|
GibbleCH wrote: You're also mixing "context switching" with how people have been explaining they use multiple screens. If you have to repeatedly Alt-Tab to get the info, you're not context switching, you're jumping hoops to do your job
Aside from that fact that out of all these replies I think only one person has made even a semi justifiable resason for multiple screens for their particular line of work I'm saying that programmers who don't focus on one task at a time to the exclusion of all else are not productive programmers.
GibbleCH wrote: If you're answering questions from a textbook in a workbook do you read the question, Open the workbook place it on top of the text book, and then keep lifting the one you need to read/or write in and placing it on top? Of course not, you set them BESIDE one another because you are working with both at once.
It's not the same thing at *all* a notebook isn't going to flash in the corner of your eye or distract you when you need to focus.
GibbleCH wrote: You make it sound like an extra monitor is going to break a budget.
No, monitors are dirt cheap these days but the lost productivity in a small shop *will* break the budget. In a big cubicle farm apparently they don't mind wasting the productivity, in a small shop these things actually do matter.
GibbleCH wrote: Context switching is not the same as looking at reference material or other pertinent screens.
Looking at other screens is by definition context switching but may be necessary, not really the point though, it's pretty hard to argue that you need a second screen to look at reference material because you're too lazy to press alt-tab.
So far I'm more convinced than ever that multiple screens are just an affectation with no useful purpose sorry. A big screen I can fully get behind and if I ran a shop full of programmers I'd spare no expense in that department but they'd have to make a damn good case for multiple screens and on a temporary basis only would I allow it. If a programmer had been used to it then that's one thing but I'd be very sure they were at least as productive as everyone else or it would be gone immediately.
"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."
- Walter Bagehot
|
|
|
|
|
What is the difference between one screen at a crazy resolution with multiple windows open, or multiple smaller monitors, each with a window maximized?
You haven't given one valid reason for the difference.
You keep falling back on "context switching" arguments. When, if used properly, a person isn't context switching, they are using multiple documents all at once.
Code in one window.
References all open in another (css, diagrams, models, specs, mockups, etc)
Once you actually start using two screens, and doing so properly, your productivity DOES increase.
Your "context switching" argument also fails, since not everyone who context switches is slower. The majority of people aren't great athletes, but we still have 1000s of pro athletes.
Sounds to me like you really need to try using two monitors for a few months, and honestly, if you use them properly, you will work faster. And curse when you don't have that second monitor, and are once again stuck alt-tabing for information, OR printing it out, OR trying to resize and tile windows "just right" so you can see what you need to while you work.
|
|
|
|
|
GibbleCH wrote: What is the difference between one screen at a crazy resolution with multiple windows open, or multiple smaller monitors, each with a window maximized?
I've never said once I advocate a huge screen with multiple windows all visible at once, that's no different. I'm talking about one screen with one visible window at once. I personally *loathe* any window not being maximized on screen. I paid for all that display space, why in the world would I waste it by fiddle faddling around arranging windows. About once a year I actually need to compare two things side by side and it's useful for that only. Beyond that they could take the feature of resizable windows out of Windows entirely and productivity would go up the world over instantly.
GibbleCH wrote: You keep falling back on "context switching" arguments.
I'm not falling back on anything, that, aside from a minor waste of money for hardware, is *the* definitive reason not to have multiple screens all vying for your attention as a developer at once.
GibbleCH wrote: Once you actually start using two screens, and doing so properly, your productivity DOES increase.
The opposite has been proven in many studies, perhaps there's a study I missed that proves your point, I'd like to see it because it's counterintuitive and goes against not only common sense but every thing modern research has shown recently.
GibbleCH wrote: Sounds to me like you really need to try using two monitors for a few months, and honestly, if you use them properly, you will work faster. And curse when you don't have that second monitor, and are once again stuck alt-tabing for information, OR printing it out, OR trying to resize and tile windows "just right" so you can see what you need to while you work
I've worked many times with multiple computers surrounding me for testing and other purposes and I know exactly what it's like to have more than one monitor vying for my attention and for programming it can't be anything but counterproductive.
As I've said before if a programmer feels the need for multiple screens and their boss allows it then go for it but don't fool yourself for a second you're more productive. There are many, many inventions in hardware and software over the years that have made programmers more productive, simple things like intellisense or a better font. Multiple screens just isn't one of them.
