Why I stopped using an external monitor(bt.ht)
bt.ht
Why I stopped using an external monitor
https://bt.ht/monitor/
246 comments
This is a great analogy.
Running the end result on end-user hardware is well understood in certain domains:
Mobile app developers will use their work on mobile phones and tablets.
Good web developers will test across different browsers and will use the tools to adjust window size to common resolutions. This is really easy to do and well supported by the software.
The bigger problem, IMO, is the trend of having UI/UX designers completely separated from developers. They end up making prototypes that look good in presentations and other abstract formats, which are then handed off to developers to make into something usable. Good designers will use the tools to visualize designs in target resolutions, but often they end up optimizing for what will look best in their portfolio or on a presentation instead.
Running the end result on end-user hardware is well understood in certain domains:
Mobile app developers will use their work on mobile phones and tablets.
Good web developers will test across different browsers and will use the tools to adjust window size to common resolutions. This is really easy to do and well supported by the software.
The bigger problem, IMO, is the trend of having UI/UX designers completely separated from developers. They end up making prototypes that look good in presentations and other abstract formats, which are then handed off to developers to make into something usable. Good designers will use the tools to visualize designs in target resolutions, but often they end up optimizing for what will look best in their portfolio or on a presentation instead.
Similar experience: when I was young I built a website for my brother, it looked great on my iMac when I showed him. He said everyone thought it looked weird that the red of the header and graphics didn't match the background.
On my iMac the jpgs were rendered correctly match the rgb hex of the html/css, but on windows the color space of the jpgs rendered them a more crimson hue. Had I tested on my brother's laptop it would have been immediately noticeable.
On my iMac the jpgs were rendered correctly match the rgb hex of the html/css, but on windows the color space of the jpgs rendered them a more crimson hue. Had I tested on my brother's laptop it would have been immediately noticeable.
Doesn't it depend on what browser you use? Also if it has 10-bit display and more?
I'm with you here, however the author has a valid point. I've been using a 43" screen (4K x1) as my main and only for several years; switching to a laptop for a business trip threw me into a world of confusion, I kept instinctively reaching around to find the button or window corner to make the window larger - but it was already as large as it gets! I don't get to do a whole lot of UI/UX work, but I feel that this kind of experience can have a huge impact on how people think about addressing the needs of their users. I felt genuinely constrained, in a way that just playing with CSS breakpoints doesn't.
I think having a smaller screen on a secondary device for testing your UI/UX work is a very good idea - same as testing how your website/app works on 10 year old hardware, or over a 3G connection.
I think having a smaller screen on a secondary device for testing your UI/UX work is a very good idea - same as testing how your website/app works on 10 year old hardware, or over a 3G connection.
3G is still too good! )
I've recently tried to open a Goolag table and do an online payment while the ISP limited connection to 80kb/s (like a dial-up). While I KIND OF understand the futility of opening web-stuff like spreadsheets, the second task of sending a whopping 30 bytes of credit card data failed dramatically. WHY THE HECK!?! Why the heck even such critical parts of Internet became web2.0 slow over-bloated AJAX-JSON-stuffed piles of garbage?! Smoothie-drinking chilled-openspace web-cod...desig..makers? don't realize that their services JUST MIGHT happen to get accessed by people in potentially disastrous situations? Like the world never seen earhquakes, floods and wars? Or just rains. Yeah, rains that block your 4G and wet your stupid touchscreens.
I've recently tried to open a Goolag table and do an online payment while the ISP limited connection to 80kb/s (like a dial-up). While I KIND OF understand the futility of opening web-stuff like spreadsheets, the second task of sending a whopping 30 bytes of credit card data failed dramatically. WHY THE HECK!?! Why the heck even such critical parts of Internet became web2.0 slow over-bloated AJAX-JSON-stuffed piles of garbage?! Smoothie-drinking chilled-openspace web-cod...desig..makers? don't realize that their services JUST MIGHT happen to get accessed by people in potentially disastrous situations? Like the world never seen earhquakes, floods and wars? Or just rains. Yeah, rains that block your 4G and wet your stupid touchscreens.
On the other hand, you have to get a feel for how the web is like for your users.
Maybe your website runs well on a dev machine with a fibre internet connection and an ad blocker on DEFCON 1, but what about your users on budget laptops with crappy screens? Or what about people with crappy wi-fi?
Maybe your website runs well on a dev machine with a fibre internet connection and an ad blocker on DEFCON 1, but what about your users on budget laptops with crappy screens? Or what about people with crappy wi-fi?
I use a 4k Windows machine for development, recently started using a Macbook Air 13" for browsing and also testing my own websites, it works great, not only for testing different screen sizes but also for getting some insight into what people using a different OS/Browser/Device feel when navigating my apps. I tried online device testing/simulation, but it's not the same as physically using the device yourself on a daily basis.
Very good metaphor.
Doesn't make any sense, this would be like an audio engineer getting rid of their studio monitors and mixing on AirPods because that's what people listen on.
What they do instead is use their multi-thousand dollar speaker and room setup for mixing (because it is better!) but then check the end result on airpods, car stereos, etc.
Just test on the resolutions you care about, no need to cripple your development setup full time.
What they do instead is use their multi-thousand dollar speaker and room setup for mixing (because it is better!) but then check the end result on airpods, car stereos, etc.
Just test on the resolutions you care about, no need to cripple your development setup full time.
Maybe if audio engineers constrained themselves to what people listened on, I would actually be able to hear what people are saying in modern
movies.
this is the correct take for Netflix and Christopher Nolan. The answer is they used to.
I read a forum where an engineer was working on a TV show would flip the show in his living room, bedroom, guest bedroom. Walking around the house making sure the sound was balanced everywhere, driving his wife insane.
It's not engineers making that decision it's Nolan overreaching "If you see it particularly in an IMAX theater, projected, it’s pretty remarkable". source -> https://www.indiewire.com/2020/11/christopher-nolan-director...
Not sure what his deal is. 'Nolan also admitted in a 2017 interview with IndieWire that his team decided “a couple of films ago that we weren’t going to mix films for substandard theaters,” adding, “We’re mixing for well-aligned, great theaters.”' source -> https://www.indiewire.com/2020/09/tenet-sound-mixing-backlas...
It's madness. Idk what Netflix's excuse is. Their spec sheet is 2600+ words. But I think the issue is this line "5.1 audio is required and 2.0 is optional." My best guess if you have 5 speakers and subwoofer it's fine. But if you're on cheap headphones or a laptop good luck.
I read a forum where an engineer was working on a TV show would flip the show in his living room, bedroom, guest bedroom. Walking around the house making sure the sound was balanced everywhere, driving his wife insane.
It's not engineers making that decision it's Nolan overreaching "If you see it particularly in an IMAX theater, projected, it’s pretty remarkable". source -> https://www.indiewire.com/2020/11/christopher-nolan-director...
Not sure what his deal is. 'Nolan also admitted in a 2017 interview with IndieWire that his team decided “a couple of films ago that we weren’t going to mix films for substandard theaters,” adding, “We’re mixing for well-aligned, great theaters.”' source -> https://www.indiewire.com/2020/09/tenet-sound-mixing-backlas...
It's madness. Idk what Netflix's excuse is. Their spec sheet is 2600+ words. But I think the issue is this line "5.1 audio is required and 2.0 is optional." My best guess if you have 5 speakers and subwoofer it's fine. But if you're on cheap headphones or a laptop good luck.
Nope, I can’t understand the dialog even in Imax. I think Nolan has whatever the opposite of audio processing disorder is.
Nolan's stuff sounds like shit on my fully calibrated 5.1 setup.
Also sounded like shit when I saw it in a (non-imax, but "X-Treme audio" or whatever it was) cinema.
Guess I'd need to buy my own imax cinema to make it watchable.
Think I'll just pass and watch something from a competent director instead.
Also sounded like shit when I saw it in a (non-imax, but "X-Treme audio" or whatever it was) cinema.
Guess I'd need to buy my own imax cinema to make it watchable.
Think I'll just pass and watch something from a competent director instead.
Netflix sound is just crap. It has nothing to do with "cinematic experience". Voice is not intelligible even at very high volume.
Realistically, they'd need two mixes. One for people who care about audio quality and have invested in a proper home theatre and another stereo mix for the large majority of movie enjoyers.
Yes? That's what we had on DVDs back in the days, one 5.1 or 7.1 audiophile mix (or sometimes both!), and one simple stereo mix for the other 99% of the population; both distinct from the cinema mix.
There was never a reason to get rid of that in favour of the current "one size fits none" approach, other than cheapness.
There was never a reason to get rid of that in favour of the current "one size fits none" approach, other than cheapness.
Check Vox's "Why we all need subtitles now"
https://youtu.be/VYJtb2YXae8
https://youtu.be/VYJtb2YXae8
This was actually a very frustrating video. The audio engineer goes on to say that we _need_ dynamic range to enjoy the movie, which just no true. I remember when the dynamic range (really, the lack of) debate was going on with regard to music. I can see _how_ the argument would apply to movies and TV, but I really hate when I have to keep adjusting the volume because I don't want to damage my hearing. It's like the worst of both worlds: music remains heavily compressed, while movies have incomprehensible dialog volume.
[deleted]
Any proper mix engineer will do exactly this. They will mix on studio monitors but also shitty laptop speakers, bookshelf speakers, mono Bluetooth speakers etc. You have to design for the medium, and most people have shitty displays. Might look great on a retina screen and have no contrast at all on a $50 LG.
Don’t forget the famous car test! A mix is not complete until it sounds good in an old Toyota Camry from the 90s.
Sure shitty laptop speakers are how most people listen to music, but they each listen on different shitty laptop speakers with completely different sound characteristics. This would be like a cobbler wearing the shoes he makes for his customers but only ever trying on the size 9 shoes, because they are the most common, while having a size 11 foot.
> Sure shitty laptop speakers are how most people listen to music, but they each listen on different shitty laptop speakers with completely different sound characteristics.
The canonical shitty speakers that almost every studio used for years was the yamaha NS10.
They were used because of their limited frequency response and dynamic range. When mixing the engineer would switch between the good speakers and the Yamahas. The reason is if it sounds good on the bad speakers then it will sound good anywhere.
It’s not necessary to test mixes on every conceivable speaker, but a couple of different types should satisfy you that it’s in the pocket.
The canonical shitty speakers that almost every studio used for years was the yamaha NS10.
They were used because of their limited frequency response and dynamic range. When mixing the engineer would switch between the good speakers and the Yamahas. The reason is if it sounds good on the bad speakers then it will sound good anywhere.
It’s not necessary to test mixes on every conceivable speaker, but a couple of different types should satisfy you that it’s in the pocket.
I remember reading a paper that analysed the Yamaha NS10 and came to the conclusion that they were not just some shitty speakers but actually had some exceptional qualities like their transient response. It probably was the one linked in this article: https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/yamaha-ns10-story
Thanks, that’s a good article. I liked this observation which I think applies to multiple fields.
> Misunderstanding also tends to breed misinformation, which is often disseminated by well-meaning amateurs: those whose knowledge of a subject is sketchy are always prey to the intuitively plausible but utterly wrong explanation for one phenomenon or another.
> Misunderstanding also tends to breed misinformation, which is often disseminated by well-meaning amateurs: those whose knowledge of a subject is sketchy are always prey to the intuitively plausible but utterly wrong explanation for one phenomenon or another.
I thought an overwhelming majority list to music on headphones/earphones?
As for the rest it seems for me that cheaper (“non-smart”) HomePod style speakers are pretty prevalent at least in higher income countries
As for the rest it seems for me that cheaper (“non-smart”) HomePod style speakers are pretty prevalent at least in higher income countries
This [1] was a multiple choice poll in 2015 that had: Computer Speakers (55%), Headphones (41%), with mostly other speaker related options.
[1] https://www.strategyanalytics.com/strategy-analytics/news/st...
[1] https://www.strategyanalytics.com/strategy-analytics/news/st...
>Doesn't make any sense, this would be like an audio engineer getting rid of their studio monitors and mixing on AirPods because that's what people listen on.
Skrillex, an EDM producer who became popular about a decade ago, did approximately this. They were iPod headphones back then, not AirPods. Perhaps designing according to the vast majority of users is effective enough?
