I was thinking that the author was going to be arguing that anything more than 2 screens is a bad idea. (Because seriously, where the heck did my mouse go? I can't find it and it's somewhere on one of these 3 monitors in front of me).
I can't fathom being a professional in the tech world and not having two monitors.
Windows' mouse properties control panel has "Display pointer trails" and "Show location of pointer when I press the Ctrl key" options to make the pomouse pointer more findable.
When this topic comes up I like to chip in to remind the quiet readers that not everyone does the 4k * N screens thing.
I was confused for a long time as to why people seem to need larger and larger screens (not want, but need, it would seem). That changed when recently I had to use a GUI static analysis toolkit on my 1440 screen. It was too small. The GUI wasn't customizable and its usage on my screen was very awkward. Its single window was split into a number of panes, all of which were too small to use comfortably without constant horizontal and vertical panning.
The mentioned GUI's devs created it for big screens. I'd guess that this happens with popular IDEs as well, right? In a way it's about modifying hardware to adhere to software. Sounds backwards.
The reason why a 1440 laptop screen is enough for me is that I use vim and cli for pretty much everything except browsing. That makes my workspace relatively space efficient.
On Windows I recommend using the Inverted (Extra large) scheme for the mouse cursor. It’s dynamic - becomes black on a white background and white on a black background; works with other colors too, even with complex textures. It’s a life saver.
On the same day they shutdown a Chinese activist's zoom account in an act of censorship [1]. I have a hard time accepting this as a coincidence and not paid-for good will. On a side note, I'm really disheartened that everyone is starting to verb Zoom when it's such a foul company.
I work in any kind of position, but never on a chair/desk, I put my laptop on boxes and I move a few meters away during the day, depending on the sun. For me a laptop is perfect: movable, light, silent. I use only the touchpad, no more mouse
Two screens seems like a no-brainer for what I consider the typical HN reader as I think they are likely a software developer.
Especially if the one screen is a laptop screen.
I find myself much more productive having a standard keyboard, mouse, and large monitors. Then when I have to attempt to do my work using just a laptop with no accessories.
I am impressed with the people who are highly productive with a tiny laptop screen. I have seen them in action. Unfortunately that isn't me :(
I haven't used two screens in years! A 4k single display is great for me. I can get two windows side-by-side and that is the most I ever need. If I need more than 2 windows I feel my workflow needs help.
I recently went back to the world of two screens, laptop and external display, after being a 4 screen freak. It's my way of forcing myself to stop lying about being a multitasker and allow myself to focus on one thing, get it done or at least to a state where I can safely walk away from it, and move to the next without excess cognitive load.
Found that the more screens I accumulated the more work I tried doing concurrently, and, well:
Fuck that noise.
MUCH more productive, and feel much less jittery about workload by allowing myself to focus on the cadence of work instead of the volume of work. Boss is happy with it too ;)
I don't know if it's Anne Robinson's legacy, but what on earth does the winky face add to an otherwise serious and reasonable comment?
Are you implying the workload is some form of sexually satisfying your boss, that you're keeping them happy nudge nudge wink wink say no more?
Are you implying sarcasm, that your boss is actually NOT happy with your improved mood and improved productivity?
Are you implying that the boss is "happy", nudge nudge wink wink, so now you're the one getting extra favours, if you know what I mean?
Are you implying you're not more productive, you're doing less, and you're putting on a sham act which your boss is falling for?
I'm trying to imagine someone actually saying in-person "I rethought my workflow and now I'm calmer and more productive. And my boss is happy with it too". and then winking at me. And me not feeling skeeved out by it.
The winky face was just some fun and levity and on those terms, I really would not encourage trying to unpack the emoticon knapsack. Things tend to get weird. Have a good one! :)
and if that's not the most frustrating reply I could put to that, because of the winky face, I don't know what is. btw, after reading all of the entire comment ... wink wink, not serious, just kidding, gotcha!
I've really come to love ultrawides with a nice tile window manager (currently amethyst on MacOS). Reduces the need to either have my head tilted towards one of the screens, or move between them.
I've also got an ipad with sidecar as a second monitor for always on things like spotify or the occasional zoom.
The funny thing is I work so much better with just the single 13" screen on my laptop. Every window I work with is maximized and allows me to focus on one thing at a time.
About the only thing I use a second screen for is videoconferencing.
But, to each their own. Everyone's work style is different.
Primary 4k monitor center of desk; macbook on a stand to the side. Put the speaker video fullscreen on the macbook and now you are making eye contact when you are looking at them, and not when you're not.
