|
wizardzz wrote: they really never need that many to trade.
One big 22" LCD can display 4, maybe 6, L2's. A trader working the market will need that for a couple of instruments + sector + market indicies. Most traders will use three or four monitors just for market information.
Now add in the fact they're working several positions - house trading books - and monitoring risk exposure - more positions - and you've just banged down another monitor, maybe even two.
Ah, he's taking customer orders over the line, guess what? A screen for inbound, pendings, etc and we've just used up another monitor.
He doesn't want all the entry forms infront of his monitoring so they need another monitor.
Suddenly 8 and 12 monitors are needed. The PC's are dog tired by now. 
Panic, Chaos, Destruction.
My work here is done.
or "Drink. Get drunk. Fall over." - P O'H
OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often *students*, for heaven's sake. -- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)
|
|
|
|
|
I should clarify that I was referring to futures, options, commodities, and currency traders, not securities, since that is my only experience.
The trading I've done, and the traders I know, use quite efficient software for screen real estate. Albeit I was only trading 6 pairs of currencies, I only needed about 3 monitors. Most of the traders I know stick to only a few symbols, or even just 2 or 3. Most of the professional traders in the last 2 shops I've worked at stick to about 4-6 screens.
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
Suddenly 8 and 12 monitors are needed. The PC's are dog tired by now.
Many traders use a separate box for getting market info than they do to trade, relieves the NIC and PC to calculate risk and send orders when needed.
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!"
— Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
|
Because we manage the whole hoo hah, we can get upto 20 L2's on a trader's machine. We have a pretty high-end solution, being used by high-end sell-side shops.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction.
My work here is done.
or "Drink. Get drunk. Fall over." - P O'H
OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often *students*, for heaven's sake. -- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I never experienced anything related to L2 trading. I like my currencies!
Have you guys ever explicitly split up your market data and order sending responsibilities between 2 machines?
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!"
— Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
|
At my present company(+-250 people) EVERYONE has two 24" widescreen LCD monitors 
|
|
|
|
|
I wish, nowhere I've worked yet had two or more monitors for employees...
|
|
|
|
|
anyone else surprised at how many people have answered with "1 monitor"? i would have assumed that >= 2 is the norm for developers 
|
|
|
|
|
Why in the world would you assume that? First of all there has never been a proven productivity gain for general programming usage, I feel it's quite the opposite in fact and these days you can get a large enough monitor that two is redundant in any case.
There are some highly specific reasons to use two monitors and they involve debugging while running certain apps, apart from that it's all vanity and wasted money and electricity.
There is no failure only feedback
|
|
|
|
|
wow, someone has strong feelings about number of monitors... all developers and engineers at my company have >= 2 monitors... that's all 
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I've heard a mountain of crap here from people over the years trying to justify it with extremely weak arguments that in the end seem to boil down to "it's just better that way don't try to shake my faith". There are the odd person here and there who really need it but the vast majority simply don't.
Tremendous waste of resources when you add it all up but people do love their toys.
There is no failure only feedback
|
|
|
|
|
if everyone tried to justify tech purchases, a lot of us engineers wouldn't even have jobs... 
|
|
|
|
|
Yup no doubt. And a lot of people here are not working for their own company so they have no concept of doing as much as possible with as few resources as possible. If the extra monitors were coming out of their own pocket their responses would be very different.
There is no failure only feedback
|
|
|
|
|
that's true, i only have 1 at home, i have 3 at work...
|
|
|
|
|
Having a multi-monitor setup is one of those things like power steering or aircon in your car. Before you've tried it, you think, "Why would anyone want that? What I have works just fine." But once you've had it for a while, you never want to go back to being without it.
|
|
|
|
|
gogbatch wrote: But once you've had it for a while, you never want to go back to being without
it.
Exactly. Which is why I have 2 at home (where I have to pay for it) even though my home 'laptop' have a 1920x1080 screen.
|
|
|
|
|
i really only have one at home because i have a tiny desk... 
|
|
|
|
|
that's true... i do love the multiple monitor setup, specially when programming...
|
|
|
|
|
There is also developer morale to take notice of. Developers like to have 2 or more screens, and I've heard more than one person say they chose a company based on their conditions (screen size, computer speeds, number of screens) mainly because it shows the company's attitude towards their developers. We buy big screens, libraries people want to use, plugins, all in the name of improved productivity or happiness. Obviously budget is important, but a screen is a small portion of a dev's monthly salary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
"There is simply no reason not to get your developers top of the line computers, at least two large (21") LCD screens (or one 30" screen), "
Far more useful to have one big one, you can always split windows if you wish but having all the big real estate at your disposal is very useful.
There is no failure only feedback
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Wiles wrote: There is also developer morale to take notice of
Sure no doubt, however I firmly believe for most developers a second monitor is a source of constant context switching because from what people have told me they put a lot of stuff up in the second display that distracts them while they're working such as email, IM, etc.
Personally I think if you care about morale most developers would like freedom more than anything.
The days of offices full of tiny cubicles full of developers should have died a long time ago for anyone less than a behemoth like Microsoft or Google or Facebook. I don't see any reason for developers to be forced to work in any time or place in particular. I'd rather hire a developer over the internet and judge them based on the work they perform and how they get it done and what equipment they use are their own business as long as the quality code is there. I could care less if I ever meet them face to face. If they want to work in an office they can go to one of those shared office spaces.
Cubicle farms and incessant meetings are a crazy inefficient anachronism in this day and age.
There is no failure only feedback
|
|
|
|
|
I thought similarly about context switching, that the second monitor would be nothing but a distraction. It can be, for sure. After trying for a while I found that I can actually make my development context bigger by using multiple monitors, and thus not context switch as much. I shut off IM, email, and everything non-development related when going into a development context, but now I have my test classes, the code I'm testing, the test runner, perhaps the use case or story I'm working on, a browser window ready for searching and an explorer window or command window for builds all on my screen at once. This means less flipping through task bar items and a bigger maintained context, which helps me get into a consistent development flow.
I'm not sure an isolated developer is always ideal too - yes it can work, but I personally wouldn't want that as a permanent situation because I find a lot of my learning is through others and what they can teach me and how they can call out my bad ideas. I guess we could communicate via other means, but the team room is a great facilitator of learning. Some developers would prefer to be on their own all day, others find that horrible and get lonely. But I agree, the cubicle farm model is terrible - we tend to prefer small teams and can facilitate people working from home or even other cities when it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
I currently use two monitors both at work and at home.
I used to have three monitors at work before "upgrading" to a new computer. It was nice since I had the desk space for them. I would have VS in one, one or more SQL Server Management Studio in another, and documentation (either reading or writing) in the third. I miss that third monitor at times.
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
BillLange1968 wrote: I would have VS in one, one or more SQL Server Management Studio in another, and
documentation (either reading or writing) in the third. I miss that third
monitor at times.
Nice to see someone who agrees with my multi-monitor use. I Have 4 - 1 VS, 1 SMSS, 1 Web (testing), 1 mail/chat/word/excel/etc.
|
|
|
|
|
I think I don't need another one. 
luisnike19
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
