Do Developers Really Need a Second Monitor? 1002
jammag writes "It was an agonizing moment: a developer arrived at work to realize his second monitor had been taken (given to the accounting dept., to add insult to injury). Soon, the wailing and the gnashing of teeth began. As this project manager recounts, developers feel strongly — very strongly — about needing a second monitor (maybe a third?) to work effectively. But is this just the posturing of pampered coders, or is this much screen real estate really a requirement for today's developers?"
Ten points if reading this on your second monitor! (Score:5, Funny)
Ten points if you read this post on your second monitor like I did!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
20 for your 3rd, and 40 for your 4th. (Score:3)
how many points if I'm running this on my 4th?
1st - code view, full screen.
2nd pallets/toolbars etc (either in dreamweaver or eclipse)
3rd the output, results, test, whatever you want to call it.
4th this one switches a bit. Sometimes the database manager, or a putty to the server. Even mail or IM distractions...
Re: (Score:3)
Ten points if you read this post on your second monitor like I did!
Posting this from my second 24" display right now! =P I do molecular modeling and virtual simulations of proteins & macromolecules, so the added visualization space is a huge plus. It's especially nice to be able to view the entire protein one screen, and all of your data and/or literature on the other. It's also nice when running VM or connecting to the Windows Citrix Server on one screen and doing real work in Linux on the other -- it's almost like having two computers.
At home, I run a 22" monitor v
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maximize (Score:5, Insightful)
My opinion is this is largely a consequence of how the Maximize functionality works / has worked.
The ability to half-screen maximize by dragging a window to the left or right side of the screen helps quite a bit -- this is in Windows 7 and newer builds of Ubuntu (IIRC).
My typical reason for wanting a second monitor is the ability to maximize documentation/help stuff on one monitor while the other is reserved for the code itself. I find I work much slower on, for example, a laptop where I constantly have to switch back and forth between different windows to get at what I want.
Re: (Score:3)
In Compiz the closest option is the Grid plugin [compiz.org] (screenshot [ultimateeditionoz.com]), which in turn was inspired on WinSplit Revolution [winsplit-revolution.com]. The current ideas for future features in Compiz would bring on par with Win7 behaviour and even better, like:
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't just maximize. It is also because certain apps and even websites are designed to take up your entire screen, and the DPI or pixel density on current displays is abysmal.
If documentation on a webpage is taking up my entire screen in order to be usable, I have to keep switching back and forth in order to get work done. If the IDE is designed to take up my entire screen, now anytime there is testing I have to switch back and forth to understand what's going on.
Pixel density comes in because it limits
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't just maximize. It is also because certain apps and even websites are designed to take up your entire screen, and the DPI or pixel density on current displays is abysmal. ....
Pixel density comes in because it limits the size of the fonts we can use. Anything lower than 8pt or 6pt becomes too pixelated to be readable. Yet my smart phone has a dpi about 230dpi and I can read much smaller fonts with ease. Meanwhile my current 17" monitor at work only has 90dpi!
Current displays are pretty much all 1920x
Virtual Desktops (Score:5, Interesting)
My money is on the complete lack of virtual desktops on Microsoft's platform.
Yes, there are third party apps that add the capability, but I don't know a single Windows developer who uses them. On the other hand, I don't know a single Linux developer who DOESN'T use them... (now watch Slashdot provide countless counter examples).
Developing on a system without virtual desktops *or* a second (at least) monitor is a huge pain in the ass.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't find virtual desktops to be any more useful than tabbing between windows. They still don't let you see multiple large windows side-by-side in the way a multi-monitor setup does.
Re: (Score:3)
Most multi-monitor users I've seen don't sit 6 feet from their cluster of monitors to allow them simultaneous (non-peripheral) viewing of multiple monitors. On the other hand, I can switch between two virtual desktops in a fraction of a second.
The only time a second monitor, IMHO, is an improvement over a virtual desktop is when you can use your peripheral vision to monitor some live
Of course, most Windows users (even developers) are so glued to their mice, that switching desktops would be a time-consuming
Re: (Score:2)
I've never in my life maximized a window
You can't be much of a developer then if you've never tested that major use case of any project you've ever developed.
Re: (Score:3)
I've never in my life maximized a window . . .