When the pandemic started I left a couple of my monitors at the cowork space where I had my desk, and had to do with what I had at home (one 1920 x 1080 and another at 1366 x whatever).
I had another monitor lying around, and eventually I plugged it into my box as well.
As I didn't have a way to keep the monitor in a decent position... I put it as a "console" window, almost on level to the keyboard and right in the space between it and the larger monitor I had.
Eventually I went to pick my stuff from the cowork, so now I have 3 HD monitors arranged in portrait mode side by side; and I still crave for the "console" window.
Although I do reckon I wouldn't mind having a 4K monitor, but the price of those in my country are prohibitive (To the tune of +400 USD last time I checked).
Also I'm looking forward to the point that I can buy a decent VR headset, and then I think I'll be at a point of no return.
I've recently upgraded to a 27" 4k monitor (luckily work paid), and it's actually made a surprisingly big difference. The main advantage being much better text legibility, which enables me to fit a lot more on the screen in practice.
I'd love to have 2 or 3, but alas I don't think my MacBook is powerful enough to handle it (even aside from the expense)
I have a 6-monitor stand at home filled with 24" monitors in a 2x3 grid. It's amazing, and yet I still don't have enough room for everything. I want 8.
> I can only focus on one thing at a time. Managing windows and which screens they are on is an overhead I don’t need to deal with.
I find that having different things live on different monitors (and virtual desktops on those monitors) helps me focus on things more easily. E-mail/calendar/Jira is on my side monitor, whereas my main one is filled only with my editor and terminal. It helps because I can _avoid thinking about_ things that aren't on my main screen, until such time as I need a break and deliberately shift focus.
Is there a reason you don't simply put them on a virtual desktop and switch to that desktop instead of turning your head to look at a different monitor?
Maybe it's my slightly lowered perception threshold, but having a screen in my peripheral vision where e.g. new emails could be seen wouldn't be useful: I'd still see that a new email has arrived and would still need to decide whether I want to look at it now or whether that can/has to wait. And that's only a small step away from having a popup notification on my main screen about a new email.
I've found switching between four or five virtual desktops (e.g. when I'm using the laptop without any extra monitors) is more annoying. I'm not sure why but I think it's the extra hassle of switching between three things, vs only two.
I definitely agree that large single screens are better in some cases, but not everyone can afford a 27” 4K monitor. I can however, afford the 1080p monitor I found at the thrift store. Most of the time I use my second screen for documentation, anyways - I don’t have to interact with it heavily.
For me, the second screen isn't there for me to focus on. It's there to keep the focus on the main screen. I keep my less-used programs (spotify, discord, etc) on the secondary display so I don't have to constantly alt-tab on my main display.
I have a work notebook, so the second screen in my setup is the notebook screen. This screen is there anyway, so there is no electronic waste. As for the energy, the notebook overall consumes about 10 W during normal use. My estimate for the screen's power usage is about half of that, so maybe 4-6 W. To put that into perspective, my body's baseline energy usage is 90 W.
I do also have two screens: one laptop for work and one PC for personal usage (my company does not allow me to use the laptop for personal usage). Individually we can all find "mitigating factors" but collectively we failed finding the right balance between comfort and sustainability.
The multi-screen trend is now pursuing its mainstreamification to every offices and home desktops. But at the same time Earth is sending us warnings: we need to slow down. Given the state of our knowledge on that matter, I am surprised that the general consensus on YN is not to have less screens and reserve the resources to better usage.
I second this. The tech team at my company has become increasingly more reliant on Teams, but I don't always see the notifications. Having a dedicated Teams monitor helps he me catch things in my peripheral that might otherwise go unnoticed. It also means I can shift my point of focus throughout the day, by looking over at the secondary monitor to catch up on anything I've missed in the last 10-15 minutes. I know the idea of changing focus to help eyestrain is more geared towards looking at things much further away, but every little bit helps.
> Productivity? I can only focus on one thing at a time. Managing windows and which screens they are on is an overhead I don’t need to deal with.
I have two 28" 4K external monitors, and both are completel covered in multiple windows for the one thing I am working on right now (well, would be if I wasn't posting this).
It really depends on what your workflow is like and what constitutes a "thing".
I get these when I have monitors unbalanced off to one side and have my head constantly turned in that direction. On the other hand I've had 5-wide monitor setups and been fine, because they were properly balanced.
> Managing windows and which screens they are on is an overhead I don’t need to deal with.
