Why buy one when you can get two for twice the price?

[aerius]

We have a dual monitor setup on our brokerage trading computer, one monitor is setup & logged in to our stock broker and the other displays our newsfeeds. It works a lot better this way, it's a lot easier to keep everything organized especially on crazy market days when lots of stuff is going on and we need to get the trades fired off as fast as possible.

[General Zod]

We've got a lot of dual monitor setups where I work where we actually need to use them. We deal with loads of financial data, so we have Firefox open to our company's database and spreadsheets/pdfs/access files supplied by our clients. Though after using them I can safely say I just plain don't like the way dual monitors work.

[[R_H]]

I have a 22" and a 17" monitor. When I first got the 22" I had both hooked up, but I found that dual monitors took up way too much space on my desk. So I'm back to using just the 22".

[J]

I have a dual screen setup at my work as well, I often have to reference various documents when typing my reports and it's a lot more efficient to just look over at the other screen while I'm typing than to stop typing, click & scroll through several windows, and then start typing again. Sure I have to stop and scroll through my reference screen once in a while, but far less than I would with a single screen work space.

And as mentioned, having two (or more) screens is essential for trading today's insanely volatile markets.

[SCRawl]

I (sort of) have a dual monitor setup. I use a 21.5" WS for my main display, and my 37" LCD TV (which is about 15' away to my left) is connected via HDMI for watching movies or other video content. I've also hosted executive meetings from my daughter's preschool (I'm the treasurer), and instead of handing out budget projections and copies of the agenda to everyone, I just put it on the TV screen. I knew I wanted to do something like this when I renovated my basement, so running a 35' HDMI cable through the ceiling was part of that plan.

[phongn]

Multiple monitors are amazingly useful. If I had the room, I'd think of getting three

[Phantasee]

My friend had dual monitors, 19" Acers, IIRC. He thought they were so useful, until he lost one of them in a poker game with his room mates (for a month). He realized that he didn't actually need the second monitor as much as he thought he did, and sent the second monitor back home to his parents and siblings after he got it back. He was one of those useless nerds who doesn't actually produce anything of value, like coders or artists do.

I recently upgraded to a 20" WS LCD after putting up with a 17" CRT for years. It's way more productive, as I can have Excel open two spreadsheets on one screen, making billing way easier. The move up to Widescreen was sufficient, and trying to use the LCD and the CRT together didn't really work out (CRT took up too much space, and I didn't really use the second monitor except as a way to finally see my desktop wallpaper).

Phongn, what do you use the second (and third?) monitor for?

[RedImperator]

I could see a use for multiple monitors for editing--it would be nice to not have to alt-tab between chapters while checking for continuity problems--but since I do all my editing on a laptop anyway, it's moot.

[Alyeska]

I just wish Microsoft would integrate better multiple monitor support. Like a real taskbar for the secondary monitors. I would even like to see the secondary monitors be quasi independent desktops where they have their own start menu and anything launched from that desktop stays on that desktop unless you move it to another monitor. Imagine being able to click on Firefox on a monitor and it always launches on just that monitor, but when you pick firefox on the next monitor, it launches a dedicated copy on the next monitor. In the very least, MS should integrate and have a taskbar for each monitor.

[RedImperator]

For editing, you could probably tile the windows side by side on one monitor and get it pretty well the same result.

Try that with six chapters at once. Or more. In the late stages of a draft, I've actually had every chapter at once open.

But today I'm going to address request number two, "A simple switch to create two windows, one alongside the other, vertically split."
[...]
In the taskbar, click the button for the first window you want to position, then hold the Ctrl key and right-click the button for the second window. Select Tile Vertically. Bingo, the two windows are positioned side by side.

(If you pick Tile Horizontally then they appear one above the other.)

Yeah, I can do that on Mac, too. I usually don't bother because on a 12 inch monitor, it makes the screen too cramped.

He then goes on to discuss how Windows 7 is going to make that even easier.

Hell will freeze over before I ever give Microsoft another nickel of my money.

[phongn]

I just wish Microsoft would integrate better multiple monitor support. Like a real taskbar for the secondary monitors.

UltraMon will do this, though it costs money.

I would even like to see the secondary monitors be quasi independent desktops where they have their own start menu and anything launched from that desktop stays on that desktop unless you move it to another monitor. Imagine being able to click on Firefox on a monitor and it always launches on just that monitor, but when you pick firefox on the next monitor, it launches a dedicated copy on the next monitor. In the very least, MS should integrate and have a taskbar for each monitor.

That actually would be pretty neat.

Phongn, what do you use the second (and third?) monitor for?

In general, for more screen real estate. Supreme Commander also handles multiple monitors well and Adobe Lightroom does interesting things with it.

[

He then goes on to discuss how Windows 7 is going to make that even easier.

Hell will freeze over before I ever give Microsoft another nickel of my money.

They certainly seem to have learned from the mess that was Vista - I run W7RC right now on my desktop and it's a fine OS. And Office is simply a superior productivity suite (even if dog-slow on a Mac).

