|
Sure you will, you have to switch screens somehow. You aren't going to use the mouse to move focus from VS over to IE are you? : )
Mike Devenney
|
|
|
|
|
It will give me feeling of watching TV, and perhaps my neck will be hurt
|
|
|
|
|
If you dont have one, you will never know 
|
|
|
|
|
subai wrote: It will give me feeling of watching TV, and perhaps my neck will be hurt
No it does not look like TV(specially not today when you have TV size around 50" - 60"). As long as you keep good distance between your chair - screen it's all good.
I've got iMAC 24"(1920x1200) and I'm loving the screen. So much room for you to work on...
- Stop thinking in terms of limitations and start thinking in terms of possibilities -
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed! I have an XPS with dual 24" monitors at home and LOVE it!! My company is just getting the idea that developers can benenfit from the dual display so I'll have to wait a bit more for my work rig to match my home rig but we're getting there.
Mike Devenney
|
|
|
|
|
you are lucky,my first screen was a 15" CRT, then i get a 17" CRT, and finally a 17" LCD
having an iMAC 24" most be wonderfull 
|
|
|
|
|
lol, when I first used computer in my life (which was around 98-99) I was working on 14" CRT and then moved on 17"CRT and then LCD came and now finally I got iMAC. Just got it last Thursday. It just feels different working on 24" MAC screen, the graphics makes it all worth. You should get this if possible. And not not mention that it runs windows on Parallels.
- Stop thinking in terms of limitations and start thinking in terms of possibilities -
|
|
|
|
|
First depending on what you use CTRL-Z for it just might
I want a friggin 4'x3' 200 DPI display, that comes in a tube and just rolls out onto your wall. ... maybe a 2'x3' second display for sidebar stuff
I think such things will be possible within the next 15 or fewer years (at a reasonable cost).
|
|
|
|
|
I will order one
|
|
|
|
|
..and have a sneaking suspicion the underlying reason is so hard core nerds can pretend they're at the helm of a spaceship in a sci fi movie. 
"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."
- Walter Bagehot
|
|
|
|
|
It depends on what programs you use..
In Visual Studio it's mandatory if you want to debug an application (or you can use a second PC with TCP/IP debug), if you use a single monitor when a breakpoint occour the debug window overlap the program and continuosly repaint occour..).
I'm using 1 24wide monitor for apps, and 2 19" on each side, the first for VS, the second for outlook and IE, so while debugging I can search the web or broswe codeproject (and maybe VS help) without problems.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
Davide Zaccanti wrote: In Visual Studio it's mandatory if you want to debug an application (or you can use a second PC with TCP/IP debug), if you use a single monitor when a breakpoint occour the debug window overlap the program and continuosly repaint occour..).
That sounds rather nice --- and completely justifiable. I use the same repaint argument to get a pair of monitors wherever I am.
Note that I "make do" with 2 20" monitors rotated into portrait mode. It's beautiful. 
|
|
|
|
|
Like some of you I used to use two 19" screens, then went to a 23" + a 19", then to a single 30".
2 19 or 24 inch screens give you more screen area on the horizontal plane, but I also like to expand in the vertical plane.
In Visual Studio, more width is nice, but split over 2 screens is annoying (to me), unless the two screens are doing different tasks.
When I was younger it was easy to recall the previous lines of code (plus code was much simpler then), but now it's really helpful
to see more lines of code.
|
|
|
|
|
>> In Visual Studio, more width is nice, but split over 2 screens is annoying (to me), unless the two screens are doing different tasks.
Yes, the 24" is for VS (and at present it's enough), one of 19" is to run debugged application, there is also another point to consider (other then debugging opportunity), if you run your app in a 24 or 30" you can be inchs-addicted and forget the real end user point of view (we are developing for them).
Of course this is a developer point of view..
|
|
|
|
|
Davide Zaccanti wrote: if you run your app in a 24 or 30"
30"?!?!? I wish!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Couldn't have said it better myself. Breakpoints are visible when you hit them and so is that email from the business users telling me how great the new feature is working(sic).
Mike Devenney
|
|
|
|
|
Davide Zaccanti wrote: In Visual Studio it's mandatory if you want to debug an application
Bollocks! I've been programming *in* visual studio from all the way back in the early MFC C++ days up to the modern c# days and this is a fallacy.
"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."
