a single monitor. But once you've used a dual, you'll never go back.
Re:What about widescreens...? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think maximising tends to produce the wrong layout anyway, the human eye is better at reading narrow columns (that's why newspapers are layed out as they are). That's why you get all sorts of cruft down the side of webpages. So why are all the browser controls at the *top* of the browser window instead of down the side?
Rich
Monitor SIZE is important too (Score:3, Interesting)
I have two monitors on my desk (both larger than the laptops preferred by many these days) hooked up to a OSX box. Editing on one with BBEdit, Terminal shell open for the target machine on the other, translucent windows so I can find stuff that is buried. It may seem silly, but I honestly feel that these little details translate into better designs and code.
I use three (Score:3, Interesting)
I use 3 monitors at home Left is API, Centre is IDE, Right is Application (plus Trillian, WinAmp etc). One you've gone double, you never want to go back
On windows 98 & XP it's dead easy. Shove in an old PCI card and away you go. I've never got it working properly with Linux.
T
three is better (Score:2, Interesting)
I have a windows box and a linux box. I wanted dual monitors on both, but I didn't want to deal with two KVMs and monitors that have switched, dual inputs are expensive. So, I got three monitors... the middle one is switched by the KVM, the outer ones are dedicated to each box. The nice thing about that is you can view stuff from one box while working in the other. I've become completely addicted to it... I couldn't imagine using just two monitors! ;-)
Re:WideScreens (Score:3, Interesting)