3-2-1 Monitor!

 
Dec 18, 2006

by Michael Dinowitz

When I bought my current development machine I decided to go all out and get two monitors. The thought was that two would allow me to do more work, have more screen space and basically have higher productivity. Happily, this was the case and I found that I could actually do more with multiple monitors. Taking this logic to the next step, I got myself a third monitor, thinking it could only make me better. My results were not exactly what I expected, but before I go into them, let's examine the issues surrounding multiple monitors.

Monitor Size

Let's start off with the monitor size. We're totally discounting CRT monitors as they really can't compete with LCD monitors when it comes to space, size, sound (yes, they hum) and just about everything else. My comic machine (where I download, read and archive comics for one of my jobs) has a 17" monitor, while my main development machine has two 19" monitors and a 20" extra wide. The difference between the 17" and the 19" goes FAR beyond just size. The physical difference between a 17" and a 19" monitor is just 1.5" in width and 1" in height but it feels MUCH larger. This psychological impact is very compelling and you should buy at least a 19" monitor if you have the choice. The price difference between the two sizes will probably be less than $40 and is well worth it. I thought that if the difference between a 17" and 19" was so dramatic, there should be another perceivable difference (though smaller) between a 19" and a 20", especially if the 20" was extra wide. Not only was this not the case, but I felt that the 20" was actually shorter than the 19". I chalked this perception up to the extra width.

One big problem I found with an extra-wide monitor is that it is not representative of what the average person uses. This meant that I had to resize any browser I was using to fit a standard browser size. When resizing the browser, I would have a chunk of unused space on the monitor, which just felt like a waste. Having to continually resize the browser was both an annoyance and a waste of action, which is what I was trying to avoid. Once I made the decision to only open browsers on one of the 19" monitors, I felt much better. The same decision also applied to opening documents like PDFs, because the document would scale to the monitor width and force me to scroll down more screens than I would normally. The bottom line is that the extra wide monitor was more of a hindrance than a help in many aspects, and if I had to make the choice again, I would get a normal 19" monitor (or larger).

I'm seriously thinking about taking my wife's older 19" monitor and giving her the 20" in its place.

Number of Monitors

This is where you really gain on performance. Everyone uses at least one monitor and it's usually dead center in front of them. The disadvantage of using a single monitor is that you have to flip between screens when working in multiple applications, which is common for web development. When I work I may have an email program, web browser (or two), development environment (HomeSite+), SQL Enterprise Manager and maybe even an IM program running (to say nothing about music). Flipping from one application to another takes more time and physical movement than I'd like. One solution is to either get a radically larger monitor that can show multiple applications at once, or simply get a second monitor.

Two monitors are fantastic! You can have one with your development environment and the other with your testing environment or some other combination. This side-by-side view can really enhance your productivity, and it brought mine to a whole new level. Once the decision to have two monitors is made, the question is then how to set them up. Most people keep a single monitor dead center in front of them and have a second one off to the side. This is a small alteration to their normal development setup, and only requires them to look to one side or the other to see the additional information. This is good for most, but I found that it made me twist a lot when I wanted to focus on the second monitor. This led me to what I feel is a much better configuration, which is to have the monitors side by side (usually at an angle) and the crease between them dead center. This worked VERY well for me, as I could see both monitors at the same time with little to no movement, and made me feel like I was working with both sides of my brain. I had no problem at all having the crease dead center because my eyes never looked dead center.

I worked with someone that had his second monitor on a pedestal off to the side, but this was probably because the monitors were two different sizes. If you're getting a second monitor, you should really try to make sure that both of them are the same height and width, if you can. At minimum, they should be the same height. Anything else will have a discordant feel.

I'm sure some smart-alec will suggest having the second monitor above the first, but logically, this would be more of a detriment than a help. Besides the fact that you would be nodding up and down between one monitor and the other, it's against best practices. It's been shown that you use a monitor most effectively when it is slightly lower than your line of sight. A side-to-side setup keeps to that best practice.