It's not a new debate, it's age old: you simply can't concentrate fully on two or more things at the same time (it's such a fact that there are countless truisms and old sayings that echo the fact) and programming effectively requires an intense level of concentration that non programmers never fully understand. The brain simply isn't wired to multitask effectively and particularly in men. I know a *lot* of people will disagree with me because it's a geek fetish to have more than one monitor, again, don't get me wrong, people can do whatever they want but they should take a serious self examination of their work and take note of how often their concentration was broken by that other monitor.
Self delusion is never a good thing and we programmers are *supposed* to be logical about things but it turns out in the end we're all often just as illogical as everyone else in the world. 
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it."
-Sam Levenson
|
|
|
|
|
John C wrote: It's not a new debate, it's age old: you simply can't concentrate fully on two or more things at the same time (it's such a fact that there are countless truisms and old sayings that echo the fact) and programming effectively requires an intense level of concentration that non programmers never fully understand. The brain simply isn't wired to multitask effectively and particularly in men. I know a *lot* of people will disagree with me because it's a geek fetish to have more than one monitor, again, don't get me wrong, people can do whatever they want but they should take a serious self examination of their work and take note of how often their concentration was broken by that other monitor.
You keep making this fallacious argument over and over.
MULTIPLE MONITORS DOES NOT MEAN MULTIPLE TASKS.
I can't believe you are still arguing context switching.
|
|
|
|
|
GibbleCH wrote: MULTIPLE MONITORS DOES NOT MEAN MULTIPLE TASKS.
I can't believe you are still arguing context switching
Ok, how about this, you sit at your computer, start working and two guys stand on either side of you and periodically shine a flashlight in your face and ask you questions. How productive are you then?
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it."
-Sam Levenson
|
|
|
|
|
Like I said, your arguments make no sense.
What does actual distractions unrelated to your task, have to do with multiple monitors to give you more space to work on?
Do you work on a desk that only holds one book? Or do you have one large enough for a couple...I mean, you could keep putting your books back on the shelf and only look at one at a time, but when you are writing a report, you often reference multiple sources. Hence, multiple books open.
Programming is no different.
|
|
|
|
|
GibbleCH wrote: What does actual distractions unrelated to your task, have to do with multiple monitors to give you more space to work on?
That is the heart of my argument and I've said it too many times to bother once again. Believe what you will, do what you want, it's nothing to me. Enjoy your multiple monitors.
GibbleCH wrote: Do you work on a desk that only holds one book?
Books don't blink at you out of the corner of your eye while you are working.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it."
-Sam Levenson
|
|
|
|
|
Neither does a monitor...it's just one large workspace.
And for that matter, if something IS blinking, it is probably more important than what you are working on...that's normally the point of something blinking...because you NEED to have your attention diverted from whatever you are doing because something bad has happened. Most likely costing you money while you don't tend to it.
|
|
|
|
|
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it."
-Sam Levenson
|
|
|
|
|
Would you be opposed to one of your developers bringing in their own monitors so they can run a dual monitor setup because they personally find it more productive?
Todd Smith
|
|
|
|
|
In a case like that I'd buy them as many monitors as they want (this isn't about saving money on hardware) and tell them the second their productivity goes down below what it used to be or below what everyone else's average is that monitor is being yanked and fully expect a yanking in short order but if they are more productive in measurable reality then they can keep it.
Anything that anyone brought to me that they wanted that would measurably increase their productivity after a testing period I'd happily pay for. Absolutely nothing is more valuable to a code shop than developer productivity.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it."
-Sam Levenson
|
|
|
|
|
So how do you accurately measure productivity when someone isn't doing the same task day-to-day?
Todd Smith
|
|
|
|
|
Any developer that claims their productivity can't be measured in any meaningful way would have bigger problems with me than a second monitor.
And before you say it, I think lines of code and other metrics are absolute bullshit in terms of measuring anything but you can certainly tell when someone is or isn't getting as much done as they normally do if they've worked for you for a while and you take your job as a manger seriously and aren't an incompetent fool. I've yet to work *anywhere* where everyone halfway involved in a team effort didn't know intimately whether everyone else was pulling less, equal or more weight on any task.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it."
-Sam Levenson
|
|
|
|
|
For those of us who work on database apps, particularly with non-MS db's, there's a constant need to have some other tool open to deal with/view the database, and for me a second screen has probably been the most helful hardware advance in years.
|
|
|
|
|
That knocking at the door is the SWAT team coming to take back your geek card.
|
|
|
|
|
Honestly when you have your own business and the roof over your head relies on being uber productive you very quickly winnow away affectations and get to the heart of what absolutely works and is required. If I was a cubicle jockey working for a big corporation I'm sure I'd have dozens of monitors if I could convince anyone to buy them for me. 