- Walter Bagehot
|
|
|
|
|
I also start with C4 (and all others until C7 and first C++ version, then restarting from VC++ 1.00), and I was working in a 14" BW monitor in DOS mode.. I still have all 3 manuals of original C 5.0 ( around 1985 )
But I've just finished to debug a function in a library the must write in real time over a video source; believe me, it's impossible to debug in a single monitor, or use softice even if you have a giant 42"... And when you have 4..6 hours of debug sessions and in monitor one the app, in monitor 2 the source with ASM code, registry, stack and so on if you need to find on google you'll search another PC (but you cannot do copy&paste) or the third monitor..
Of course if workink in VS is drop items and link db fields or design database I can agree.. Sore in VB or similar problems of low level routine are less usual..
It's the same as printing Visio DB schema, if you have a serious db you need to ask someone with a plotter... puzzle are not so neat.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
There is *always* a rare case that can be found to contradict any rule, but it still doesn't apply to the vast majority of developers out there.
To say one can't debug in VS without a second monitor is wrong, to say *you* personally can't debug without a second monitor may be true but you have to realize you're working on something a little more obscure than the majority.
"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."
- Walter Bagehot
|
|
|
|
|
John C wrote: I've been programming *in* visual studio from all the way back in the early MFC C++ days up to the modern c# days and this is a fallacy.
Debug WM_PAINT handlers much? 
(yeah, yeah, i get it, there are plenty of scenarios where side-by-side debugging does little good... But anything where a screen refresh changes the scenario is very much more difficult without it)
Citizen 20.1.01 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. Maybe it's because I only build server side and desktop apps (i.e. no games, medical imaging software, multimedia apps, etc.)
Also, saying 24" (or 30") without specifying the resolution doesn't make any sense to me. I happen to love my single 24" 1920x1280 Dell LCD.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
In my case it works perfectly and it is much more comfortable in normal applications as you can have the help system on one screen and the developing environment in the other one (speaking about two screens).
But In some cases, it is almost impossible to debug without at least two screens:
- I'm using one specific application that allows me to program a PLC that is PC based. That editor/programming environment allows me to place breakpoints.
- I'm using the VC++ to make the GUI of the application the operator of the machine will use.
- I need to be able to view the changes in the GUI and into the PLC app and into the code at the same time in order to be able to test everything just before testing into the real machine and risk to crash something.
In that case I can promise you it is much more easy to do it with multiple displays.
PS: moreover the way the data is shared between the VC++ app and the PLC app hangs the VC++ editor and the PLC editor if too much time has passed in the debugging stage. Something about the real time needs of the PLC system...
I AGREE WITH YOU IN THE FACT THAT IT IS A FALLACY: it is not mandatory, but it is not only a matter of being a wannabe "into the matrix style" (at least not in all the cases), in my case for example, I use it and I take a lot of advantage from that.
I've been a long time programming alone here and all the help has been welcome... You should try it, I'm sure that you will think "why on earth I've not used it before"... I've gained a lot of time.
As an example:
When you program, you don't have to remember the variable name that you must access in the PLC app as you can see it while you are writing the C++ code...
|
|
|
|
|
Yup, I don't disagree with you at all, someone else brought up a very similar case and as I said before there are always edge conditions that don't disprove for the majority of the cases. I fully understand that and I would do similar in your case but I would shut off the other monitors when not using them for that special case while I was working as they would be too distracting.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it."
-Sam Levenson
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you but multiple screens very seldom are a necessity for programmers (I like sci-fi games too ). I use 3 20.1" wide screens at the office (and i'm gonna add a fourth one soon) but i'm working on mechanical and engineer software like Tekla structures (Xsteel), AutoCAD and some other common apps at the same time. Multiple monitors although laghable by many, can really relief you of pain, stress and boost your productivity to the roof.
My boss although reluctant to invest to them is now starting to see things from a whole different perspective as his requests are being served faster and more efficiently.
I can understand how that may confuse people as it can get a while to get used to but in the end it will make them work better, especially if their job requires fast response and continuous interaction with many software applications at a time.
Cheers ....
|
|
|
|
|
micmanos wrote: especially if their job requires fast response and continuous interaction with many software applications at a time.
Most programmers are fooling themselves if they think continually interrupting what they're working on to go to something else is more productive than focusing on one task at a time. I say most because there are some very (extremely) rare cases where the task at hand of programming involves more than one screen but it's so rare as to be firmly the exception rather than the rule. Every modern study of human computer interaction bears out that you can't be productive when presented with too many different things to work on at the same time.
"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."
- Walter Bagehot
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