Conversely, constantly managing which windows are on top and visible is overhead I don't need to deal with. I use a quad 4k 29" monitor setups at minimum these days, and bought the extra monitors for workplaces that won't provide them. I want documentation, my IDE, my fullscreen game I'm debugging, etc. all visible at once without the need to constantly alt+tab around.
In many cases I yearn for a 5th monitor. Debugging networked stuff, for example, might benefit from two debuggers, two fullscreen games, and then I'm already forced to split monitors if I want documentation. For desktop games I can at least split one monitor between two game windows - although that's not an option for console dev, typically, unless I want to resort to even more fiddly picture-in-picture nonsense...
EDIT: I'll also print off sheet music single-sided so all pages are visible at once - and so I don't have to raise my hands off the instrument to flip pages. Same principle IMO - place stuff in a relatively stable configuration once up front, so it's not constantly interrupting my flow.
What do you mean by "unbalanced" and "balanced" here? I'm curious because I've recently started to suspect some neck pain may be due to the way I have my two desktop monitors placed.
The trick is to designate one screen as "main" and keep it centered to view. Then have a secondary screen for notes, email etc off to one side, generally opposite to your mouse hand.
I mean how my head twists and turns relative to my body/keyboard/mouse throughout the day.
So, for example, a primary monitor in front and two secondary monitors to the left can be problematic for me - my main content might be front and center, but constantly looking off to the left only, and not the right, causes problems.
Balance it with another monitor or two on the right - and moving content over there as well - and I won't have any issues, even if I'm still using the leftmost monitor some.
But then, I can cause problems with that same setup - if for example I have only the leftmost monitor(s) connected to a Mac Mini, and end up doing a bunch of iOS/OS X dev/porting/debugging in a row. When I first had problems, I was using Synergy - I stopped doing that as much in favor of a second keyboard/mouse, or shelling into that machine (despite it being on my desk!)
Agree with you. I have a three 24” (or is it 26?) monitors setup back in the office. Being stuck at home for a while, I bought an ultrawide 32” 4K for my home. Even with my ageing laptop being able to only drive it at 30hz, I vastly prefer the single 4k to the three monitor setup (I think the actual pixel real estate is larger even if the physical surface is smaller).
I have a curved Samsung U32R590; got it for ~£370. It is pretty nice, but the black is at best light gray. It doesn't matter for work (which is the primary reason I bought it), but it might be an issue for watching movies. Only other issue I had is that my aging x220 couldn't do 4k with displayport-to-HDMI adapter I had at home and I had to buy a proper displayport cable.
It wasn't my first choice (I was interested in some more expensive BenQ models), but when I bought it the options on amazon (or elsewhere, really) were limited. Still I would buy it again.
edit: also, I called it ultrawide, but while wider (and curvier) than other monitors, it is not actually ultrawide.
I know to each his own but multiple screens is kind of a must for web dev. I'd like my main screen to be a regular 1920x1080 "27 and have two 24" screens flipped. One for documentation, one for coding and one for the actual browser.
I even make use of three screens for Rust dev. One for documentation, one for the editor and one for execution.
I've been sharing this tip (joining an online meeting using two devices / screens) ever since the beginning of WFH. I will join a meeting using my phone as the camera and have the UI set to display a grid of faces. I will join that same meeting using my PC and have the UI set to display whatever the presenter is projecting. This lets me minimize the parallax when I'm talking to someone and it lets me use my 43" monitor to see whatever it is that the presenter is projecting (often in some tiny font because ... we're all learning).
This works for both Zoom and Teams - I haven't tried other meeting solutions.
I'm doing something similar. I have a laptop for communications (mainly Zoom, but a bit of Cisco SeeMe as well) and an iMac for remoting into my work machine. Many times I put Zoom on full screen on the laptop, it's great. The screen dedicated to work is not very large (24in), can't wait for a new iMac to be released so I can upgrade. But for the time being, I can function.
The nice thing about a laptop is that it has a much bigger screen than my phone, but the tradeoff in the phone case is that I can't see the other people as clearly when I'm looking at a 4-box of people. The tradeoff in the laptop case is that (usually) laptops have a pretty crappy integrated webcam.
Another solution that I'm going to experiment with sometime soon is to use my iPad Pro as the video conferencing device so that I can (hopefully - haven't tried yet) see a 9 box of people on the device. It's probably a step down in video quality for other folks looking at me, but that's OK :)
I do this too, but for more practical reasons. I work from home normally, and I like being able to move around (while the video is off). So, connecting from my phone is my default.
Also, when I’m the one presenting (from the big screen), I can see what everyone else sees on my phone. This helps a lot. You then know when slides actually changed, how big things are, etc.