I call bull.
Yes (Score:5, Informative)
When debugging a web-app I find it infinitely easier to have my terminal windows open on one monitor with the code and logs and then use the second monitor for my browsers so I can actually see things *as they happen* instead of trying to do lots of switching.
Re: (Score:3)
This was the killer app for me. The ability to watch server logs while doing things in a web browser. Being able to easily monitor something without having to switch windows with your active task or make things a few lines tall to fit them both on your screen.
In my current job, I only have one monitor, but it's widescreen so it serves that same purpose pretty well. I can have one window off to the side and the browser on top on the right. I can't see everything, but I can see the log well enough to know wh
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be a snot. That Outlook monitor probably makes a real difference to allot of those folks. Usually its a matter of the company not having efficient work flow and other tools but plenty of people in the business office side of the house just LIVE in E-MAIL. Being able to look at letter and an order entry type screen at the same time means the world to them.
Just like being able to watch tail, while you do stuff in your application means the world to you.
Re: (Score:2)
I have never had two monitors, but I have seen it done. Actually, I agree with this alot. Screen is a precious and limited resource. Right now I have 10 windows on this desktop, and 5 on another. Just shuffling through the pile on this one takes a few seconds, a few seconds where I can lose a train of thought, or get distracted. If I had more desktop, I would totally use it.
Its especially the case when you have an IDE open, which really needs to take up most of the screen much of the time and is painful to
How big's your desk? (Score:2)
Real or virtual? (Score:2)
Actually, regardless of how many physical monitors you already have, I'd say you could get even more benefit by organizing all your stuff across a few virtual desktops as well.
I kinda miss my WindowMaker setup with named workspaces and workspace-specific dock/clip.
Also kinda miss the multi-desktop app thumbnailing I had with e16 (or to some extent the gnome 1.x panel)... useful to keep an eye on what the other virtual desktops were doing.
Monitors are cheap, so why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
I bought a 24" monitor a few years back for $170, and a 23" last black frideay for $109. Why fuss about such a minor expense? If two monitors make developers 1% more producrtive, or just make developers feel "pampered" then why not?
Re:Monitors are cheap, so why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even simpler, the search&removal, the complains, the complain handling: all probably have cost more than another monitor....
Re:Monitors are cheap, so why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can never have too much screen space as a developer. It is that simple. Even if it to run the Debugger in one and the application in the other. As many people pointed out that a monitor costs what? $150? $200? That is how many hours of pay for the Developer?
Even worrying about it a clear case of Penny Wise Pound foolish.
Re:Monitors are cheap, so why not? (Score:4, Interesting)
The cost of buying a second monitor for one developer is immaterial. The cost of buying second monitors for every developer isn't.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The cost of buying a second monitor for one developer is immaterial. The cost of buying second monitors for every developer isn't.
Really?
Lets put things into perspective here. $200 for a decent 2nd monitor (we're not talking IPS Cinema displays here) compared to:
The dual-monitor solution of days yore has been solved with stuff like DisplayLink [displaylink.com] or Thunderbolt [intel.com] (or by good gfx cards if your desktops are beefy enough).
I even have a 3-monitor solution for my home setup - A macbook pro, with 1 disp
Re: (Score:3)
It must be nice to be able to consider $170 + $109 a minor expense.
Did you even read the summary? Of course it's a minor expense. TFA is about a paid developer. He's presumably working indoors, with lights and a desk and chairs and HVAC. And did I mention that the developer is paid?
Absolutely not (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Well (Score:5, Funny)
In next years Slashdot: Do Stone Tablet Developers Really Need Safety Glasses?
Second monitor is for /. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, /. is open in a text-mode browser, so it looks like seeerious code work on the console.
vdesk.exe (Score:2)
Some old, OLD resource kit for windows nt, faffy to set up but best virtual windows app I've used. CTRL F1/F2 whatever to jump around screens so can put the email/browser on one screen, dev tools on another screen, vnc views on other screen, one spare as needed.
For dual screens, I find a second machine with a monitor, vnc server, and win2vnc works well to be able to have more things going on too (though it's usually hulu/netflix during calm times...!).
Slashdot (Score:4, Funny)
I keep a browser open to slashdot visible all the time. if I didn't have a second monitor, how would I get work done?
