… if you know how to use virtual desktops and shortcuts. You can’t look at two screens at a time, anyways.
One use case I can understand is having a 2nd monitor for checking stock prices or checking for a certain event. Other than that, I don’t see how it contributes to “productivity” while working or coding for example.
P.S: Tiling WM users may understand this post more
Yeah! How am I going to watch my favorite YouTubers while I play games?
And then have to rewind it because actually trying to pay attention to 2 simulating things at once is hard for me.
Funny how you seem to believe that “checking stock prices” is a good use of a whole monitor but don’t seem to see how literally any other task could benefit from having reference material up on a second monitor.
I think they mean anything where changes happen without your input, because you might see it in your corner of your eye, whereas reference material can be switched to almost as fast as you can look to the side. Typing as you’re reading though…
Should I upvote because it is an unpopular opinion or down vote because he is wrong? I know it’s the former but I really don’t want to!
Is it an unpopular opinion though or just a really stupid fucking take?
“Useful for checking stock prices” - I mean come on.
Lol an actual unpopular opinion. I use 4 monitors. Sometimes I’m looking at reference documents on a second monitor to determine how to implement the function. Sometimes I have my dbms app up on the third screen so I can look at the data structure as I’m implementing it. And the 4th monitor is usually for YouTube so I have a background noise/video to keep me focused
Because lots of productivity tasks, including coding, involve looking at a reference material while creating the output. I’m frequently looking at a database structure on one window, an API document on another, and coding in an IDE.
You don’t necessarily need two screens, but it helps to have enough real estate to view two or more applications at once. Personally I use a 50" 4k TV and tile things in halves or quarters - which is the equivalent of having four 1080 monitors.
What’s faster, switching desktops or turning your eyes a bit to the side?
As someone who has 4 screens at work and 3 at home, you’ve done a great job picking a truly unpopular opinion, as I had a gutteral negative reaction when I saw this.
I have two 40 in 4K monitors and a little 28 in 2K, my job involves network monitoring and diagnostics. No way could I work efficiently on just one screen unless it was ginormously bigly huge. I actually wouldnt mind another 4K but work machine hasnt the outputs
I have 3 27" 4k screens in this layout: | - -. That’s from left to right, portrait landscape landscape.
I have a terminal and sometimes on the 1st screen. Code/Work on the second. Documentation/chats/email on the 3rd.
It works well for me :)
deleted by creator
You can’t look at two screens at a time, anyways.
Unless you are sitting right in front of a single 50inch+ screen, your field of view can definitely accommodate more than one screen!
Was going to downvote this until I saw the community. You have a terrible opinion. Well done.
How else am I going to play games while watching a Twitch stream?
I’ve always changed tabs, or at the very most, copy-pasted. I don’t use split-screen though, as I find it too overwhelming and cramped for me. I’ve never found a reason to have 2 monitors.
If 1 is more than “enough”, how many screens are enough then? Technically, if you never need any visual feedback from what you’re doing with keyboard and mouse, then zero screens would be enough.