Skrillex, an EDM producer who became popular about a decade ago, did approximately this. They were iPod headphones back then, not AirPods. Perhaps designing according to the vast majority of users is effective enough?
He took a music genre that you couldn't really listen to except you have semi professional equipment and modified the basses to make them 'hearable' for the masses on cheap equipment or even loud on their phones.
I kinda can see that this worked for him. Not sure if that transports well to other producers.
I kinda can see that this worked for him. Not sure if that transports well to other producers.
It actually makes sense. I struggle to see how one might enjoy Burial's debut album on a set of cheapo headphones. There's a lot going on below 100 Hz.
While I bet Bangarang was most listened to worldwide on that awful set of white Apple headphones everybody had.
I know Skrillex produces another "genre" of music, but Burial's is one of the seminal albums in the dubstep genre which Skrillex is part of.
(I've just learned the mid-heavy dubstep popularised by Skrillex & co. is called brostep)
While I bet Bangarang was most listened to worldwide on that awful set of white Apple headphones everybody had.
I know Skrillex produces another "genre" of music, but Burial's is one of the seminal albums in the dubstep genre which Skrillex is part of.
(I've just learned the mid-heavy dubstep popularised by Skrillex & co. is called brostep)
The trouble with that specifically for audio, if you never test it on anything else you might miss things like crackles that only happen on speakers capable of producing crackles in that frequency range
He specifically talked about an audio engineer. Yes as a composer/producer you can get by without audio monitoring hardware if you have an audio engineer taking care of the mixing/mastering after you. Those are different profiles.
[deleted]
There is a caveat that a studio may have a cheap set of speakers around to ensure everything sounds acceptable on consumer equipment. But yes that is in addition to expensive monitors, and maybe a subwoofer the size of a minifridge.
>then check the end result on airpods, car stereos, etc.
And when it sounds like shit using airpods ship it anyways?
And when it sounds like shit using airpods ship it anyways?
There are exceptions to every rule! Ludacris made at least one album from the ground up only listening to Apple stock headphones.
I mean you think it's dumb but I honestly think that mixing with airpods would be the better option.
Same with icons where a high resolution pixel graphic can look horrible when scaled down to icon level vs an icon drawn in the resolution it would be shown at from the get go.
It reflects the problem with software development today as well.
Most of the time developers are using top end machines, massive displays with fast internet and build bloated things that work nice and 'fast enough' for them, but once they run on low/mid level laptop/phones are unusable.
In the 90s programmers didn't have that luxury, all hardware was the same so what they were programming on was what the end user would be on and since hardware was limited anyway every bit and cycle counted. That's why you get games like doom/quake that will run on 75mhz and 8mb of ram and be buttery smooth, whereas today something like flappy bird needs 512mb minimum!
Same with icons where a high resolution pixel graphic can look horrible when scaled down to icon level vs an icon drawn in the resolution it would be shown at from the get go.
It reflects the problem with software development today as well.
Most of the time developers are using top end machines, massive displays with fast internet and build bloated things that work nice and 'fast enough' for them, but once they run on low/mid level laptop/phones are unusable.
In the 90s programmers didn't have that luxury, all hardware was the same so what they were programming on was what the end user would be on and since hardware was limited anyway every bit and cycle counted. That's why you get games like doom/quake that will run on 75mhz and 8mb of ram and be buttery smooth, whereas today something like flappy bird needs 512mb minimum!
This whole comment section is making me think some people aren't being very diligent with their testing.
A professional mix absolutely requires testing across multiple grades of devices. Whether or not someone soley produces on airpods is reslly personal preference, so long as they verify their mix with many types of gear before shipping. A good development shop should be testing across screen sizes and performance profiles for the same reasons.
A professional mix absolutely requires testing across multiple grades of devices. Whether or not someone soley produces on airpods is reslly personal preference, so long as they verify their mix with many types of gear before shipping. A good development shop should be testing across screen sizes and performance profiles for the same reasons.
Lack of testing is part of it, most places do less testing than is ideal.
But there’s much more to it than that. From the article, the author’s resolution is 1366×768. This was designed and tested for! The problem wasn’t that it was broken at that res, the problem was that it was incorrectly classified as a tablet-only resolution.
The issue here is their designers and developers being out of touch with their users, and using constrained hardware helps with that.
But there’s much more to it than that. From the article, the author’s resolution is 1366×768. This was designed and tested for! The problem wasn’t that it was broken at that res, the problem was that it was incorrectly classified as a tablet-only resolution.
The issue here is their designers and developers being out of touch with their users, and using constrained hardware helps with that.
>In the 90s programmers didn't have that luxury, all hardware was the same
I mostly agree with you. However, the 90s was actually a period where computer hardware became rapidly obsolescent. The 486 to Pentium transition, for example, meant that lots of people had PCs far less powerful than the PCs used by games developers. Quake is a case in point. Quake came out in 1996 and would not have run on a typical PC bought only two or three years earlier. A few years after that, many games would only run acceptably on PCs with 3D graphics cards (which were by no means universal).
I mostly agree with you. However, the 90s was actually a period where computer hardware became rapidly obsolescent. The 486 to Pentium transition, for example, meant that lots of people had PCs far less powerful than the PCs used by games developers. Quake is a case in point. Quake came out in 1996 and would not have run on a typical PC bought only two or three years earlier. A few years after that, many games would only run acceptably on PCs with 3D graphics cards (which were by no means universal).
Its funny. I have programmed for a decade and at no point I have ever found that an external monitor was the solution to my problems. My coworkers think I'm crazy, but I do all development on a 15' macbook. My path to efficiency and ergonomic work has always been to become more familiar with the keyboard shortcuts for navigating windows and tabs. Along with Spectacle, Vimium, and tree-style tabs, I have never wanted for a second monitor. Mostly I find it annoying because I forget where I put my applications if I have two monitors.
My overall mantra at work is that I can only do one thing a a time if I want to do it well. I feel in a sense limiting myself to one viewport helps reinforce this behavior.
My overall mantra at work is that I can only do one thing a a time if I want to do it well. I feel in a sense limiting myself to one viewport helps reinforce this behavior.
I've used 13" laptops (MacBook Air, Chromebook) for years. I even use my 11.9" iPad when traveling. I mostly use a terminal app ssh'd to a remote server, screen and vim, and switch to a browser window. I prefer to keep my focus on one task in one full-screen window. I find that works best to keep my attention on one thing. Multiple windows, to say nothing of multiple monitors, just create distractions. For me programming and system admin mostly happen in my head, not in a multitude of windows and panes on the screen.
Back in 2005-2008 I worked at a software company that gave developers two large monitors by default, and some people had three -- a status thing for the more senior people. I noticed many of the second displays had Facebook or Twitter on them all day. I don't use social media. I only used one monitor at that job and when I started freelancing I used a laptop and that's worked fine ever since.
I'm old and have worked with screens and keyboards for 40 years, starting with dumb terminals, and never experienced any posture or RSI problems. I know some people do, and they tell me how unhealthy my setup is (no laptop stand or external keyboard). "Ergonomics" is probably more of a personal thing than a hard science.
Back in 2005-2008 I worked at a software company that gave developers two large monitors by default, and some people had three -- a status thing for the more senior people. I noticed many of the second displays had Facebook or Twitter on them all day. I don't use social media. I only used one monitor at that job and when I started freelancing I used a laptop and that's worked fine ever since.
I'm old and have worked with screens and keyboards for 40 years, starting with dumb terminals, and never experienced any posture or RSI problems. I know some people do, and they tell me how unhealthy my setup is (no laptop stand or external keyboard). "Ergonomics" is probably more of a personal thing than a hard science.
No, you're just the equivalent of someone who has smoked a pack a day their entire life but doesn't have cancer insisting that that lung cancer business is overblown and unscientific. Even a high risk isn't a guarantee.
I'm not sure what you refer to. What risk do I face using a laptop?
If you mean my statement about ergonomics, look into it yourself, you will find mostly pseudo-science and unsupported claims, and an industry of experts and products that makes a lot of money. If it works for you, great.
If you mean my statement about ergonomics, look into it yourself, you will find mostly pseudo-science and unsupported claims, and an industry of experts and products that makes a lot of money. If it works for you, great.
External monitor does not necessarily mean multi monitor. I have an external monitor that is big, and has good contrast and refresh rate, but I close the laptop's lid.
Multiple monitors are ergonomically worse than multiple virtual workspaces IMHO - if you can set up keyboard shortcuts instead of mouse gestures.
Multiple monitors are ergonomically worse than multiple virtual workspaces IMHO - if you can set up keyboard shortcuts instead of mouse gestures.
I am 100% aboard the single screen, single fullscreen app, almost exclusively keyboard work with lots of x-tabbing.
I really like having a second screen though. I keep my laptop open on the side and use it to display "read only" stuff like a build status, consoles, etc.
I really like having a second screen though. I keep my laptop open on the side and use it to display "read only" stuff like a build status, consoles, etc.
A second screen is a nice asset in a work from home with lots of video calls with screen sharing. I like having a screen where I can do things in the background while following what is presented in the call. When I present I like choosing a separate screen where I'll move windows in and out depending on what I want to show. People in my call don't have to see my other windows/notifications/mails/whatever when I switch from one app window to another. And it is way easier to have a dedicated screen than switching (or forgetting to switxh) the shared window.
For screensharing it gives a certain peace of my mind having the call in the peripheral vision. But it's still worse to turn your head than switching workspaces.
For a while I used a single HD 32inch monitor and loved it. I avoided complex windows all over the place. But could lean back in my chair and see everything from a distance.
This is a bit of an odd take. Do you think that because you can manage one screen well that you don't need a second screen? Or do you think other people only need a second screen because they can't manage a single one?
More screen real-estate is just that. Effective management of two monitors might be a little extra work but it's worth it.
More screen real-estate is just that. Effective management of two monitors might be a little extra work but it's worth it.
> My path to efficiency and ergonomic work has always been to become more familiar with the keyboard shortcuts for navigating windows and tabs.
> Mostly I find it annoying because I forget where I put my applications if I have two monitors.
Do you think you could have put this effort into coming up with a workflow that took advantage of multiple monitors? I didn't use multiple monitors for years, but eventually I tried it out and now it would be hard for me to go back, so I've always considered it to have a small learning curve to figure out how to "make use" of the extra space properly. I feel like being willing to use more keyboard shortcuts for windows and tabs would be an excellent way to get more efficient use out of extra screen space.
> Mostly I find it annoying because I forget where I put my applications if I have two monitors.
Do you think you could have put this effort into coming up with a workflow that took advantage of multiple monitors? I didn't use multiple monitors for years, but eventually I tried it out and now it would be hard for me to go back, so I've always considered it to have a small learning curve to figure out how to "make use" of the extra space properly. I feel like being willing to use more keyboard shortcuts for windows and tabs would be an excellent way to get more efficient use out of extra screen space.
That's so interesting. I'm the opposite, but I've worked with plenty of people who work like you do. Both styles are pretty common.
My overall mantra at work is that I can
only do one thing a a time if I want to do it well
Yeah, I've had 3 monitors forever, and for a while I tried 4 [1].
I do webinars where obviously one monitor is displayed. I find it clumsy - switching between the code, the program, log, browser, docs and so on.
In general work I focus on one task, but I find that many programs are involved at one time. Docs on one, code on another, program on a third and so on.
I also have a need for email to be open, along with Skype etc. Those get hidden often though, hence my need for the 4th.
[1] my experiment with 4 failed because the horizontal spread was too far, and it was tiresome to swivel to the 4th.i considered putting the 4th above the 3, but felt that too might be "out of eyeline". So for now I'm maxed on 3.
I do webinars where obviously one monitor is displayed. I find it clumsy - switching between the code, the program, log, browser, docs and so on.
In general work I focus on one task, but I find that many programs are involved at one time. Docs on one, code on another, program on a third and so on.
I also have a need for email to be open, along with Skype etc. Those get hidden often though, hence my need for the 4th.
[1] my experiment with 4 failed because the horizontal spread was too far, and it was tiresome to swivel to the 4th.i considered putting the 4th above the 3, but felt that too might be "out of eyeline". So for now I'm maxed on 3.