Can`t live without 2 (Score:2)
It enhances productivity. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the company wants the programmer to be more productive they'll give them two monitors. That way they can run the application on one screen, or documentation, and have the IDE open on another. Having to toggle between windows while cutting and pasting, or looking for fine detail differences between output, and code is a real real real suck ass aspect of coding.
This could of course be fixed by giving them a larger monitor and fixing the way maximize works in the OS.
Easy answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Your sig (Score:2)
Any technology is indistinguishable from magic for someone insufficiently advanced.
Total Screen Size (Score:2)
To me, it's not about number of screens, but the total amount of available screen space (both pixels and inches).
I regularly use one large screen (26" widescreen) for most of my work. I find this screen large enough to do side-by-side work when necessary. If I needed to have 3 items open at once (code/documentation/google search?), I would probably find it easier if I had more space than I do.
That said, when I'm really in the groove, I don't want anything but what I'm working on visible on my main screen.
Not just developers (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not just developers. I originally discovered the benefit of having a second monitor at a coding job in college - one screen for code, another for a browser to test the code and read documentation, etc.
After that, I bought myself another monitor for my desktop. Two came in great handy for translation - one monitor for source document and reference works, other monitor for your translation. It came in handy for reading electronic documents and taking notes/outlining. It's great for any job where you deal with lots of text, and need to be able to compare different documents, synthesize them, etc.
I'm now up to three. There are diminishing returns, obviously; the third isn't strictly necessary for me, but highly convenient. Any more than this would be tought for me to use effectively, though I suppose a square arrangement of four could be useful for some people.
Needed? No. Useful? Possibly. (Score:2)
It was an agonizing moment: a developer arrived at work to realize his second monitor had been taken (given to the accounting dept., to add insult to injury).
Why the needless troll for accountants? You don't think keeping track of the money in a company is an important task? You really should wake up to the notion that business is a team sport and ALL the jobs matter. Accounting, maintenance, marketing, sales, production, engineering and the rest ALL matter. Only an idiot thinks that their job is somehow the only one that matters.
But is this just the posturing of pampered coders, or is this much screen real estate really a requirement for today's developers?"
Is it needed? No. Is it useful? Frequently. It also depends on how high the resolution of your primary monitor is. If you ha
Accounting != Management (Score:3)
...This was the decision of accountants.
Wrong. That is a decision of management. Unless the manager and the accountant are the same person (rarely a good idea) fiascoes like the one you outline cannot happen because of accountants. The sole job of an accountant is to keep track of how the money in the company is spent. Their job is NOT to decide how to spend the money. That is the role of management. If the two jobs get combined, that is a potential recipe for problems and an indication the company is poorly structured but it isn't a probl
Couldn't do it without it (Score:2)
I find that I now have a hard time working if I don't have a second monitor. There are just so many scenarios where it is helpful:
Debugger in one window, running program in the other
Email in one, thing I'm writing an email about in another
Word in one, thing I'm writing a document about in another
Website with how to in one, thing I'm working on in another.
It saves so much time not having to swap windows.
No Islands (Score:2)
Now...if you're lucky enough to be able to say, "Look, I'm coding this afternoon and I'll be unavailable entirely until I get done," and then you can close everything
I need two monitors (Score:3)
I would go crazy trying to develop on only one monitor. In fact, I could use a third, but it's not worth getting a new video card for it.
Also, from the article, the idea of a second monitor being a "perk", comparable to a free lunch, is stupid. A second monitor is a tool to do work that directly affects productivity. A free lunch is just another way to get paid. The two are completely unrelated.
Obviously not a necessity (Score:2)
I mean seriously, if you can't do your job with one monitor, there is something wrong.
On the other hand, if you can't gain enough productivity from a second monitor to justify its purchase, there is also something wrong. My second monitor easily saves me 2-3 minutes of tabbing a day, minimum. Most good coders cost at least a dollar per minute. That's say just $2 per day, so a second monitor pays for itself in 100 business days or less.