[RedImperator]

They certainly seem to have learned from the mess that was Vista - I run W7RC right now on my desktop and it's a fine OS. And Office is simply a superior productivity suite (even if dog-slow on a Mac).

Ha! I'm still carrying a grudge from Windows 98.

Anyway, I use Pages for my writing, and it's a perfectly fine word processor for what I do, especially if, as you said, Word runs like shit on a Mac.

[phongn]

Phongn, what do you use the second (and third?) monitor for?

In general, for more screen real estate. Supreme Commander also handles multiple monitors well and Adobe Lightroom does interesting things with it.

As an addendum to this - I also have code and debugger one one monitor, the application on another. Or multiple virtual machines running. I have great use for multiple monitors.

They certainly seem to have learned from the mess that was Vista - I run W7RC right now on my desktop and it's a fine OS. And Office is simply a superior productivity suite (even if dog-slow on a Mac).

Ha! I'm still carrying a grudge from Windows 98.

Man, that's a long time ago (I pretty much skipped W98 and went from W95 -> NT4). As for MacOS - I have fond ( and very unfond ) memories of legacy MacOS and how easily it could crash due to its lack of modernness (cooperative multitasking, unprotected memory...) The modern NeXT-in-new-clothing incarnation is pretty robust, of course.

Anyway, I use Pages for my writing, and it's a perfectly fine word processor for what I do, especially if, as you said, Word runs like shit on a Mac.

It's getting better - the main issue is startup time. It's seriously, absurdly slow. Office 2008 SP2 has improved on it but its still annoying. The Office:Mac team is working hard on that (and bringing back VBA for the next version, hurrah). I think you should learn LaTeX, though

[Alyeska]

UltraMon will do this, though it costs money.

Yeah. Thats is part of the problem. MS should have this integrated. At least some people have found a way to make it work. I have MultiMon. I should give Ultramon another look. Haven't touched it since 2006.

That actually would be pretty neat.

I don't think it would be that difficult. Each desktop could simulate a Remote Desktop to a degree, but an element of seamless integration where you can move between monitors with ease switching to one screen or another, or the ability to stretch some across multiple monitors. I would quite like to see MS explore more multi monitor options in the future.

[Stark]

I just wish Microsoft would integrate better multiple monitor support. Like a real taskbar for the secondary monitors. I would even like to see the secondary monitors be quasi independent desktops where they have their own start menu and anything launched from that desktop stays on that desktop unless you move it to another monitor. Imagine being able to click on Firefox on a monitor and it always launches on just that monitor, but when you pick firefox on the next monitor, it launches a dedicated copy on the next monitor. In the very least, MS should integrate and have a taskbar for each monitor.

This is a fucking good idea. Part of the reason I found multi-monitors lame for general app use was this very lack; the other screens are conceptually secondary, have no taskbar/startbar etc. Hell, for app use, these days you could give each monitor it's own core and 90% of apps would be happy.

[Alyeska]

I just wish Microsoft would integrate better multiple monitor support. Like a real taskbar for the secondary monitors. I would even like to see the secondary monitors be quasi independent desktops where they have their own start menu and anything launched from that desktop stays on that desktop unless you move it to another monitor. Imagine being able to click on Firefox on a monitor and it always launches on just that monitor, but when you pick firefox on the next monitor, it launches a dedicated copy on the next monitor. In the very least, MS should integrate and have a taskbar for each monitor.

This is a fucking good idea. Part of the reason I found multi-monitors lame for general app use was this very lack; the other screens are conceptually secondary, have no taskbar/startbar etc. Hell, for app use, these days you could give each monitor it's own core and 90% of apps would be happy.

It wouldn't be particularly difficult to do either. Remote Desktop features already cover a good chunk of what I suggested. With Multiple Monitor configurations dating back to Windows 98, I really am surprised that Microsoft hasn't done more. The only improvement they have made was back with XP when you could adjust the screen orientation natively. No new changes since then.

[Xisiqomelir]

I would do this except I can't be without a CRT. I have a 24" Westinghouse and an Optiquest 17" Trinitron.

[Laughing Mechanicus]

I just wish Microsoft would integrate better multiple monitor support. Like a real taskbar for the secondary monitors. I would even like to see the secondary monitors be quasi independent desktops where they have their own start menu and anything launched from that desktop stays on that desktop unless you move it to another monitor. Imagine being able to click on Firefox on a monitor and it always launches on just that monitor, but when you pick firefox on the next monitor, it launches a dedicated copy on the next monitor. In the very least, MS should integrate and have a taskbar for each monitor.

This is a fucking good idea. Part of the reason I found multi-monitors lame for general app use was this very lack; the other screens are conceptually secondary, have no taskbar/startbar etc. Hell, for app use, these days you could give each monitor it's own core and 90% of apps would be happy.