I had three for a while but at some point the clutter and complexity overwhelmed the productivity
i considered putting the 4th above the 3
Don’t you find looking down at a laptop painful after a while? At a desk I’m okay working on a smaller screen but if I don’t have an external monitor I need to raise it on a few books and use a separate keyboard if I’m going to spend 8 hours a day sitting like that.
I would consider it crazy to not have an external monitor. I always use one.
But that's not because I think it's important to have two monitors. I only use the external monitor; the laptop's built-in screen would only see any use while traveling.
But that's not because I think it's important to have two monitors. I only use the external monitor; the laptop's built-in screen would only see any use while traveling.
Nope, not at all. It may or may not be bad for my health in the long run but I feel zero pain from it while working.
But 'ergonomic work' has a lot to do with posture as dictated by screen positioning, not just size. With OP's setup, the 180 degree thinkpad hinge and external keyboard allow him to sit with relatively good form. I used to have a hotdesking setup that similar [0].
How do you do that with a MacBook, where the screen only bends so far? Do you also use an external keyboard?
[0]: http://i.imgur.com/3R51QXE.jpg
How do you do that with a MacBook, where the screen only bends so far? Do you also use an external keyboard?
[0]: http://i.imgur.com/3R51QXE.jpg
I do use an external keyboard and mouse with a laptop stand when I am at my desk. When I am out I just type on the laptop stand
Me too, I just use my macbook. I keep 2 buffers side by side in VSCode, and cmd-tab or cmd-` to switch to other apps/windows.
I genuinely suffer from imposter syndrome when I see my colleagues with several huge screens in all sorts of configurations. I guess I'm not a real hacker.
I can only look at one screen at a time anyway, so it's as fast to switch apps than to turn my head to look at a different screen. Plus if I want to move the cursor, I need to switch app anyway (or do a long trip with the mouse and click somewhere for focus which is even worse).
I genuinely suffer from imposter syndrome when I see my colleagues with several huge screens in all sorts of configurations. I guess I'm not a real hacker.
I can only look at one screen at a time anyway, so it's as fast to switch apps than to turn my head to look at a different screen. Plus if I want to move the cursor, I need to switch app anyway (or do a long trip with the mouse and click somewhere for focus which is even worse).
If anything, not spending the time to move your neck but rather manipulate keys to manifest buffers in front of your eyes is the real hallmark of being a hacker.
But only then when moving your eyes is slower than switching between your buffers. Explicitly on Mac, from what most people with just one screen talk there are nice fading-animations that cost at least 500ms.
There's a great MacOS app (AltTab) that replicates Windows' alt+tab window switching. It's fantastic, I highly recommend if you are as a big keyboard window switcher as you sound.
I just found contexts and it's fantastic, it's just like alt tab but also comes with a spotlight esq quick switcher and supports vim jk by default. It's also really useful for switching between desktops by turning "reduce motion" on.
https://contexts.co/
https://contexts.co/
I started using Apptivate a couple of months ago, someone on here recommended it. It makes app switching very pleasingly fast. I use a PC kbd with a mac mini :-) and have F5-F9 assigned to instantly switch to the 5 apps I always have open.
Also, holding down F5-F9 shows those windows as long as they're held down. So now, to take a peek at the bash window I hold down F5 as long as I need to look. Can also type or drag things onto there while holding F5 with the other hand.
You can assign any app to any key or combination of keys. It's free. It can do other stuff too. Very highly recommended.
Also, F1-F3 I have assigned in the system settings to F1=Show desktop, F2=current app windows, F3=show all open windows (mission control). So I very rarely have to use Cmd-Tab any more!
http://www.apptivateapp.com/
Also, holding down F5-F9 shows those windows as long as they're held down. So now, to take a peek at the bash window I hold down F5 as long as I need to look. Can also type or drag things onto there while holding F5 with the other hand.
You can assign any app to any key or combination of keys. It's free. It can do other stuff too. Very highly recommended.
Also, F1-F3 I have assigned in the system settings to F1=Show desktop, F2=current app windows, F3=show all open windows (mission control). So I very rarely have to use Cmd-Tab any more!
http://www.apptivateapp.com/
I get it that you work on one thing at a time and you use programs with keyboard shortcuts like spectacle and vimium etc. But, still I can't help but wonder how does your IDE look? I am guessing you have a code editor (generally with a left/right/bottom panes with file explorer, repl, terminal, other tools etc), add a browser with a documentation page open and your real estate is too little and involves a lot of switching / scrolling, very easily due to all the keyboard shortcuts but its switching/scrolling none the less. Maybe you detach all these into their own windows and use different workspaces in your tiling manager, but that's again a lot of switching to even use a repl.
I am happy that your setup works for you, but a bigger monitor and/or maybe even one extra monitor will just help reduce a lot of that switching/scrolling.
I am happy that your setup works for you, but a bigger monitor and/or maybe even one extra monitor will just help reduce a lot of that switching/scrolling.
Not your parent. But I do the same.
My IDE has basically just the code editor yes. I don't need the project Explorer. Zero useful information at most times so why open it? It's not often I need to know where something is. I open files by name via shortcut. Yes our naming is that good.
I don't need a browser with documentation open at all times. I only need to look at it IFF I need to look something up and if so I switch to it and it's full screen. Copy what I need. Done. No need to flip my head over to the place on some huge screen where "documentation lives". Also I almost never need docs as I have auto complete in the IDE.
When I debug half the screen has the debugger open but only when I debug.
I also know how to get to the place I need to with shortcuts at all times. When I see people use this weird "show all windows in small at the same times" feature used by people I die a little inside. Of course it's gonna take them ages to then find the right one. I alt/cmd double tab to the right window faster than the animation to show the windows would be done. I know that my documentation is two alt tabs away and with one alt/cmd tab I'm back in my IDE. I know the terminal is one alt/cmd tab away. I don't understand people that use small terminal windows integrated into an IDE. Small and unusable. I have a terminal window alt/cmd tab-able to at all times and I know which tab inside that window is for what kind of work e.g. logs tailed on tab 2. When I have it open I can 100 focus on it. No distractions.
My IDE has basically just the code editor yes. I don't need the project Explorer. Zero useful information at most times so why open it? It's not often I need to know where something is. I open files by name via shortcut. Yes our naming is that good.
I don't need a browser with documentation open at all times. I only need to look at it IFF I need to look something up and if so I switch to it and it's full screen. Copy what I need. Done. No need to flip my head over to the place on some huge screen where "documentation lives". Also I almost never need docs as I have auto complete in the IDE.
When I debug half the screen has the debugger open but only when I debug.
I also know how to get to the place I need to with shortcuts at all times. When I see people use this weird "show all windows in small at the same times" feature used by people I die a little inside. Of course it's gonna take them ages to then find the right one. I alt/cmd double tab to the right window faster than the animation to show the windows would be done. I know that my documentation is two alt tabs away and with one alt/cmd tab I'm back in my IDE. I know the terminal is one alt/cmd tab away. I don't understand people that use small terminal windows integrated into an IDE. Small and unusable. I have a terminal window alt/cmd tab-able to at all times and I know which tab inside that window is for what kind of work e.g. logs tailed on tab 2. When I have it open I can 100 focus on it. No distractions.
As a human you can only focus your eyes at one single thing at a time.
Whether you have to move your head/eyes or press a key to switch between the documentation and the IDE does not make much difference in term of efficiency.
I actually find it more comfortable, ergonomic and fast to have a single screen and switch the workspace. That also means that my (physical) setup is minimal and easy to manage, and that I do not get unnecessary distractions or things moving (notifications, messages, ads, animations...) in my peripheral vision.
Whether you have to move your head/eyes or press a key to switch between the documentation and the IDE does not make much difference in term of efficiency.
I actually find it more comfortable, ergonomic and fast to have a single screen and switch the workspace. That also means that my (physical) setup is minimal and easy to manage, and that I do not get unnecessary distractions or things moving (notifications, messages, ads, animations...) in my peripheral vision.
Where did you find a laptop with a fifteen foot screen?
It's on the macbook flair, which is a foldable cell phone with a keyboard. Developers have learned about the power and low cost for this machine and have started to use it as a laptop.
The multiple folds of the screen and keyboard are what allow the flair's 15 foot footprint to be carried around in a phone's form factor.
I have one of the original 16 core versions of these. Come to find out, Apple has recently released 80 and 128 core versions of the flair, so I may need to upgrade next year for the additional horsepower to run data models.
The multiple folds of the screen and keyboard are what allow the flair's 15 foot footprint to be carried around in a phone's form factor.
I have one of the original 16 core versions of these. Come to find out, Apple has recently released 80 and 128 core versions of the flair, so I may need to upgrade next year for the additional horsepower to run data models.
Frank got it when he sold his 2000 inch TV.
At least it wasn't in any danger of being crushed by a dwarf.
When you know it, shut up and take my money.
not to mention being able to rotate it which portrait feels better with code and nice as a secondary dedicated.
Nigel Tufnel must have placed the order
I use shortcuts extensively too. And sometimes work exclusively on my laptop.
That said, it's helpful to be able to use my project while seeing all the logs involved. And that gets extremely claustrophobic on a laptop. Especially if you have an application that is heavy on both the client and server side - chrome, chrome devtools, re-frame-10x sidebar debugger, server side logs/debugger.
It gets even worse when I'm working on one project, which is a client/server game using Unity.
> Mostly I find it annoying because I forget where I put my applications if I have two monitors.
Your applications should always be in the same place. You can still use keyboard shortcuts too.
Beyond that, because when I first got a 30" monitor it was so much real estate and it took so long to move my mouse between windows, I wrote a little program that let me set and restore mouse positions with global hotkeys. It will also bring whichever window is under the mouse position to the front.
So I can see all logs at once as I'm interacting with the project. Including the debugger. Everything always goes in the same spot. And if I want to interact with one of those windows, I can use a hotkey which will instantly set my mouse cursor to a known good position within that window, which enables me to interact with even a GUI in a reproducible fashion rather than having to slow boat my cursor over to it.
That said, it's helpful to be able to use my project while seeing all the logs involved. And that gets extremely claustrophobic on a laptop. Especially if you have an application that is heavy on both the client and server side - chrome, chrome devtools, re-frame-10x sidebar debugger, server side logs/debugger.
It gets even worse when I'm working on one project, which is a client/server game using Unity.
> Mostly I find it annoying because I forget where I put my applications if I have two monitors.
Your applications should always be in the same place. You can still use keyboard shortcuts too.
Beyond that, because when I first got a 30" monitor it was so much real estate and it took so long to move my mouse between windows, I wrote a little program that let me set and restore mouse positions with global hotkeys. It will also bring whichever window is under the mouse position to the front.
So I can see all logs at once as I'm interacting with the project. Including the debugger. Everything always goes in the same spot. And if I want to interact with one of those windows, I can use a hotkey which will instantly set my mouse cursor to a known good position within that window, which enables me to interact with even a GUI in a reproducible fashion rather than having to slow boat my cursor over to it.
> Beyond that, because when I first got a 30" monitor it was so much real estate and it took so long to move my mouse between windows, I wrote a little program that let me set and restore mouse positions with global hotkeys. It will also bring whichever window is under the mouse position to the front.
On Windows, the focus-follows-mouse feature does both these things. Along with raising and focusing whatever you mouseover, it also moves the mouse to any window you alt-tab too. Sadly, it's been tuned weirdly in new versions of windows so it isn't very useful now.
On Windows, the focus-follows-mouse feature does both these things. Along with raising and focusing whatever you mouseover, it also moves the mouse to any window you alt-tab too. Sadly, it's been tuned weirdly in new versions of windows so it isn't very useful now.
That's cool, I didn't know such a thing existed - when I ran into the problem I was at a loss on what to search for to make the large monitor more usable.
Too bad it's weird now.
I don't use windows anymore, but when I first did this it was for windows, and it was only something like 100 lines of C to accomplish including all the standard windows boilerplate.
Too bad it's weird now.
I don't use windows anymore, but when I first did this it was for windows, and it was only something like 100 lines of C to accomplish including all the standard windows boilerplate.
I don’t mind coding on a 12 or so inch laptop screen. But editing a LaTeX file is kind of a pain, because it is nice to have the code and the document side by side, but half a screen is quite small. I guess people working on websites must have similar issues?