So a company that won't pay for a second monitor if you want one is li
Depends on what you're developing. (Score:2)
No. (Score:2)
I focus on one thing at a time. I'm an old fashioned compulsive maximizer. More screen is not always better. I've seen people use multiple monitors, they have to micromanage the windows themselves. I doubt there is a difference in productivity with two monitors. More stimuli does not necessary mean you'll perform better. I like to do one thing at a time, keep all alerts, email alerts and anything that could pop up off. It keeps you in the zone. I do the same with my phone. It's on silent and makes no noise.
duh, of course. (Score:2)
Without my second monitor, I can't easily get to my 3rd or 4th.
Thank god for Synergy+ ... My corporate PC with Outlook is far right... 2 middle monitors are my coding monitors, and consoles to my embedded targets, jtag debugger window, etc... Far left monitor is web browser and datasheet displayer. I might even pull up a logic analyzer window on the far left.
My cows used to make fun of me but I see they all now have at least 2 monitors and some of them 3 or 4...
Requirement? No, but useful (Score:2)
And given prices of monitors these days, it really only needs to save a developer a few hours a year to pay for itself.
Sure, I could live without it. I could write code in vi instead of Eclipse, too, but why?
Yes. Especially when using a new tool or API (Score:2)
One for coding, one for documentation reading.
Or how about debugging, one for output, one for code?
Or just to read the specs of your new product in one window while designing the interface or GUI in the other.
There are times when there's no need for a second monitor. But there's also a lot of times when two monitors simply help a lot. Plus, considering their cost, it will have paid for itself when it saved you about 5 hours of work. It simply is a no-brainer to have one.
Second monitors lead to increased productivity (Score:4, Interesting)
So, apparently, says the research to come out of Microsoft's User Interface group. [microsoft.com] Quoting:
They've also found that additional monitors greatly help women in computing. See same article.
My own experience with this is that I perform better when I can get more pixels in my field of view, regardless of screen size, as long as I can read what's going on. An additional monitor improves both constraints. In contrast, when I have to work with a laptop and an 800x600 display, it's like sipping information through a straw. This is regardless of other factors like network bandwidth. Your mileage may vary.
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're unable to splurge 130$ on a second monitor, the company is in trouble.
Another way to phrase this question is "Do you *really* need all those pixels to do your job?"
yes. it's as necessary as my glasses. (Score:2)
i can code without my glasses, too,
but nobody would suggest they're not necessary.
The real question (Score:2)
Is the amount of productivity increase you get for investing in a second $130 display for me worth worth it. I don't have hard numbers but I can't image its not the case. There are periods of boom and bust around here when it comes to work load. Right now its bust but next week after some other major projects on other teams complete it will be boom again. The schedules desired won't leave me much slacktime to spend on Slashdot.
Being able to have documentation on one display be it technical docs on api's
Answer isn't universal. (Score:3)
The answer isn't universal -- it depends on what your development target is and how your tools work.
Here's a specific example. Know when having two monitors was awesome for developers? Back in the days when one of those monitors was attached to a VGA card, another to a MDA card, and you were debugging full-screen graphical apps under MS-DOS. You could run the full app on the VGA screen, but run the IDE and debugger on the monochrome screen on the same system at the same time. There was no way to do anything comparable with just one monitor.
But if you're programming for the web? Or for an Arduino? Or for an Android phone, testing/debugging real hardware? Some individual work habits may make some developers more productive with more screen real-estate, but not due to anything inherent in what they're doing.
A little from column A; a little from column B (Score:2)
If you've never worked with dual displays, well, you can't miss what you never had.
But once you've had it, and gotten used to having it, it can be hard to get used to not having it.
I'm not one to use full-screen windows, but if I'm working on, for example, a script to process data from a file, I'd like to have the script (obviously), a sample data file, probably Google, and the requirements doc all open at the same time. To have all those windows visible together is just a plus.
That said, if there was real
Yes!!! (Score:4, Informative)
Do I NEED a 2nd monitor... (Score:3)
Putting in perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe a decent developer comes cheaper than $100K/year in the US, counting everything. A decent, perfectly usable, monitor will run something under $200.
That means that, if the corporate budget was sane, providing the extra monitor would be worth it if it improved productivity by 0.2%. If taking the monitor away cut the developer's productivity by one half of one percent, it's costing the company more than it's worth within five months. If the developer's claim of reduced productivity is even slightly true, that's a real false economy.