If you're going to use more than one monitor, you need either a video card with a dual output or two cards. My main video card is part of my motherboard, so I had to get a second one to handle the additional monitor. This second card allowed two monitors, which is why I even thought of getting a third monitor. I thought that if two monitors were good, three would be even better. Big mistake on my part. A third monitor moves you back to having a single monitor dead center and one off to either side. This means twisting, which leads to neck and/or back pain. This also means that the distance from the left monitor to the right is not a single mouse movement. When I'm on my browser in the right window and have to get to my mail in the left, I have to move the mouse, pick it up and move it again. This reduces my productivity, and I try not to have applications that I'm using that far apart. To make matters worse, because my center monitor is extra-wide, the distance is even further.

But there are advantages to having three monitors. You can have one with your development environment, one with your test environment and the third with your 'non-work' related stuff like email, IM, music videos, documentation, etc. This is really more of a 'make work' for the third monitor than an actual need. I'm sure people will respond to this post and give good reasons to have a third monitor but for the moment, I'm not impressed. If you have a choice between two or three monitors, I'd suggest getting two larger monitors in place of the third, and if you have to have a third, make sure it's the same size as the other two (and not extra-wide).

Video Cards

Programmers who do not play a lot of graphically-intensive games tend not to think about the video card they're using. If you're going to use more than one monitor, you really have to make sure you have a good video card. Features like the processing speed, RAM and heat sink of the card are of utmost importance. The more video you're putting out, the more your computer is working, so having a video card with an accelerator will take some of the load off your CPU. As with anything, the more RAM the better, and if you're going to be pumping video to two or more monitors, then the video card should have a good heat sink, in addition to the heat sinks on the motherboard. When I got my second video card, I made sure that I put an extra heat sink, both on the motherboard and on the computer case. I've had problems in the past where a computer has overheated and a $10 heat sink is better than a few hundred dollars in repairs.

Even with an accelerated video card with lots of RAM, I find that running some graphically-intensive applications can be an exercise in futility. I thought that turning off all monitors except one would help, but it didn't. There may be a way to turn off one of the video cards, which should solve this problem, but I haven't looked into it. Maybe a higher-quality video card will solve the problem, but the only time I run anything graphically-intensive is when trying to watch a DVD, and it's just easier to put it in the other computer than to fool around with the settings on my main one. If you know you're going to be working with applications that need more graphic power, put your money into a better card. Remember that most video games that are produced nowadays are automatically considered graphically-intensive applications, so go for the best video card you can get, because you never know when you're going to be playing a game rather than working. :)

Talk about video card features can go on for ages and pages, so rather than waste your time, I suggest this Video Card Overview at PCGuide which seems to cover all of the basics.

Software

Windows XP allows for multiple monitors, but it lacks the fine control to say where a window will go, what it will do, etc. For this reason, I use a piece of software called UltraMon, which takes over the control of multiple monitors from the operating system. Besides controlling which screen goes to which monitor, this program gives me such needed features as a mirrored control bar for flipping between applications on a single screen. This saves having to move the mouse to the main screen to select an application on a different one. It also allows me to 'throw' different application windows to different screens without having to drag them. One feature that I rarely use is the ability to stretch a single application across all of my screens at once. Stretching your development environment across three screens is more of a detriment than an enhancement, as it causes you to swing your neck back and forth from the end of one line on your far right screen to the beginning of the next line on your far left. On the other hand, having your code span two screens allows you to view heavily-indented code better while saving yourself from potential pain.

Summary

My conclusion is that multiple monitors have definitely enhanced my productivity and should have the same effect for you. The minimum number of monitors you should be using is two and if you want to use a third, try to find a system that already has three and see how it feels for you. You should use a 19" monitor as your minimum size and avoid extra-wide monitors unless you have a specific reason to use one. Unless you're using graphically-intensive programs or games, you should not worry too much about the type of video card you use. As long as it has a good accelerator, ram and heat sink, it should be good enough, but if you have extra cash, it doesn't hurt to get better. And I'd really buy UltraMon if I were you; it's well worth it. The amount of time you save in screen switching alone will make multiple monitors worth it in no time at all. I highly recommend it.

Now if only I had a monitor company as an advertiser, I'd clean up. :)

Privacy | FAQ | Site Map | About | Guidelines | Contact | Advertising | What is ColdFusion?
House of Fusion | ColdFusion Jobs | Blog of Fusion | AHP Hosting