Personally I don't mind seeing only the LaTeX code and looking at the pdf once in a while after compiling. But a second screen to keep open and accessible background papers or notes would be very convenient
I’ve been looking for an eink screen for exactly this kind of thing.
Unfortunately they only seem get be put in expensive tablets, or monitors that sort of want to be a main monitor replacement (expensive).
There’s an eInk panel that seems sort of niche-popular, 7.5 inch with 5s refresh, reasonably priced (used in some waveshare projects) but it seems that you can only get the bare board unfortunately.
Unfortunately they only seem get be put in expensive tablets, or monitors that sort of want to be a main monitor replacement (expensive).
There’s an eInk panel that seems sort of niche-popular, 7.5 inch with 5s refresh, reasonably priced (used in some waveshare projects) but it seems that you can only get the bare board unfortunately.
But all the navigating by keyboard shortcuts in the world can't replace side by side behavior of two or three documents.
I mostly agree. I enjoy my 40” 4k monitors, but I’ve found that sometimes constraining myself to a laptop display can improve my focus. However, laptop keyboards, even those on macs and thinkpads, are poorly suited for extended use I think. The author is using an external keyboard, and that makes the setup much more usable in my opinion.
Where did you find a MacBook with a 15 foot screen???? No wonder you don't need a second monitor, good grief
I'm using 4 monitors, two 33" and two vertical 22".
It has nothing to do with knowing how to do shortcuts, but having to do them at all. There are plenty of instances where you may only need to provide input to one window at a time, but see other things, like documentation, output, logs, or a browser window of the page you are editing. Having multiple monitors allows me to greatly reduce the need to switch between windows to reference something or see results of my inputs.
I personally find that if I'm forced to alt-tab between my IDE and documentation, like when I'm working on a laptop, it's incredibly distracting, breaks my flow, and slows down my work significantly.
It has nothing to do with knowing how to do shortcuts, but having to do them at all. There are plenty of instances where you may only need to provide input to one window at a time, but see other things, like documentation, output, logs, or a browser window of the page you are editing. Having multiple monitors allows me to greatly reduce the need to switch between windows to reference something or see results of my inputs.
I personally find that if I'm forced to alt-tab between my IDE and documentation, like when I'm working on a laptop, it's incredibly distracting, breaks my flow, and slows down my work significantly.
Wait until your eyesight starts to go, that 15” monitor won’t cut it!
I only use one monitor and use virtual desktops and side-to-side windows for context switching. But it's the external monitor if it's available, it is more ergonomic to work on a big screen, at the optimal distance and height from the eyes, and with the neck and spine properly aligned rather than curving down.
I use only 50% of my MacBook screen for actually writing code, and in fact I bet I could use less than that. I could SSH from my phone to a dev server and just work off a Bluetooth keyboard and the Terminus app. The advantages of being a powerful vimmer.
I am exactly the same but I got shot for work at it.
Interestingly enough with a Macbook I always only used one external monitor instead of 2 as I am used to. IMO the controls were kinda weird (for me) so it felt less painful just sticking to one.
For me, it's not so much the screen size as the ergonomics. Haviong the screen at the correct height to enable good posture. Separate mouse an keyboard for comfort.
Sure, although that’s also very much achievable with a laptop stand.
But you can't type when the laptop is on a laptop stand.
Then you need an external keyboard, mouse and mousepad. At that point you're not far off from just slapping a monitor on the table instead of a laptop stand.
Then you need an external keyboard, mouse and mousepad. At that point you're not far off from just slapping a monitor on the table instead of a laptop stand.
The difference is huge: a keyboard and mouse and laptop stand fit very easily into a backpack / briefcase, where an additional monitor does not
You should look up portable monitors. They are crazy small, cheap and good nowadays.
You can get a 15-16" OLED external display with a battery for around 300 western monetary units. Half that if you stick to IPS panels[0]. You can shove one of those in a backpack easily.
[0] https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Portable-Monitor-Connection-Raspb...
You can get a 15-16" OLED external display with a battery for around 300 western monetary units. Half that if you stick to IPS panels[0]. You can shove one of those in a backpack easily.
[0] https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Portable-Monitor-Connection-Raspb...
how do you deal with 4-up situations - where you need the comp or design doc, the code, the test window, and the debugger / dev tools, all available for you to glance back and forth between?
Modifying code is like a mix of surgery and construction. In both cases, you need a plan.
If your plan cannot be executed by Grug's 120-character-wide text editor, it is too complex and should be broken into smaller steps.
If your plan cannot be executed by Grug's 120-character-wide text editor, it is too complex and should be broken into smaller steps.
I could dig a hole with a shovel but I'd rather use an excavator if one's around.
This article is a good reminder that there is no such thing as one-size-fits-all. His setup would be horrible for me. I currently have three 1920x1080 monitors in an L configuration (two in the middle, one to the right) and it works great for me- because I need to see a lot of windows at once. I tell everyone I work with "you need at least two monitors" because for our work, it's true. Clearly a different case with OP.
I don't like having two monitors side by side because I find myself looking not-straight for too many hours of the day at my 'primary' monitor. I too used to use an _| shape with one in the centre and one tall one on the side.
Now I use a 43" 4k monitor and use most of the middle 2/3rds. I would use an extra wide monitor but they're made excessively wide & short. When playing games I can use 2560x1440 @59 Hz and the monitor knows to do 1:1 pixels so it's only using the centre of the display. I'm not so hardcore I need higher refresh rates--though the buttery smooth scrolling on new Macbooks is nice.
Now I use a 43" 4k monitor and use most of the middle 2/3rds. I would use an extra wide monitor but they're made excessively wide & short. When playing games I can use 2560x1440 @59 Hz and the monitor knows to do 1:1 pixels so it's only using the centre of the display. I'm not so hardcore I need higher refresh rates--though the buttery smooth scrolling on new Macbooks is nice.
Very generally, what is your work? If some part of it is "monitoring", maybe some metrics or live orders of some kind then having it permanently on another monitor is a no brainer.
I generally do all my work on one screen and keep email / teams / Spotify on the laptop screen.
I generally do all my work on one screen and keep email / teams / Spotify on the laptop screen.
I work in the high end managed WordPress industry as Customer Success Manager. At any moment I have Slack, Tickets, Live Chat, Shell to several servers, and my server monitoring system up. ADHD means "out of sight out of mind" and so it's all visible all the time.
ADHD means "out of sight out of mind"
But I used to work with another guy. Also ADHD. And he said he absolutely had to restrict himself to smaller, single screens, in order to focus because looking at multiple windows at once was anathema to his ADHD.
Just doubly reinforces how unique brains are. Even with the same diagnosis, different strategies.
I tightly control the amount of context switching I do since you can get derailed by them, for much the same reason. I don't think I have ADHD but I certainly struggle with attention, and that is a strategy I use. Every alt+tab/window switch is an opportunity for me to lose my train of thought.
Yeah, this is the specific reason for me. As far as my trains of thought go, every alt-tab or cmd-tab is something close to a guaranteed derailment.
It sucks, because it sure looks fun to do some work in a coffee shop or whatever from time to time!
It sucks, because it sure looks fun to do some work in a coffee shop or whatever from time to time!
Interesting, but this is avery specific condition (on top of every one is individual) vs a generalizing advice "you need at least two monitors" because for our work, it's true."
And not wanting to tell you it is wrong if this works great for you, but tbh I wouldn't see the necessity in this setup for multiple monitors, by your first post had assumed a very different kind of work ;)
And not wanting to tell you it is wrong if this works great for you, but tbh I wouldn't see the necessity in this setup for multiple monitors, by your first post had assumed a very different kind of work ;)
I guess it’s true: there is no generalization that’s absolutely true including this one.
I tried this as well for about 8 months and ended up going back to an external monitor setup. Why? Health reasons. The ergonomics of using a laptop everyday is detrimental to your posture. Being hunched over and looking down at a laptop all day is not healthy. You can still have bad posture with an external monitor but now these risks are avoidable if you are disciplined enough. With a laptop you really have no choice but to have poor posture.
laptop stand + external keyboard / mouse / trackpad
Just as they show a in the blog post
Yeah. I do this, though I sometimes use an extra monitor depending on what I'm doing. The screen on the 16" Mac Book Pro is much nicer to look at all day than any reasonably priced external screen, and I find I tend to get a bit "dizzied" by enormous screens right in front of me.
Small note, depending on location and situation. If you're in a work situation, not using an external monitor could cause issues for you employer, even if you're working from home. Some countries, like Denmark, have laws that require employees to be given, and use, external monitors, keyboards and pointing devices. For most people being hunched over a laptop for eight hours a day will result in neck, back, and/or wrist pain. Your employer could be fined if you do not use an external monitor.
A former coworker of mine had to be repeatedly remind to use the provided equipment. In the end it was agree that everything would sit on his desk, ready to use, in case of a visit from the government office of workplace safety.
A former coworker of mine had to be repeatedly remind to use the provided equipment. In the end it was agree that everything would sit on his desk, ready to use, in case of a visit from the government office of workplace safety.
There is a whole site dedicated to this phenomenon. I found a presentation about Tech Neck here [0]
[0] https://mescforyou.ksc.nasa.gov/Content/RehabWorks/Tech%20Ne...
(edit) add link
[0] https://mescforyou.ksc.nasa.gov/Content/RehabWorks/Tech%20Ne...
(edit) add link
Thanks for that.
You can also get it via bad posture at a larger display. It may present as muscle pain, and can require surgery if not corrected.
Get your ergonomics right, or you may have regrets years later, when you're older.
You can also get it via bad posture at a larger display. It may present as muscle pain, and can require surgery if not corrected.
Get your ergonomics right, or you may have regrets years later, when you're older.
That was my first thought, but there's a clear photo in the article of the laptop on a suitable stand.
Yes and no. It's on a stand, but it doesn't seem to fulfill the requirements for adjustability. It's not height adjustable and the tilt may be insufficient, at least one way, but excellent the other.
> in case of a visit from the government office of workplace safety.
What!? This world is a truly bizarre place.
What!? This world is a truly bizarre place.
Multiple monitors are a force multiplier to Alt+Tab.
Yes, I can compile a formal business document from disparate programs and formats all on one screen and there is a bit of an advantage - mouse movement - but that's trivial compared to spatial awareness. Getting something from Excel into PowerPoint while checking Outlook incoming stuff and shooting the cow patties on Teams is a different modus operandi. That's why I relate what I do to being more like an F1 machine than a long-haul key puncher. When I'm on, I'm burning gas and hauling ass.
When I'm off, I'm decompressing in ways that are not exactly customary.
Yes, I can compile a formal business document from disparate programs and formats all on one screen and there is a bit of an advantage - mouse movement - but that's trivial compared to spatial awareness. Getting something from Excel into PowerPoint while checking Outlook incoming stuff and shooting the cow patties on Teams is a different modus operandi. That's why I relate what I do to being more like an F1 machine than a long-haul key puncher. When I'm on, I'm burning gas and hauling ass.
When I'm off, I'm decompressing in ways that are not exactly customary.
> Hell, some of these users were being shown the tablet-based view of the applications since our breakpoints were so ridiculously large. Yikes.
I used a 1366x768 monitor on my desktop for a couple of years and this was a huge annoyance - almost every single site assumed that i was on a tablet. Firefox allowed me to "zoom out" the sites which helped somewhat but then pretty much everything was a combination of tiny letters surrounded by tons of empty space.
Worse, i remember checking various stat sites at the time and 1366x768 was the most common non-mobile resolution!
I used a 1366x768 monitor on my desktop for a couple of years and this was a huge annoyance - almost every single site assumed that i was on a tablet. Firefox allowed me to "zoom out" the sites which helped somewhat but then pretty much everything was a combination of tiny letters surrounded by tons of empty space.
Worse, i remember checking various stat sites at the time and 1366x768 was the most common non-mobile resolution!
It also affects people on much larger displays which just want a narrower browser window. So many sites break in random ways (like scrolling not working) or hide important things like the login form when the window isn't wide enough. Clearly many sites are never tested for that.
So many years of talking about responsive web frameworks and half the sites simply don't care.
So many years of talking about responsive web frameworks and half the sites simply don't care.
I'm still kind of at a loss. Why not just exclusively use the laptop screen as the development monitor and the larger monitor for... everything else?
...or just resize a browser window.
Because op found a solution (a tiling window manager) and then needed to find a problem.