"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."
- Walter Bagehot
|
|
|
|
|
Monitor 1;
* vs2008
Monitor 2;
* debug IE, other web content for researching problems, Outlook
Montor 3;
* Code Project, split screen between the lounge and soapbox.
MrPlankton
|
|
|
|
|
Most of the developers in our shop have dual 20" monitors. I tried it for a little while and just couldn't get used to it; I still prefer one screen. My 17" one at home is plenty, too.
-CB
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, and why are all the 'kids' all excited about this 'gooey', green text on a black background is all you need ... unless of course you want color and then you need a plotter.
|
|
|
|
|
I never had two monitors until about a year ago.
I spend a lot of time in Remote Desktop, testing my stuff on various systems.
Having two monitors eased that quite a bit.
Unfortunately, I'm back to just the one monitor now. 
|
|
|
|
|
Every person in our company has at least 2 lcds, some people have up 6, but we are a 'paperless' (mostly) company. Having two monitors cuts out many reasons for printing off documents for references.
And as others have mentioned with VS, you need to keep your app in the foreground so it doesn't repaint.
Another couple monitors would be nice though. So I can have the app I'm working on, vs, email and db windows all visible.
|
|
|
|
|
GibbleCH wrote: Having two monitors cuts out many reasons for printing off documents for references.
Right because it's so hard to press alt-tab, why didn't I think of that!
No, don't get me wrong, if you work for another company and they are dumb enough to waste money on extra monitors..fill your boots, but when you work for yourself you will quickly lose all those affectations that cost money but do not add to productivity (quite the opposite as study after study has proven). Switching mental context is the most expensive operation a programmer can perform in daily work, doing it dozens of times every half hour to glance at stuff on other screens that is always in your field of view when you're supposed to be writing code is ruinously expensive for a small business, in a big corporation I guess they just eat the cost and don't bother to think about it.
"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."
- Walter Bagehot
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, yes, it is easy to Alt-Tab.
That does not mean it's efficient, or the average person will use it.
Especially if you're Alt-Tabing between more than two references. I frequently have to check an email or design doc for a change or spec, then check the database and object model, look at data returned by a webmethod, and code and debug.
It's not just a simple Alt-Tab. It's Alt-Tab-Tab-Tab, grab piece of info, Alt-Tab-Tab, grab piece of info, Alt-Tab-Tab...Tab-Tab. Make code change. Alt-Tab...Tab-Tab.
Or, so that I can quickly scan info, I end up printing all that off, and plastering around my monitor. And after a couple days, those references are outdated, as the data and object model have changed.
Wasted paper. Wasted money.
HR is even worse. Do you have any idea how many times they print the same persons resume? Each interviewer gets a copy, which they mark up during interviews, they have a clean copy they use as a reference with the candidate...then they have to share notes, photocopy, photocopy.
Accountants...oh brother.
A couple $100 for a second monitor pays for itself over and over in it's ~5 year lifecycle.
I loathe using a single monitor when I have the laptop on the road, I DO work slower as I'm stuck in an Alt-Tab nightmare trying to find the right window.
Changing context/focus only slows you down if you didn't need to change context...but if the information you require to continue is there, it's much faster if it's on the other monitor and you only have to shift your eyes.
|
|
|
|
|
John, you seem to have attracted some serious haters Just about every post of yours I've seen in the last few days (week?) has had low votes! Who did you pour cold water on?
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire!
Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)!
SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0
0 rows returned
Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
VCF Blog
|
|
|
|
|
People don't like to have their comfortable and illogical conception of reality challenged on any level, I love challenging people's comfortable thoughtless reality. Simple as that.
In this particular context, as a small business person I can't afford those kind of affectations and I've learned what works in the trenches with extremely low budget and no time to waste a microsecond on anything that doesn't work. I continually challenge everything I do and how I do it, I re-examine and get what I need and what works and measure the results to ensure it's working. Having been somewhat successful in my business applying these reality based methods of working I foolishly think people will have the balls to challenge their own preconceived assumptions and really think about how they do things but most prefer to live in a dreamy haze, the opiate of easy careless assumptions and the "common knowledge" of the herd and vote me down instead.
As for the voting system, I was against it when it first came in because I assumed everyone would start talking about the voting instead of having actual discussions and would become lazy and just vote up or down instead of posting a meaningful reply which seems to have firmly come to pass and is probably why most message boards online do *not* have a voting system if they want to foster any meaningful discussion.
"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