I use a program called Ultramon with my setup - it adds a taskbar to the second monitor and adds whole load of other functions that make multi-monitors vastly more useful such as a adding a monitor-switch button to applications which lets you instantly move a window to the other monitor. It also lets you do things like set custom settings for individual programs - so you can have it automatically change settings when you run X game, such as disabling the second monitor (very useful as some games hate it), altering resolution or even changing which monitor is the primary. It also implements proper support for wallpapers and screensavers, allowing you to set a different one for each screen and that sort of thing.

It really makes multi-monitors work vastly better.

There are also a couple of pieces of software available which sound even more like what you might want - one is called Synergy and the other is Multiplicity, and they essentially act like a software based keyboard/mouse switcher for two computers. Specifically this means that when you have two monitors setup side by side (each connected to a seperate PC) you can use them as if they were one multi-monitor setup - your cursor can move seamlessly between the screens, you can copy/paste items between the two screens and, of course, both screens have their own taskbar/startmenu. You can even run different operating systems on each system.

Now I haven't used either of them, and requiring two computers is perhaps a little overkill - but if you had your gaming PC and then something else lightweight (perhaps a laptop) for internet antics, and connected them together with these then it could become pretty useful.

[Starglider]

I use dual monitors on my workstation so that I can have either the code on one screen and the program (i.e. Firefox for a web app, or the AI knowledge base visualiser) on the other. However, when I am gaming on my 360 (on the big projector screen at home) I have my laptop open at least half the time. Either for maps and keeping track of what items/secrets I've found (Fallout 3, Saints Row 2 etc), or for walkthroughs on games hard enough that I get stuck on bits or with easily missable secrets (e.g. GoW2). So I can infer that if I was still doing much PC gaming, it would be useful to have that stuff on a second monitor. I guess it would kill immersion having a bright screen-o-text next to the game display, instead of as a comparatively tiny screen down next to my lap, but then I find the PC keyboard/monitor setup much less immersive anyway (in the environmental sense).

Now I haven't used either of them, and requiring two computers is perhaps a little overkill - but if you had your gaming PC and then something else lightweight (perhaps a laptop) for internet antics, and connected them together with these then it could become pretty useful.

I've used Synergy2 a lot and it works well. I'm not running a setup like that right now, but when I finally get my two new i7 workstations built I will almost certainly go back to it. Nothing beats two physically separate PCs for developing cluster-based software.

[jcow79]

I WISH I had two monitors at work. All of the other techs here are using multiple monitors but since I'm the low man on the totem pole I am stuck with just one. I'm constantly running multiple apps like filemon, regmon, procexp, and our helpdesk tracking system, so I'm cycling back and forth constantly or having to resize windows so that I can see enough of what I need to see on the screen at once. It doesn't help that as lot of errors that I'm trying to debug INSIST on staying in the forefront so now I'm moving those out of the way too.

At home I have a similar setup to SCRawl. I have my main 20" monitor but I've also got a HDMI cable that connects to my 27" TV so I can watch shows streamed full screen on my TV but can still work or play games on my monitor. I disable the second screen though when I'm not using it or if someone else is actually watching TV

I used to actually USE the 27” TV as my monitor but it’s currently the only working TV at home so it’s become the family TV.

[phongn]

Have you asked for a second monitor? If you can argue for improved efficiency and productivity, you might be able to get it.

[charlemagne]

It would actually be a bit more useful if games supported it well - I don't mean having them use the second screen, but just allowing you to "free" the cursor so you could mouse over onto the other monitor and check a webpage/reply to an IM etc... without forcing the game to minimise, because lots of games hate doing that and take a long time to reload when you maximise them again (or just die).

Having games run in window mode instead of fullscreen should fix this.

[Memnon]

Gnome has two desktops on one monitor, and I find that if I enable top-right notifications from pidgin and rhythmbox, then I can switch screens pretty easily after someone signs in and so on. Of course, it doesn't work with a full-screen app, so I can't play a full screen game and talk at the same time. It's pretty intuitive, all in all, and a definite improvement to the setup I had on XP. So that's kinda like a dual monitor setup, ish.

[Spyder]

Gnome has two desktops on one monitor, and I find that if I enable top-right notifications from pidgin and rhythmbox, then I can switch screens pretty easily after someone signs in and so on. Of course, it doesn't work with a full-screen app, so I can't play a full screen game and talk at the same time. It's pretty intuitive, all in all, and a definite improvement to the setup I had on XP. So that's kinda like a dual monitor setup, ish.

That's like the opposite of dual monitors.

[Edi]

I wish I had two monitors at work too. I have a 19 inch monitor and routinely run 20+ applications as part of the normal workload and even though most of them are browser based, having the extra screen would help with the division of tasks and allow more info to show. We're getting a dual setup later, but no idea just how much later.

At home I have a single 24 inch monitor. Not enough room for a second and no need either. Splitting email and browser roughly half and half works quite well and for writing, a full screen of Open Office Writer allows me to view two pages side by side, which is quite adequate for my needs.