Dwm can be nice to use, but like 99% of tiling window managers it's a dynamic one and after years of use I find those rather impractical. I don't get the appeal of every window on screen rearranging and resizing just because I opened a terminal, it's more chaotic than anything else.
My favorite so far was stumpwm, which lets you statically split the screen in any way and then have a stack of windows in every segment. Works fine on every display size or number, all windows are neatly arranged according to their purpose and size requirements and just as much flexibility for keybindings.
Though nowadays I use Mac OS and it's...fine. What's actually important is how smoothly it lets you switch windows.
My favorite so far was stumpwm, which lets you statically split the screen in any way and then have a stack of windows in every segment. Works fine on every display size or number, all windows are neatly arranged according to their purpose and size requirements and just as much flexibility for keybindings.
Though nowadays I use Mac OS and it's...fine. What's actually important is how smoothly it lets you switch windows.
Randy Pausch, a former Computer Science Professor at University of Virginia who passed away from Pancreatic Cancer, gave a popular lecture on Time Manage in the last few months of his illness. In his lecture he proposed a monitor set up I still use today. What I love about this method is that one quickly learned which monitors does what and so there are fewer brain cycles to decide where to put your windows.
The Three monitor method:
- One for reading. ( documents, reference material, requirements)
- One for writing. ( code, writing emails, creating anything)
- One for time. (calendar app always open.)
He mentions it roughly 49 min into the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blaK_tB_KQA
The Three monitor method:
- One for reading. ( documents, reference material, requirements)
- One for writing. ( code, writing emails, creating anything)
- One for time. (calendar app always open.)
He mentions it roughly 49 min into the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blaK_tB_KQA
Reading and writing monitors make sense. But I'd definitely not put a monitor just for calender/time. It sounds like a recipe to increase my anxiety leve.
I guess because it's a lecture about time management (I haven't listened to it)? But still...
So in this setup, when you read your email you would put it on the "read" monitor, but when you compose an email you would transfer it over to the "write" monitor?
Why transfer? Writing emails usually opens another window (e.g. outlook, thunderbird etc.), so you have one window for reading and one for writing. Also makes it easier to cross-reference other emails or documents while writing your email.
I stopped when I switched to a 5K iMac. 5120x2880 is enough for things like side by side browsers and editors, and I use the excellent Rectangle app to easily align them in perfect ½, ⅓, or ¼ width of the screen (I use Firefox’s excellent responsive design mode for exactly matching client devices).
I think that many web developers would benefit from testing on slow hardware, bad monitors and shoddy internet.
I work on a 2017 Macbook 12" unless I'm at home. Some websites literally don't work on that resolution.
Other websites don't work on hotel Wi-Fi.
Others are unreadable on budget laptop screens.
It's good to remember that a lot of the world isn't a Silicon Valley office.
I work on a 2017 Macbook 12" unless I'm at home. Some websites literally don't work on that resolution.
Other websites don't work on hotel Wi-Fi.
Others are unreadable on budget laptop screens.
It's good to remember that a lot of the world isn't a Silicon Valley office.
I gave up on external monitors a long while ago. When you have to have them, it's indicative of a workflow that needs to be fiddly about the data you're working on, usually either manually monitoring a lot of stuff, or parsing things on one screen(docs) to do things on the other(editors). Some jobs do need it, and I'm not denying that, but if you're doing something where you control more of the environment ground-up and dipping into a variety of digital tools for parts of the workflow, going with paper notebooks and the phone as the second screen can be a lot better; Gridded or dotted 8x5" or A5 spiral notebooks are very convenient for having "enough" visual structure in a document and they aren't particularly more or less constrained than toting around a second monitor. Prop them up on a bookstand so they're at an ergonomic height, and give yourself a color multipen so you can add highlighting and organization by color. Do your tasks by documenting the plan in the book and specific editing functions or build processes you plan to use so that during execution, you have both a plan and a cheat sheet, and it's always in the same place. When you need to share, take a photo.
> I'm able to instantly understand frustrations of everyday users while developing new features or tweaking existing UIs. Being able to advocate for our end-users by using legit use cases is extremely helpful. (Removes the "design by gut-feeling" mistakes)
This same reasoning could be used in reverse; because designers/devs aren’t using multi-monitor UIs or switch regularly between multi-monitor and laptop-only is why we can’t have a good experience. Like on macOS, why won’t it remember the window size from the last time it was connected to a larger screen.
This same reasoning could be used in reverse; because designers/devs aren’t using multi-monitor UIs or switch regularly between multi-monitor and laptop-only is why we can’t have a good experience. Like on macOS, why won’t it remember the window size from the last time it was connected to a larger screen.
I think a lot of user frustration is caused by front end developers having relatively new, well-specced laptops connected to one or more nice monitors, but as the author pointed out, an awful lot of users have 768 x 1366, which usually implies low specs all around, so kudos to this guy for caring for his users in this way.
Related tip for developing the visuals for an in-person talk: use a 13” or less laptop to put together and rehearse slides and demos. If it’s readable on that, it should be readable in a big conference room on a mediocre projector.
Related tip for developing the visuals for an in-person talk: use a 13” or less laptop to put together and rehearse slides and demos. If it’s readable on that, it should be readable in a big conference room on a mediocre projector.
For a long while I used just the 15"/16" MacBook without any external displays. I find multiple displays to be bad for my concentration or my neck and eyes (too much movement...)
For web development, Chrome's responsive design mode with free viewport scaling is great - like testing a 4K TV display resolution in a half of a browser window. Wish Firefox had a similar scaling mode...
For web development, Chrome's responsive design mode with free viewport scaling is great - like testing a 4K TV display resolution in a half of a browser window. Wish Firefox had a similar scaling mode...
Web dev here - I use to have three monitors early on in my career. Two side by side and one vertical for a terminal. Then eventually two and now just one large 32” 4k UHD one.
Having one has definitely helped me focus better. Left side of the screen is the browser and the right is VSCode with a terminal in the bottom half. It’s my ideal setup as of last 5 years.
Having one has definitely helped me focus better. Left side of the screen is the browser and the right is VSCode with a terminal in the bottom half. It’s my ideal setup as of last 5 years.
I’m about to plug back in my third. I keep losing windows, and I think if I’m a little more careful I can keep from stacking too much on three monitors.
Do you think 32" is ideal size? What about curved? I'm thinking about making the transition to a single monitor too.
I use a single curved 32" monitor, same setup as above most of the time via window snapping: code/result (UI, test suite, etc)
It's my favorite way to work so far.
The conclusion in this article seems pretty silly tbh... I'm able to use my large monitor to test multiple browsers and resolutions at once with instant feedback, leading to better responsive designs, delivered faster.
It's my favorite way to work so far.
The conclusion in this article seems pretty silly tbh... I'm able to use my large monitor to test multiple browsers and resolutions at once with instant feedback, leading to better responsive designs, delivered faster.
How do you do snapping on OSX? Can you talk more about good one monitor workflows? Do you have workspaces or all windows are in one workspace? Etc
Rectangle and other similar apps can provide simple snapping (drag to right edge: snap to right half, drag to NE corner, snap to top right quad, etc).
The only time I use workspaces is for things that benefit from huge windows: an editor with tons of files, 3d modeling, etc.
The only time I use workspaces is for things that benefit from huge windows: an editor with tons of files, 3d modeling, etc.
Rectangle for snapping: https://rectangleapp.com/
Single 32" works best for me, too. All other things equal, I'd consider curved an advantage, but it doesn't matter that much for 16:9 or 16:10. If you decide to go UltraWide instead though, I very strongly recommend getting a curved display. I couldn't make 34" UW work for me though -- if I use two things side by side, I need to keep my head sideways, and if I center something, there's not enough space on the sides for more stuff.
As for software, what I end up using the most is Unity, Unreal, and Visual Studio. I just wanna say I absolutely hate all 3 of them.
As for software, what I end up using the most is Unity, Unreal, and Visual Studio. I just wanna say I absolutely hate all 3 of them.
Personally, I use a single 38" curved monitor (3480x1600). I have old man eyes but this allows me to have up to 4 vertically split tmux panes with at least 80 cols in each pane for programming in vim. I find multi-monitor very distracting, but I'd never go back to a single 1080p screen at this point.
3x27" 4k monitor at 150% scaling seems to be the sweet spot for me. It strikes the balance of text clarity and desktop resolution. I use the center one most of the time, and the one on my right for supporting tasks. My left one monitors stuff (terminals, sysmon, etc.) as well as my music. I use virtual desktops to separate the task I'm working on. I couldn't go back to a single screen, much less 1366x768.
I'm often dividing my center and right monitor into vertical splits (supported by Windows snap feature).
I tried for a long, long time to use a tiling WM and realized it is just too many compromises in order to use it efficiently. Many applications are not really compatible unless you're willing to switch your entire workflow to using mostly CLI applications. If you're using a dynamic one, you're still moving windows based on priority, and on a regular tiling WM (i.e., i3), you still need to move windows around. Mouse is still the fastest way to resize/move a window.
With window snapping, this is more or less a non-issue these days (Windows 11 is still sufficient when it comes to multiple monitors as I'm able to move my window from the right one to my left with Win + Arrow). I can still alt-tab.
I can't use a 40" 4k screen because it's too large, and it's more about division of screens than resolution alone. I also like the improved clarity that 150% scaling brings me on a 27" screen.
I'm often dividing my center and right monitor into vertical splits (supported by Windows snap feature).
I tried for a long, long time to use a tiling WM and realized it is just too many compromises in order to use it efficiently. Many applications are not really compatible unless you're willing to switch your entire workflow to using mostly CLI applications. If you're using a dynamic one, you're still moving windows based on priority, and on a regular tiling WM (i.e., i3), you still need to move windows around. Mouse is still the fastest way to resize/move a window.
With window snapping, this is more or less a non-issue these days (Windows 11 is still sufficient when it comes to multiple monitors as I'm able to move my window from the right one to my left with Win + Arrow). I can still alt-tab.
I can't use a 40" 4k screen because it's too large, and it's more about division of screens than resolution alone. I also like the improved clarity that 150% scaling brings me on a 27" screen.
There might be a distribution of neuronal types (and work requirements) out there but I find small monitors suffocating.
Combined with the reduced control of a touchpad versus a mouse and the superior tactile feel of a mechanical keyboard this makes working on laptops a distinctly degraded experience for me.
Combined with the reduced control of a touchpad versus a mouse and the superior tactile feel of a mechanical keyboard this makes working on laptops a distinctly degraded experience for me.
I find that the touchpad gives me much more control than a mouse could. I use an external Magic Trackpad on macOS and it's just so natural to use gestures to manage desktops, zoom stuff, show all windows, etc.
For me at least the touchpad feels like a less precise channel that is only attractive due to portability. You never quite know where exactly the pointer will stop when you stop moving your finger (the inertia of the mouse might somehow help with that feeling)
We do know what must be objectively the most precise device - what digital artists use to create designs and paintings and its neither a mouse nor a touchpad :-). But it would be interesting to see if people have actually measured this.
But indeed there is the more general concept of "control" and in this general sense any multi-touch device that makes use of more fingers opens in principle a larger range of interactions.
We do know what must be objectively the most precise device - what digital artists use to create designs and paintings and its neither a mouse nor a touchpad :-). But it would be interesting to see if people have actually measured this.
But indeed there is the more general concept of "control" and in this general sense any multi-touch device that makes use of more fingers opens in principle a larger range of interactions.
To me, the real benefit of an external monitor is not the display size, but the height and position. Compared to a laptop-on-table setup, an external display allows the screen to be positioned higher to match the height of the eyes, while also keeping the keyboard lower to match the height of the arms. This makes working for extended periods more comfortable and reduces shoulder and neck pain.
When I cannot afford an external display, I have found that using a laptop stand and an external keyboard can help a lot.
When I cannot afford an external display, I have found that using a laptop stand and an external keyboard can help a lot.
to me this reads like the author was simply too frustrated with their wm's handling of large / secondary monitors and post-facto justified the switch to only one monitor
Exactly that. I use 3 monitors, the handling of 3 monitors is really simple compared to one big screen. Thats the only reason I stick at it currently. But I know why I do that.