The morale effects alone will probably drive down productivity by full percents. When the developer thinks the company isn't willing to spend $200 to keep him working as accustomed, the developer is likely to get a feeling that the company doesn't care how productive he or she is, and will lose motivation and an edge on hard problems. When management takes the attitude that the developer is whiny because he or she is trying to hang on to his or her tools, bad things are going to happen.
With the time needed to adjust workflow and habits to the reduced screen estate, as well as some time complaining and trying to make a business case, it's likely the developer will lose four hours very fast, and there's the money saved from not just going out and buying a monitor for Accounting.
People may not want to work for a company that does things like that. Does management have any sort of handle on how much productivity staff turnover costs them? And, of course, if the developer has any substance to the claim of reduced productivity, even in the sligh
It costs more than $200 (Score:5, Insightful)
The other thing is that sometimes people can be irrational weasels. If getting a new monitor for this guy inspires someone from accounting to request one for better spreadsheet management, and ultimately everyone down to the mailboy starts thinking they need dual displays, that's a lot of money and annoyance in the short run in exchange for relatively small productivity gains in the long run. Then you factor in the relatively small possibilities that some people who get more screen space will therefore require more desk space and thus better furniture to accommodate it, which could lead to people needing more square footage, etc.
And god help the company if someone decides that they don't need a new monitor, but someone else got something cool so they want a better chair. Some people react irrationally to the perceived status inequality behind equipment purchases. It's pure monkey brain at work, but it creates a lot of tiresome whining and bloated spending sometimes.
Anyway, you're fundamentally right. In almost any imaginable it's probably better to buy the guy a new monitor, but don't underestimate the chain of annoyances such a purchase might cause.
Re: (Score:3)
The purchase has to be requested formally, then approved, then ordered, received, and installed
if it costs multiple fractions of the cost of the monitor to get it to the employee, that speaks of really shitty business practices. not the fault of the employee. in this case, the monitor already exists.
The other thing is that sometimes people can be irrational weasels.
And god help the company if someone decides that they don't need a new monitor, but someone else got something cool so they want a better chair. Some people react irrationally to the perceived status inequality behind equipment purchases. It's pure monkey brain at work, but it creates a lot of tiresome whining and bloated spending sometimes.
then it's up to the company execs to grow spines and be the objective leaders they're supposed to be. this requires them to have some knowledge of the subjects they hire people to deal with...not everything, but at least the generalities. in this case they should know enough before oking inter-department
Probably not getting as high as management (Score:3)
I'm lucky I don't deal with that now, but previously had to deal with account bastards so pettily evil that one demanded I rush out and buy a specific expensive printer for him with my own cash and then demanded afterwards three competing quotes and a written justification of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some do, some don't. (Score:2)
But the main point is that TFA is so badly written.
Yeah, way to subtly make your point.
How about instead of the artistic license about what you THINK someone would use a monitor for you look at what real coder
Re:I think it's kinda silly (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever gone from two monitors to one, though? You don't make it clear in your post.
If you haven't, try it sometime (disconnect your second monitor or something). It's incredibly painful.
Re: (Score:3)
I use three monitors at work, too. And I go home to one. And when I do any coding at home, it hurts. Even if I take the time to precisely arrange and size all the windows on my single monitor, I still find myself alt-tabbing constantly.
If you can do all your coding on one monitor without any productivity loss, you aren't writing serious code.
I think it's needed (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this is may be kind of a weird concept, but not all of us have all of the nuances and documentation of the languages in which we work memorized. When I'm developing anything, I always have at least one window open with my IDE/editor, at least one window open (many times multiple windows open) with documentation--a window to which I refer to with such frequency that it would seriously hamper my efforts to have to click or alt-tab around to find it, at least one browser window open with Google and/or its search results, and most of the time, a window open with the project on which I'm working, and sometimes a debugging window as well.
The more code I can see at one time, the more productive I am, period. The more documentation I can see, the more productive I am, period. As for the project, it depends.
So yeah, I do think it's needed. Without dual monitors, every time I alt-tab, it costs around five seconds or so of down time while I try to get my bearings. It may not sound like much, but it happens literally hundreds of times during a coding session.
Re: (Score:3)
Fortunately however, we can likely even eliminate the need to consider morale with a simple bit of accounting that suggests that even a savings of 50 seconds per day may make financial sense.
