geekhack Community > Ergonomics

Final Word on Optimality of multi vs single screen setups?

(1/3) > >>

derpdederp:
I'm sure there are many studies measuring and showing the efficiency of using multiple small screens vs single large screens vs single small screens. Obviously the more you have to turn your head, the less efficient. Setup efficiency also probably varies for multiple window vs single window application - for example, a game vs a stock trader's setup. There are certainly lots of efficiencies and inefficiencies to think of... Thoughts?

I would like to compile these various points to try to determine what is most optimal and how to have the best of all worlds, as it were.

vvp:
It is simple. One big screen and a tilling window manager is better. The screen should be at least 4k and at least 40"; preferably more than 70" and a bit more far away.

If you are a SW developer and you debug GUI then it makes sense to have a separate monitor for the application being debugged. You what at least two monitors in such a case.

jaredj:
The following is all about the experiences I've had with multiple monitors. I got up to eight once. Ah, those were the days.

Yes on the tiling window manager. Overlapping windows mean manual window management.

I found it helpful, when working on more than two tasks, to have a monitor per task. Well - a workspace per task, with workspaces movable between monitors. I had lengthy builds running, which I wanted to keep an eye on but not pay full attention to. Some of my monitors were too high to look at all the time, but they made good back burners. (When you get a vertical monitor stand, some of your monitors are too high to look at all the time.

Multiple monitors mean multiple video cards. More than two video cards in a computer can be difficult. It helps if you are not expecting 3D graphics from them all.

Multiple normal-sized monitors can be easier and cheaper to obtain than smaller numbers of larger monitors.

kurplop:

--- Quote from: jaredj on Fri, 08 February 2019, 19:34:04 ---I found it helpful, when working on more than two tasks, to have a monitor per task. Well - a workspace per task, with workspaces movable between monitors. I had lengthy builds running, which I wanted to keep an eye on but not pay full attention to. Some of my monitors were too high to look at all the time, but they made good back burners. (When you get a vertical monitor stand, some of your monitors are too high to look at all the time.


--- End quote ---
The nicest looking arrangement I’ve ever had was a 30” Dell Ultrasharp flanked with two 20 inches in portrait mode. Unfortunately, there was too much neck twisting and what I really needed was more vertical real estate for my architectural drawings. After many iterations I’m now using the 30” stacked over a 40”, both with a 16/10 aspect. Yes, this puts the second screen high, but it keeps everything on the back burner visible and easy to drag down to the big screen when needed. This arrangement also leaves me more desk space.

vvp:
I used 5 smaller monitors once. It was OK. One video card was driving them. One can get a video card with 6 outputs.
I use 3 monitors now. It is better. One 43" in the middle and two 24" "ears" in portrait mode.
But first of all get a tilling window manager. That is the most important thing.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page