One area which an external monitor (or high resolution) helps a lot with is UI or frontend programming. It's a huge pain to play with the chrome or Firefox debugger and have to jump between windows to get feedback.
When it comes to backend or non-UI work, a laptop is just fine.
When it comes to backend or non-UI work, a laptop is just fine.
I need 3 monitors or I am crippled, and the god awful alt+tab management of MacOS which is imposed on me contributes a lot to this need.
And to be fair, you can tell me anything you want, I will not believe that you are as efficient with a single monitor as with at least 2. I used a single one for 6 months in 2020 and I lost a lot of productivity.
Actually I do not believe it to the point that if I was in a position of power over someone who refuses to use more than one, I would get rid of them.
And to be fair, you can tell me anything you want, I will not believe that you are as efficient with a single monitor as with at least 2. I used a single one for 6 months in 2020 and I lost a lot of productivity.
Actually I do not believe it to the point that if I was in a position of power over someone who refuses to use more than one, I would get rid of them.
I only have 2 currently at my new job, I have all the logs of services in tmux in 6 to 8 splited panels on 1 screen and IDE on 2nd, I feel as if there is one missing were I can have documentation/wikis/slack/jira etc. I think just using your eyes is faster than managing it on 1 screen but that's just how I'm used to it. Sadly most companies who are not solely into software developing have the same IT setup with 1-2 24 inch screens for the entire company. That's why I'm mostly in home office these days with my 4 screen setup.
I am more efficient with a single monitor, because I use a tiling window manager. All my windows get laid out, there's no dead space for a wallpaper, I dont have to full screen everything and drag stuff around with a mouse, and each workspace functions for me the way each monitor does for you, I can have up to 10. The difference is, where you'd turn your head, I hit a keyboard command super+<number>. You can only look at one monitor at a time, might as well reuse the hardware and save on money and waste.
If you believe it so strongly that nothing can possibly change your mind your believe is irrational, doubly so considering you admit your choice of operating system gimps productivity yet you still choose to use it. If you'd fire someone for using a different workflow than you as a heuristic for their productivity you have no business managing people.
If you believe it so strongly that nothing can possibly change your mind your believe is irrational, doubly so considering you admit your choice of operating system gimps productivity yet you still choose to use it. If you'd fire someone for using a different workflow than you as a heuristic for their productivity you have no business managing people.
> I am more efficient with a single monitor, because I use a tiling window manager.
I just read a whole article (this one) about a guy that had to switch to a single monitor because switching to a tiling window manager made it hard to live with more than just 1 monitor, so allow me to doubt that your WM is actually increasing your efficiency.
But even without that, no you are no. If you need to switch between virtual desktops to, for example, see the code and see the website renderer by the code, it is an highly inefficient process.
So unless your single monitor happens to be a 44" 5K monitor, I would 100% fire you.
> you admit your choice of operating system gimps productivity yet you still choose to use it
I think the word "imposed" made it pretty clear that I actually do not have the choice.
I just read a whole article (this one) about a guy that had to switch to a single monitor because switching to a tiling window manager made it hard to live with more than just 1 monitor, so allow me to doubt that your WM is actually increasing your efficiency.
But even without that, no you are no. If you need to switch between virtual desktops to, for example, see the code and see the website renderer by the code, it is an highly inefficient process.
So unless your single monitor happens to be a 44" 5K monitor, I would 100% fire you.
> you admit your choice of operating system gimps productivity yet you still choose to use it
I think the word "imposed" made it pretty clear that I actually do not have the choice.
So you're being forced to use a workflow you don't like that gimps your productivity, and you still would force guys to use workflows they may not like? That's worse than choosing it man.
Switching workspaces is as easy as moving your eyeballs, at least in a tiling wm. It's no different workflow wise, except it costs hundreds of dollars less. You can literally only look at one monitor at a time. Very, very few people actually have a need for more than one. The majority of people using more than one monitor are doing it because it makes them feel like hackerman, because their boss imposes a workflow and environment on them, or because they can't be bothered to try to make their environment more efficient.
Switching workspaces is as easy as moving your eyeballs, at least in a tiling wm. It's no different workflow wise, except it costs hundreds of dollars less. You can literally only look at one monitor at a time. Very, very few people actually have a need for more than one. The majority of people using more than one monitor are doing it because it makes them feel like hackerman, because their boss imposes a workflow and environment on them, or because they can't be bothered to try to make their environment more efficient.
> Actually I do not believe it to the point that if I was in a position of power over someone who refuses to use more than one, I would get rid of them.
You also need to be considerate of other people’s habits. When you typically think that your way is the ‘right way’ then you’re usually wrong.
You also need to be considerate of other people’s habits. When you typically think that your way is the ‘right way’ then you’re usually wrong.
Sounds like you could benefit from AltTab https://alt-tab-macos.netlify.app/ It's a free, open source alt+tab replacement for macOS. Highly customisable and works well.
Looks good, thanks!
This is very personal sort of thing.
In my case, I don't think I could go laptop-screen-exclusive because I've become too accustomed to my monitor being held at exactly the right height and distance from my eyes with a VESA arm. This can be done with laptops too (and in fact, my laptop is on a VESA ARM via adapter itself), but it wouldn't be particularly comfortable to use as a primary monitor at the same distance.
As far as tiling window managers go, I haven't been able to make them work for me on any size of screen. It probably boils down to the sorts of programs one uses in their day to day but I found that the auto-tiling does the wrong thing frustratingly often and enough programs are opted out into floating mode that it makes more sense to stick with a more traditional floating WM with optional tiling.
I do however agree that smaller screens should be a bigger priority, but this is done easily enough without giving up a desktop monitor. Sidecar on an iPad works nicely for this, and there are plenty of portable screens that are just laptop panels in a chassis that you can hook up. There's also no shortage of bare laptop panels on eBay that one can assemble with a driver board and 3D printed case.
In my case, I don't think I could go laptop-screen-exclusive because I've become too accustomed to my monitor being held at exactly the right height and distance from my eyes with a VESA arm. This can be done with laptops too (and in fact, my laptop is on a VESA ARM via adapter itself), but it wouldn't be particularly comfortable to use as a primary monitor at the same distance.
As far as tiling window managers go, I haven't been able to make them work for me on any size of screen. It probably boils down to the sorts of programs one uses in their day to day but I found that the auto-tiling does the wrong thing frustratingly often and enough programs are opted out into floating mode that it makes more sense to stick with a more traditional floating WM with optional tiling.
I do however agree that smaller screens should be a bigger priority, but this is done easily enough without giving up a desktop monitor. Sidecar on an iPad works nicely for this, and there are plenty of portable screens that are just laptop panels in a chassis that you can hook up. There's also no shortage of bare laptop panels on eBay that one can assemble with a driver board and 3D printed case.
I switched from dual monitor to a single 2560x1440/quad HD monitor when I switched to using the i3 tiling window. manager.
I think I can picture the issue they ran into with a 4k monitor, but I do not have that issue at QHD. It's enough width to display a document or narrow browser window next to my IDE and a couple of terminals beneath the IDE. Ideal setup for me personally.
I think I can picture the issue they ran into with a 4k monitor, but I do not have that issue at QHD. It's enough width to display a document or narrow browser window next to my IDE and a couple of terminals beneath the IDE. Ideal setup for me personally.
I've never really cared much about my physical dev environment setup. I've been programming since 1983, professionally since 1996. There are very few systems I haven't used, ranging from a commodore 64 connected to an old blurry black&white TV to Sun workstations and DEC alphas and SGIs to PCs and laptops of every conceivable size and make to multi-monitor setups, trackballs, trackpads, nubs, mice, standing desks, sitting desks, couch, cross-legged on the floor, in an airplane seat, at the kitchen table...
And none of it has ever mattered. As long as I have the software I like and can see what I'm typing or looking up, it's all good. And since most development happens between the ears with the odd short burst of typing, where and how you dump the fruits of your mental labor doesn't make a meaningful enough difference to worry about it.
And none of it has ever mattered. As long as I have the software I like and can see what I'm typing or looking up, it's all good. And since most development happens between the ears with the odd short burst of typing, where and how you dump the fruits of your mental labor doesn't make a meaningful enough difference to worry about it.
The data in this article mentions that the most popular resolutions for desktop were 1920×1080 (9.94%) and 1366×768 (6.22%). The numbers don't really add up. What are the other possible resulutions? I'd presume that these two would the biggest percentage!
I think of all the people who have/might ditch an external author, the specific OP here has the best use case.
UX/UI designers are definitely #1 among the people who should use computers in a way closer to their target audience.
But also using a tiling window manager makes using a tiny single monitor extremely effective.
1. There is almost no wasted space. Almost the entire space is used for your content. It maximizes screen space better than any other paradigm there.
2. Automatic and effective filing meant I was far more likely to open windows besides each other much more rapidly (and way more conveniently) than I could arrange windows between monitors.
3. I haven’t used DWM, but i3 instead, and it was the only software where multiple desktops actually felt almost as effective as having actual multiple windows.
The low graphical requirements of tiling window managers (I’m pretty sure their rendering is way faster because the display is so much simpler) meant that they could render a new workspace faster than I could turn my head from 1 monitor to another, and easy KB shortcuts made it ridiculously easy to switch between desktops.
Let’s say I was copying 1 document’s text manually to another, it was probably quicker for me to type, hit Alt+2 read what I needed to copy next, hit Alt+1 to go back to the writing workspace and continue typing, than it was for me to type, turn my head to the other monitor, read, and then turn my head back to the 1st monitor to continue typing.
UX/UI designers are definitely #1 among the people who should use computers in a way closer to their target audience.
But also using a tiling window manager makes using a tiny single monitor extremely effective.
1. There is almost no wasted space. Almost the entire space is used for your content. It maximizes screen space better than any other paradigm there.
2. Automatic and effective filing meant I was far more likely to open windows besides each other much more rapidly (and way more conveniently) than I could arrange windows between monitors.
3. I haven’t used DWM, but i3 instead, and it was the only software where multiple desktops actually felt almost as effective as having actual multiple windows.
The low graphical requirements of tiling window managers (I’m pretty sure their rendering is way faster because the display is so much simpler) meant that they could render a new workspace faster than I could turn my head from 1 monitor to another, and easy KB shortcuts made it ridiculously easy to switch between desktops.
Let’s say I was copying 1 document’s text manually to another, it was probably quicker for me to type, hit Alt+2 read what I needed to copy next, hit Alt+1 to go back to the writing workspace and continue typing, than it was for me to type, turn my head to the other monitor, read, and then turn my head back to the 1st monitor to continue typing.
I strongly prefer having only one screen no larger than 19 inches with a pixel density between about 110ppi and 150ppi. Why? Neck and eye strain with all other configurations I've tried. Also small font sizes really shine when the pixels are that large.
I have a single 40" ultrawide, and I am much, much more productive on it than on laptop screens. I can usually have three or four windows tiled side-by-side, usually with two working code windows and a third for browsing documentation or viewing results or a terminal. It's hard to beat that.
The 40" ultrawide format is nice because of the vertical space compared to other ultrawides. It's a 32" monitor with a little extra width.
And because it has a built-in KVM, I have a single webcam, keyboard, mouse, and speaker setup for my work and home computers that I can switch between with a keyboard shortcut.
The 40" ultrawide format is nice because of the vertical space compared to other ultrawides. It's a 32" monitor with a little extra width.
And because it has a built-in KVM, I have a single webcam, keyboard, mouse, and speaker setup for my work and home computers that I can switch between with a keyboard shortcut.
Waiting for the article about why he downgraded his camera to a moldy potato
Waiting for the article about how "HN is dying"
The title is pure clickbait. If he switched to the moldy potato, I bet we’d all click to read that article too. Our human curiosity is weird :)
I have to switch from my 43" screen to my 15" laptop when travelling and I always hate it. I find it so much more productive to have everything open at once and not have to tab between windows.
I have a similar setup to this, with a Thinkpad x230 and a budget 1600x900 HP monitor, and I also use dwm. The second monitor allows me to work with items that I don't need to interact with frequently.
For example, I can display the PDF output of a LaTeX document on one monitor while keeping vim and a PDF of a book I'm reading on the other monitor. If I only had one monitor, my productivity would suffer because I would have to constantly switch between windows.