If one assumes an 8 hour work day (well, it could happen), 50 seconds a day is 50/(8*60*60)*100 = 0.17% of the workday. If the fully burdened cost of a developer is $150K/year (including salary, benefits [insurance, 401(k) match, ESPP, bonuses, tuition reimbursement...], SS taxes, office space and related e
Re: (Score:2)
I love having two monitors. I can see more stuff at the same time. Netbeans lets me place the output window on the second screen, so I can constantly watch output during builds and runs.
I can have a browser or text editor window open on one screen while writing stuff on the other. It saves me from flipping back and forth between windows.
I also have openSuse with multiple virtual desktops, and am constantly flipping back and forth between the browser desktop and the compiler/source control desktop, for ex
Re: (Score:2)
But if you're a designer, you can really benefit from the real estate... base design on one side, corresponding elements on the other. Or particularly in the case of web designers, code on one side, product on the other. That way you don't have to go back-and-forth for previewing, or heaven forbid, the half-and-half Dreamweav
Re:I think it's kinda silly (Score:5, Insightful)
So do "developers" need a second monitor? Probably not.
No, probably not... unless they run a debugger on their code, or read documentation, or want to compare two different source files to one another, etc.
Look, monitors cost ~$200 once. Programmers cost ~$80,000/year. Just buy the second monitor.
Re: (Score:3)
Look, monitors cost ~$200 once. Programmers cost ~$80,000/year. Just buy the second monitor.
Amen.
Re: (Score:3)
No joke. Would we be having this conversation if someone form accounting stole his chair?
Next week:
Do developers even need chairs?
That doesn't apply to everyone (Score:3)
Before I stopped for some slashdot I had a bunch of windows open for development:
- NuSphere PhpED
- Firefox with phpMyAdmin open (and HeidiSQL behind it)
- Putty on the Asterisk server I'm testing the app on
- The web gui for my app
It's really nice seeing the result of my code on the server in real-time. Since both the GUI and Asterisk interact with MySQL directly it's great being able to refresh phpMyAdmin while I run through the motions of testing, and doubly-so to manipulate SQL statements then paste them i
Re: (Score:3)
Emacs window with several panes to view code. 4-5 terminals for compilation, greps, test runs, and other such things. That pretty much takes up a full 1600x1200 screen. If I need to view a lengthy debug log, maybe grep'ed subsets of said log that I want to cross-reference with other logs, that is really handy to have up on a second screen so I can see both that and the code and the execution output. And when I'm viewing waveforms, or using other graphical debug tools, then that's a shoe-in for needing a
Re: (Score:3)
Speak for yourself. I won't be happy until my workspace looks like the NORAD control center in Wargames.
Re: (Score:3)
And, yes, that includes having Dabney Coleman running around.
LCD Monitors bad. ASR-33 the best web development (Score:5, Funny)
You use an LCD Screen! Poofta!
I develop HTML5 based robotic heart surgery machines running on top of jQuery beneath AJAX served by node.js off of an Amazon mounted Rackspace Cloud written in Clojure, and I've had it with LCD Screens, CRTs, and so-called editors.
On even days I punch my code into an ASR-33, and on odd days, I just toggle the code directly into the main memory. And on transcendental days, I use very fine magnets and rearrange the domains on the hard drive.
So don't you get all hoity toity to me about your ability to code with only one screen! You're a bloody wanker is what you are!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No, I put them top to bottom. That way, they both have the whole screen width to play with, no horizontal scrolling needed. It helps if you use a tiling window manager as that takes care of the tedious window positioning for you - I just press Alt-Spacebar to switch between top-bottom, left-right, left-stacked right, fullscreen and sometimes other layouts in Xmonad [xmonad.org] (on *nix, obviously).
Re:I think it's kinda silly (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I got used to coding on widescreen displays. It's fine. Sure, 4:3 1200px high displays basically aren't made anymore. The upside is that 16:10 1200px high displays are widely available and affordable. I don't see it as losing vertical space but as gaining horizontal space. 1920 horizontal pixels mean that I can put two 1200px tall windows side-by-side. Or, if you've got dual 24" screens, one enormous 1920x1200 for something like an IDE on the main screen and two tall windows side by side on the other. Split
Re:I think it's kinda silly (Score:5, Informative)
There are two reasons for horizontally arranged eyeglasses.