For example, I can display the PDF output of a LaTeX document on one monitor while keeping vim and a PDF of a book I'm reading on the other monitor. If I only had one monitor, my productivity would suffer because I would have to constantly switch between windows.
I respect people who really dial in their personal setups and I am also a little at a loss about what to say about these kinds of posts.
As the author says - this seems like a highly personal preference that they spent some time and energy getting to. I'm happy for them and fully believe they've found their optimal setup. And, because it's so individual, I am not sure what to do with the post.
It's absolutely true - and the author is aware - that end users and developers use their computers in different ways. It's also true that setting up your workspace to be more like an average user will give you some insight* into their situation. Finally it's true that most developers don't do that because they try to optimize their workspaces for their productivity and most people find adding screen real estate does that.
I enjoy reading someone else's journal as much as the next person - and I'm always surprised when I see how other people react to pretty personal musings.
* This is kind of untrue - statistical outputs are statistically true but they are conjoined with their other qualities. You won't "be in someones shoes" with a low-res screen until you are also sharing their: OS, usecases, application set, etc.
As the author says - this seems like a highly personal preference that they spent some time and energy getting to. I'm happy for them and fully believe they've found their optimal setup. And, because it's so individual, I am not sure what to do with the post.
It's absolutely true - and the author is aware - that end users and developers use their computers in different ways. It's also true that setting up your workspace to be more like an average user will give you some insight* into their situation. Finally it's true that most developers don't do that because they try to optimize their workspaces for their productivity and most people find adding screen real estate does that.
I enjoy reading someone else's journal as much as the next person - and I'm always surprised when I see how other people react to pretty personal musings.
* This is kind of untrue - statistical outputs are statistically true but they are conjoined with their other qualities. You won't "be in someones shoes" with a low-res screen until you are also sharing their: OS, usecases, application set, etc.
I maintain the cloud infrastructure at my company and I went the other way around: from laptop only to an 3 screens (laptop on a stand + two screens on the side at a 90 degree angle). When I need a browser window at the right resolution, I just drag it to my laptop screen.
The two vertical screens are configured a little different. Vertical screens are terrible for screensharing. For that reason I virtually split one of them in 2 parts (using xrandr). This gives me two square screens that are ideal for screen sharing.
So, virtually, I have 4 screens in 3 different sizes and have no issue assigning stuff to them. The vertical screen is always used for Emacs and different chat apps used for work (have a workspace with all chats stacked vertically, so I can keep tabs easily). One of the square screens is used for browsing, while the other is used for screen sharing (or general browsing/terminal when my screen is not shared). The laptop screen is often used as a scratch pad (short term stuff).
I know it might be a bit overblown, but it works well for me. I really like the fact that I can run multiple things and monitor their output, without interrupting my workflow.
The two vertical screens are configured a little different. Vertical screens are terrible for screensharing. For that reason I virtually split one of them in 2 parts (using xrandr). This gives me two square screens that are ideal for screen sharing.
So, virtually, I have 4 screens in 3 different sizes and have no issue assigning stuff to them. The vertical screen is always used for Emacs and different chat apps used for work (have a workspace with all chats stacked vertically, so I can keep tabs easily). One of the square screens is used for browsing, while the other is used for screen sharing (or general browsing/terminal when my screen is not shared). The laptop screen is often used as a scratch pad (short term stuff).
I know it might be a bit overblown, but it works well for me. I really like the fact that I can run multiple things and monitor their output, without interrupting my workflow.
I get the graphic designer specific reasons, but I've noticed the same sort of trend in myself upon switching to a tiling wm. The truth is you just don't need multiple monitors with a tiling wm. Space gets wasted in a normal stacking window managers, and you have to manually and meticulously lay your windows out. Most people don't have the patience and just full screen everything. Having layouts optimized automatically, or with a few quick key presses makes things easier, and you wind up actually using multiple workspaces. Switching workspaces is easier than looking around at different monitors.
I do believe that people that use multiple monitors are either showing off or could benefit greatly from tiling window managers, because they'd spend less money on monitors, and less e waste and all that. Very few people have needs that actually demand multiple monitors, a fraction of the number of people that have them.
I do believe that people that use multiple monitors are either showing off or could benefit greatly from tiling window managers, because they'd spend less money on monitors, and less e waste and all that. Very few people have needs that actually demand multiple monitors, a fraction of the number of people that have them.
Nice, I like this idea here. Broadly, even though my main is a 27" 4K, I now more or less can't stand using two monitors, except for specific use cases where it "makes sense," e.g. when I teach classes online, and I need "my space" vs "what the students are seeing."
I also stop using dual monitors when switching to dwm (for 10 minutes) then awesome. Because fiddling with config files to get dual monitors + tags right and adapting to a tiling workflow with two screens was too much to handle for me. And I didn't find much use for the second monitor after a while (mail ? messaging ? it was just an secondary interface to distractions).
It made my life easier because I don't have to manage the second monitor ("am I sharing the good screen ?", "why does the main monitor stay in sleep mode ?", etc.). Both laptop and monitor have the same resolution so I keep using the external monitor, it's more comfortable.
I am considering an ultra wide monitor though but I have concerns around it being too wide and adding eye or neck fatigue long term.
It made my life easier because I don't have to manage the second monitor ("am I sharing the good screen ?", "why does the main monitor stay in sleep mode ?", etc.). Both laptop and monitor have the same resolution so I keep using the external monitor, it's more comfortable.
I am considering an ultra wide monitor though but I have concerns around it being too wide and adding eye or neck fatigue long term.
> I also stop using dual monitors when switching to dwm (for 10 minutes) then awesome. Because fiddling with config files to get dual monitors + tags right
I'm a dwm user with three screens, and there is literally zero extra configuration that's needed to get it working with multiple screens. The three screens have independent tag sets, and it Just Works.
My problem is rather the same as the author of the fine article's, that dwm's two column model doesn't fit very wide screens (>2500px) all that well.
I'm a dwm user with three screens, and there is literally zero extra configuration that's needed to get it working with multiple screens. The three screens have independent tag sets, and it Just Works.
My problem is rather the same as the author of the fine article's, that dwm's two column model doesn't fit very wide screens (>2500px) all that well.
> I'm a dwm user with three screens, and there is literally zero extra configuration that's needed to get it working with multiple screens. The three screens have independent tag sets, and it Just Works.
There's some confusion, I am using awesome, not dwm. I only spent a few dozen minutes with dwm and then switched to awesome but it wasn't because of dual monitor concerns. Though I am also glad I stopped using dual monitor, whatever the DE.
There's some confusion, I am using awesome, not dwm. I only spent a few dozen minutes with dwm and then switched to awesome but it wasn't because of dual monitor concerns. Though I am also glad I stopped using dual monitor, whatever the DE.
Sorry, yes, I understood that.
But since you mentioned dwm and awesome in the same breath and then went on to complain about configuration headaches I thought it might be worthwhile to point out that dwm actually doesn't suffer from the configuration headaches that apparently come with awesome + multiple monitors.
But then, dwm has its own set of other limitations of course (quite a lot of them, in fact) - everything's a tradeoff.
But since you mentioned dwm and awesome in the same breath and then went on to complain about configuration headaches I thought it might be worthwhile to point out that dwm actually doesn't suffer from the configuration headaches that apparently come with awesome + multiple monitors.
But then, dwm has its own set of other limitations of course (quite a lot of them, in fact) - everything's a tradeoff.
Since Zoom became a thing, I can't imagine having to work with just a single smaller screen. I need to have enough real-estate to be able to multi-task someone sharing a desktop full-screen on Zoom legibly along with at least two of email, IM and IDE.
>> I no longer have to worry about "context switching" if I decide to un-dock my laptop and work somewhere mobile.
It does make sense to optimize for the lowest common denominator if working away from a desk often. However, that would also mean foregoing the external keyboard and mouse imo. TP keyboards are pretty good and the "nub" is better than a mouse in some ways (though seems to cause hurt finger after a while). I still prefer an external mechanical kb, mouse and big monitor but I get where the OP is coming from.
It does make sense to optimize for the lowest common denominator if working away from a desk often. However, that would also mean foregoing the external keyboard and mouse imo. TP keyboards are pretty good and the "nub" is better than a mouse in some ways (though seems to cause hurt finger after a while). I still prefer an external mechanical kb, mouse and big monitor but I get where the OP is coming from.
> that would also mean foregoing the external keyboard and mouse imo
Didn't work that way for me. An external keyboard and mouse (or trackpad) is easy enough to stick in your luggage and take through an airport. A monitor - especially a large one - is much less so. For the years that I traveled one week a month, I generally avoided hooking up to external monitors even when they were available at my destination because I didn't want to manage two different layouts or workflows. YMMV, of course, but I think "keyboard and mouse but not monitor when away from home base" is a reasonable and quite common compromise.
Didn't work that way for me. An external keyboard and mouse (or trackpad) is easy enough to stick in your luggage and take through an airport. A monitor - especially a large one - is much less so. For the years that I traveled one week a month, I generally avoided hooking up to external monitors even when they were available at my destination because I didn't want to manage two different layouts or workflows. YMMV, of course, but I think "keyboard and mouse but not monitor when away from home base" is a reasonable and quite common compromise.
I guess it depends on how mobile your workflow is. Hard to use an external kb on a plane or at a coffee shop.
Maybe Zuck will solve these problems for use with his glasses. Crossing fingers.
Maybe Zuck will solve these problems for use with his glasses. Crossing fingers.
Also, I noticed that there are pretty cheap portable monitors out there - mostly from unknown brands however. Pretty sure you could pack these in a bag.
There are strap-on foldable side-monitors for laptops out there. But they still use HDMI and USB ports.
This is the intersection of masochism, minimalism, and technology asceticism.
Let's face it. If Linus Torvalds can work perfectly on a Macbook without external monitors, i don't see any reason why people claim that this must be a very unproductive way of working.
Eh. I use one of these: [0].
It’s attached to my 14-inch laptop, but I seldom take that out of its drawer.
It allows me to have multiple simulator screens open at once, and I also have an original iPhone SE, that I use for testing, but most of my on-device testing is done, using my iPhone 13 Mini, and my iPad Mini (I also have an iPad Pro 12.9-inch).
I find that gives me a good mix.
[0] https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-49WL95C-W-ultrawide-monito...
It’s attached to my 14-inch laptop, but I seldom take that out of its drawer.
It allows me to have multiple simulator screens open at once, and I also have an original iPhone SE, that I use for testing, but most of my on-device testing is done, using my iPhone 13 Mini, and my iPad Mini (I also have an iPad Pro 12.9-inch).
I find that gives me a good mix.
[0] https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-49WL95C-W-ultrawide-monito...
I have been using a 15 inches laptop for coding for 4 years now and splitting the screen whether in vim or having two windows next to each other does not make for a great experience.
Rather than buying a separate screen and having one more thing to manage I remapped Super + J and Super + K in Cinnamon to just switch windows instantly.
Sometimes I even use Super + $number to get to a specific window. I think it works fine and it's more resilient: I can code when I don't have an extra screen
> while a large portion of my end-users would never benefit from those "pixel-perfect" designs.
Slightly off-topic but this is precisely why people need to stop saying pixel-perfect. It doesn't exist anymore than Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, or an honest politician.
At the extreme, two users with the same hardware have the resolution set differently, might use different browsers and/or have different zoom settings in the browser.
Saying pixel-perfect is at this point like saying, "fax it to me."
Slightly off-topic but this is precisely why people need to stop saying pixel-perfect. It doesn't exist anymore than Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, or an honest politician.
At the extreme, two users with the same hardware have the resolution set differently, might use different browsers and/or have different zoom settings in the browser.
Saying pixel-perfect is at this point like saying, "fax it to me."
[deleted]
Eye motion has a cognitive cost. If I can take that eye motion and move it into my fingers' muscle memory to toggle screens, there is an increase in overall focus. I find an external or secondary monitor is good for large refactors across multiple repos, but that's a small slice of my typical book of work. Most of the time it's just distracting to have extra reasons to move my eyes and head. If I need a break, I go outside and look at far away things.
I do use the external and multi monitor setup. I tried for awhile having them side by side but it didn’t work having to look slightly left or right all the time. I’ve tried working from just the laptop and it’s fine for awhile but not long term.