First, people tend to look for things on the same plane that they are on. Most people don't pay attention to what is up or down. They pay attention to their horizontal plane, which would be where predators or attackers would normally come from. This is due to behavior training through their life. People tell their kids to look left and right before crossing the street. No one ever says "look up and down", which incidentally is what makes potholes at street curbs that much more entertaining.
It is a fairly simple behavior modification to extend their plane of perception to the vertical plane. It works out very well for law enforcement though, as people tend to not look up for helicopters following them. :)
The second is ... fashion. You can buy completely round glasses, which support correction around the full field of view. To remain somewhat fashionable, eyeglasses for vision correction are rarely made to cover the full field of view. This also makes it a bastard to play pool with glasses that are not cut to give enough field of view (been there, done that, bought new glasses after losing because I couldn't clearly focus on the whole table)
You can easily test for the first reason at many optometrists offices. They can (and will) test for "blind spots" in the field of view. If you look at the resulting graph, the area is round, not a horizontal oval or square. Well, unless you have serious eye problems.
Re: (Score:2)
That is exactly my thought.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
$80k Programmer * 5% increase in productivity = $4k in gain for the company.
Second monitor clocks in at around $300 + energy costs.
Hmm...
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, I've worked places with 4 of those monitors attached to one machine. It was sorta useful for monitoring several 1080p video streams and the audience and status displays, but I think it was still kinda slightly overkill. Just slightly, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Virtual desktops, I couldn't work without them.
Re:The second monitor is pretty vital to me. (Score:5, Insightful)
That accounting department might really have needed it.
I *don't* code, I build spreadsheets for a government finance office. Usually I'm translating a spreadsheet that's been helpfully locked into .pdf form by another government agency back into a usable spreadsheet, and being able to glance back and forth without sacrificing the full screen view is sanity preserving.
I'd wager anyone that uses a computer for work would benefit from a second monitor.
The real issue, as I see it, is that Accounting needed a monitor so instead of ordering one they took it from an employee that already had one. To the submitter of the story, as a project manager, why aren't you removing the developer's obstacles? Using a term like "wailing" makes it pretty clear what you think of the lowly developer on a personal level, but why are you asking us if they really need it instead of enabling him/her to do their job as they see fit?
Re: (Score:3)
Or perhaps it goes back to the lack of social skills that many developers have.
Re: (Score:2)
I left coding for the more profitable managing job I'm doing now (I'm far less productive but get more money for it, go figure). And I still wouldn't want to part with my second monitor. There are times when I wish for a third.
It's simply very convenient to read the audit rules on one screen while writing your audit report on the other one. I would like a third for mail and some audit tools.
Re: (Score:3)
Its true.... a monitor is maybe an extra under $200 for a rather nice one. Hell I paid $160 retail and I love my new screen.
Given what that is as a fraction of even an entry level developer salary, the fact that its equipment that will get depreciated (can't forget that), lasts at least 5 if not 10 years or more (on average and honestly I doubt we are going to see so much improvement in size/resolution since we have hit the point of diminishing returns for most applications) etc.... lets just say, I think i
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, between salary, benefits, the cost of a computer and the office space that a cube takes up, a developer is a very valuable resource. If throwing a couple of hundred dollars worth of monitor at him is going to make him happy (who cares if it actually makes him more productive) then its money well spent.
Niggling over a couple of hundred bucks will end with your developer leaving for a more profitable company and leave you stuck looking for someone to replace them, how about that for the value of a
Re:Maybe, maybe not? (Score:4, Informative)
You know that "coders" are generally working and editing in one window while viewing the finished product in another right? The fact that our tools are text based doesn't change the work flow that much.
Re: (Score:3)
Any decent IDE is likely to be better with multiple monitors, not just interface design. Even working in SQL is better when expanding your IDE across multiple monitors. I would argue that spanning an IDE across multiple monitors is a much larger boost to productivity than spanning a spreadsheet across multiple monitors. And I'd also argue that it is pretty damn cheap to buy and run a monitor, so if your employees can use one, give it to them.
I give all of my IT staff multiple monitors, even the help desk