Now, I have my laptop open on a stand with Keepass full screen on one side, all my communications (outlook, zoom, slack) on the right, and all my focus items in the center. We’ll see how long that lasts.
Now, I have my laptop open on a stand with Keepass full screen on one side, all my communications (outlook, zoom, slack) on the right, and all my focus items in the center. We’ll see how long that lasts.
I can't agree more. Sure, there are legit uses for a huge screen (displaying several windows at the same time), but the developer need to focus, focus , focus.
Nothing can break focus more for me than constantly having to switch between windows (e.g.: vscode / chrome).
2 monitors are the way to go for me.
2 monitors are the way to go for me.
Yes, there are many cases where a lot of space is needed. Like three-way merge ideally needs triple the width of normal code. There are many other use cases - keeping the jenkins build in peripheral vision, having terminal open with running logs, having browser open containing reference / documentation etc. Switching windows is a productivity killer.
For me it's ultrawide. I'm using a 34" display at 3440x1440. I can have two "full size" windows side-by-side. (Full size meaning they each feel about as large as they did on my 15" MacBook display).
3 work the best for me. Debugging an API on monitor 1, VSCode on monitor 2, browser with the frontend rendered on 3. I could also use a 4th for the browser dev console. (Full stack development)
I was surprised I could be productive coding on a 6.8" Android phone using vscode plus bt mouse and keyboard. Everything depends on viewing distance.
I only use one monitor, the laptop one. I tend to focus on a single monitor, despite trying to use more screen real estate, but forcing myself to use it has not been productive. The only case it is useful is with side-by-side windows. It hasn't been frequent enough, but now I am thinking that having one of those small side monitors for a laptop screen might be really useful in this case.
I'm old, my eye's are going. I did the laptop only thing like the OP for a while and it worked but I was craning my neck forward to see text. Increasing the size of stuff meant less screen so I just kept craning my neck until I hurt it.
Anyway, I solved the problem buy going to a single Dell 27inch QHD monitor that has a usbc hub in it. It is amazingly good.
Anyway, I solved the problem buy going to a single Dell 27inch QHD monitor that has a usbc hub in it. It is amazingly good.
Laptops are bad for your posture, external, elevated monitors are best. I also like ultrawide monitors, but I do not really think most people need more than one of them.
Currently my personal PC is hooked up to four 1080p monitors, each 21.5" because that's all I could reasonably afford to put on my table (monitor costs, VESA mounts/stands for the weight, GPU that can serve that resolution well).
This setup works pretty well for most things I might want to do: it works well for recording or streaming because I can use one of them purely for the content that I want to show, while managing OBS/music/notes on other monitors.
It also works well for development, because I can look at code and a web browser, as well as have a Git client, terminal or something like docs open all at the same time and switch between those easily. I don't need to worry about overlapping windows or lots of windows on a single monitor, or many tiny tiled windows, or having to manage everything with multiple workspaces - everything is just there, side by side.
I can also vaguely organize things by importance, if I feel like it - my development stuff can be front and center (two widescreen monitors atop of one another), some utilities etc. on a vertical monitor to the side, whereas the less important things like e-mail or IM clients etc. to the side further.
I'm not saying that using just a laptop screen isn't workable, because it most certainly is, but for my personal approach more monitors is indeed better, at least up to a point. 3 or 4 monitors feels like the sweet spot so far (especially because it isn't too hard to get a GPU that supports them).
Pain point: if you ever use Windows and have any of your monitors turned vertically, you'll probably want something like FancyZones for the window snapping to work correctly: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/powertoys/fancyzon... Also on widescreen displays it seems to me that vertical taskbars work a bit better, which can be problematic in certain OSes (like Windows 11), but isn't much of an issue in others (most Linux distros).
If VR resolution was better, it'd be nice to take this layout to the max: having windows in 3D space, using them as a monitor each. A bit like what Safespaces did: https://arcan-fe.com/2018/03/29/safespaces-an-open-source-vr...
This setup works pretty well for most things I might want to do: it works well for recording or streaming because I can use one of them purely for the content that I want to show, while managing OBS/music/notes on other monitors.
It also works well for development, because I can look at code and a web browser, as well as have a Git client, terminal or something like docs open all at the same time and switch between those easily. I don't need to worry about overlapping windows or lots of windows on a single monitor, or many tiny tiled windows, or having to manage everything with multiple workspaces - everything is just there, side by side.
I can also vaguely organize things by importance, if I feel like it - my development stuff can be front and center (two widescreen monitors atop of one another), some utilities etc. on a vertical monitor to the side, whereas the less important things like e-mail or IM clients etc. to the side further.
I'm not saying that using just a laptop screen isn't workable, because it most certainly is, but for my personal approach more monitors is indeed better, at least up to a point. 3 or 4 monitors feels like the sweet spot so far (especially because it isn't too hard to get a GPU that supports them).
Pain point: if you ever use Windows and have any of your monitors turned vertically, you'll probably want something like FancyZones for the window snapping to work correctly: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/powertoys/fancyzon... Also on widescreen displays it seems to me that vertical taskbars work a bit better, which can be problematic in certain OSes (like Windows 11), but isn't much of an issue in others (most Linux distros).
If VR resolution was better, it'd be nice to take this layout to the max: having windows in 3D space, using them as a monitor each. A bit like what Safespaces did: https://arcan-fe.com/2018/03/29/safespaces-an-open-source-vr...
> I found the amount of those stuck at 1366x768 to be quite shocking.
Hi, one of those here! Life is okay at lower resolution. But definitely not getting better because of ... designers.
Low resolution also means less computing and less energy, so lots of portable devices will have it for a long time.
Hi, one of those here! Life is okay at lower resolution. But definitely not getting better because of ... designers.
Low resolution also means less computing and less energy, so lots of portable devices will have it for a long time.
Being an expert window switcher is very empowering to me, much more than lots of monitors.
I use keyboard maestro, several hotkeyed window layouts
I use keyboard maestro, several hotkeyed window layouts
The more you have customizable tools, the less is the need for larger or more monitors. I used to feel crippled if I don't have two large monitors, but after starting to use i3 and customizing it to my needs, I'm quiet comfortable with a single external monitor to do most work. It has been a great tool for improving my productivity.
You do you man, but I like my big monitor :)
I've been working (software) on only my mbp for the last few years and haven't seen any real impact to my productivity. You just get more efficient at navigating a small space. It's nice to not feel like I'm missing anything when working in coffee shops or on workcation trips.
Horrible way to work (if you spend 6+ hours writing code on that thing). Working on my 3 external monitors is a bliss.
i've personally stuck with using a 15" laptop screen thus far (and a smaller one at work during pandemic). this has been mostly out of necessity of moving around and the personal motto of not hoarding stuff when you would have to get rid of it in a few months.
while i'd love to give a secondary monitor a go, even when i'd use multiple monitors at work, it would not automatically become a huge productivity boost that most people swear by. one "big enough" screen has done just fine. even our brain zones out the visual feed outside of what's in front of you, so you are only saving tabbing shortcuts when working with more than one display. so much for those swearing by keyboard shortcuts and vim dotfiles.
while i'd love to give a secondary monitor a go, even when i'd use multiple monitors at work, it would not automatically become a huge productivity boost that most people swear by. one "big enough" screen has done just fine. even our brain zones out the visual feed outside of what's in front of you, so you are only saving tabbing shortcuts when working with more than one display. so much for those swearing by keyboard shortcuts and vim dotfiles.
My setup is to have a large 4k tv on the wall beyond my desk, hooked up to both a Mac Studio and Windows PC.
That clears my desk, removes my need for reading glasses, makes work legible from anywhere in the room, easy to demo stuff, ...
Having the screen on the wall also makes the room feel less cluttered.
That clears my desk, removes my need for reading glasses, makes work legible from anywhere in the room, easy to demo stuff, ...
Having the screen on the wall also makes the room feel less cluttered.
What size is “large”? (just wondering)
98" 4K LG TV :)
Considering I have worked at home my whole career, my only real expenses are my computer equipment, so I tend to always push them.
On either side of the 98", I have two 55" in portrait mode. 55" monitors are as long as a 98" is tall. I use the 55" monitors to keep my todo lists and other organizational/motivational info in my face all the time.
The setup keeps me producing.
I would have got 8k but ... 98" 8k is six figures! O_o
Considering I have worked at home my whole career, my only real expenses are my computer equipment, so I tend to always push them.
On either side of the 98", I have two 55" in portrait mode. 55" monitors are as long as a 98" is tall. I use the 55" monitors to keep my todo lists and other organizational/motivational info in my face all the time.
The setup keeps me producing.
I would have got 8k but ... 98" 8k is six figures! O_o
I use virtual desktops. The only missing piece of the puzzle is the missing shortcuts to go directlly to a specific desktop, win + 3 for example. If Windows woild provide that, I coils also buy a bluetooth macro keyboard and use it just for that.
> I [could] also buy a bluetooth macro keyboard and use it just for that.
For two-hands-on-keyboard work, I quite like using 'cv' and 'm,' keys as chords for "desktop left" and "desktop right".
This can be achieved on a keyboard with customisable firmware (like a QMK-powered keyboard), or perhaps through software like kmonad.
Though, yeah, not every desktop environment has "go to desktop X", so I just get used to setting each one up, and 'remembering' how many times to go left/right when switching.
For two-hands-on-keyboard work, I quite like using 'cv' and 'm,' keys as chords for "desktop left" and "desktop right".
This can be achieved on a keyboard with customisable firmware (like a QMK-powered keyboard), or perhaps through software like kmonad.
Though, yeah, not every desktop environment has "go to desktop X", so I just get used to setting each one up, and 'remembering' how many times to go left/right when switching.
have you tried SylphyHornPlusWin11 [0]? this is a variant of SylphyHorn working on windows11, too. I use it daily, because I was missing exactly this functionality. But it also has other nice shortcuts, too.
[0]: https://github.com/hwtnb/SylphyHornPlusWin11
[0]: https://github.com/hwtnb/SylphyHornPlusWin11
Thank you for the link. I will have to see if I'm allowed to install it on my work pc.
To everyone providing testimony such as "I don't use an external monitor and I'm fine" (or not), please mention whether you're using a laptop stand and/or separate keyboard/mouse.
> I mostly operate single applications within their own confined tag
For all this talk about getting a realistic user experience, what on earth are tags? I have absolutely no idea what that means in the context of window managers.
For all this talk about getting a realistic user experience, what on earth are tags? I have absolutely no idea what that means in the context of window managers.
It's virtual desktops but with a fancier name, and a minor bonus feature where specific windows can appear on multiple virtual desktops at once.
DWM uses bitmasks to keep track of what window is on what virtual desktop and bitmasks can have multiple bits set, so windows can be on multiple desktops/"tags".
DWM uses bitmasks to keep track of what window is on what virtual desktop and bitmasks can have multiple bits set, so windows can be on multiple desktops/"tags".
[deleted]
Designing for narrow screens is good. Things look better in an average screens, but also on a tablet and on a mobile landscape mode. Small width layouts are always a hassle / unusable.
Designing for narrow screens ruins the experience for wide screens. As such it is extremely bad trend to happen. Making daily user experience lot worse for many users.
I think even if I preferred a single screen I'd keep another one around so more easily screen share and be able to keep some things offscreen.
Virtual desktops can do this. Just share one virtual desktop and not the others.
I used to have triple 4k monitors, but sold them after the layoffs and paid rent instead. So far I'm not missing them much.
I guess I'm bored enough to reply to this. Different people have different needs, end of story.
you obviously cannot use a 48 inch 4K monitor. but for me I think that 4K on large display offers so much space and confort. you end up use a smaller monitor to justify using a WM… why not, but dont donwvote me then
But why 1366x768 and not something with retina densities?
Because, well, manufacturers did not leave us a choice?
(* I'd go for 1280*800)
(* I'd go for 1280*800)
[deleted]
When I was older I learned that comic books are drawn on much bigger paper than the comic. Part of the production process is to shrink the drawings to comic book size. Drawing bigger comics is a lot easier. I was trying to draw the comic and mimic the rest of the production process as well.
The same is true for dev work. Constraining yourself to what the end user has is throwing away a ton of benefits from having access to better tools. By all means test your work on a similar machine but don't throw up artificial barriers to doing good work if you don't need to. You're just trying to go straight to the final version. That doesn't work.