I use a laptop and an iPad that way. Instead of being fixed I can go to a convenient corner, esp if my gf has a meeting at the same time.
Another trick that works well is to use my phone as the Zoom camera. There are a bunch of apps you can use (why? Quicktime can just connect to the phone) but I simply connect in multiple times.
I stopped using multiple monitors when I started using a keyboard-driven tiling window manager. At the time I had a 3-monitor setup in my office. I found that it was more efficient to switch applications by keyboard than to turn my head. I have used a single monitor ever since. At times I put 2 windows side-by-side, but mostly I display a single window at a time.
In other screen-related news, I recently ditched my LG 24” 4K display and replaced it with Sidecar and one of my iPads. What a change in perspective! While with the large external display, my MacBook’s internal display felt like an irritating afterthought.
An iPad screen is much closer in size to the MacBook display, and I find I make better use of this more balanced setup than I did my very lopsided previous big monitor and small laptop display configuration. Less can be more.
NB: Sidecar sometimes flakes out on wakeup, so it’s not a total win.
They're not exactly clear about it, but I think the use case they're getting at is that you can have one screen for videoconferencing and a second one for materials that are being presented. We had a setup like this at my office that I miss. If you're in a lot of meetings, it's nice to have a powerpoint slide or a screenshare in full screen, while still having the video streams up for questions and discussion.
You might think, well if you're just using FancyZones to split the screen up again doesn't that take you back to close to a two monitor setup, but the key is the flexible sizing. I have a main pane centrally for core focus and then I have really small side windows for scripts, upcoming reminders, and a bigger side section for calendar and chat, which are both handy to glance at (eg to confirm things during calls)
I honestly think it'll be a struggle to compete with "home me" when I go back to the office, as it's just so much better. A certain amount may be a placebo effect but I sense the effect all the same!
As a maker (and permanent remote worker, even before COVID-19), I am constantly struggling to convince people to have fewer meetings, and having a second screen for the meetings I do have, isn't the answer: the answer is fewer meetings!
I know this whole "remote-work" thing is somehow new to people, but, in a word: evolve!
I am so not into a second screen that I have embarked on using a cellular-capable tablet as my sole device, so that I can do work anywhere, anytime. The "home office" with multiple monitors is not the answer to remote-work, doing your job with simple tools, is. But, of course, this is just my opinion.
One does not disqualify the other. Over time, I managed to get my weekly calls from 10+ to 4. That’s great.
At the same time, if I’d lose my second screen, I’d lose more productivity than I gained from all the won time. I think most dev related jobs benefit greatly from a 2nd monitor. I couldn’t imagine working on a website, having an IDE open, browser dev tools etc. and constantly alt-tabbing between all of those.
I have done the command-tab, command-tilde, control-arrow (for workspaces) dance for years (and it is so ingrained in me, that sometimes a second monitor makes things worse). But my point was more in reference to Fred's notion that this "new normal" of remote meetings via video somehow requires a second screen. To that I say, if you are a manager, yes, sure thing! Otherwise, no.
Just to be clear, he decided he needed a second screen after he decided he needed a second home, and a home office with a separate room for a video-conference app.
He may be right that the second screen helps. But maybe it's worth saying it in a way that isn't tied in with a level of wealth that signals that his problems are often unlike most people's problems.
Im a big fan of using a single ~36" 4k display. The pixel pitch ends up being about the same as for a typical 1080p monitor, but it comfortably fills the whole field of view without bezels. Any larger and its uncomfortable to read the edges without moving.
81 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 137 ms ] threadI can't fathom being a professional in the tech world and not having two monitors.
Windows' mouse properties control panel has "Display pointer trails" and "Show location of pointer when I press the Ctrl key" options to make the pomouse pointer more findable.
I was confused for a long time as to why people seem to need larger and larger screens (not want, but need, it would seem). That changed when recently I had to use a GUI static analysis toolkit on my 1440 screen. It was too small. The GUI wasn't customizable and its usage on my screen was very awkward. Its single window was split into a number of panes, all of which were too small to use comfortably without constant horizontal and vertical panning.
The mentioned GUI's devs created it for big screens. I'd guess that this happens with popular IDEs as well, right? In a way it's about modifying hardware to adhere to software. Sounds backwards.
The reason why a 1440 laptop screen is enough for me is that I use vim and cli for pretty much everything except browsing. That makes my workspace relatively space efficient.
On Windows I recommend using the Inverted (Extra large) scheme for the mouse cursor. It’s dynamic - becomes black on a white background and white on a black background; works with other colors too, even with complex textures. It’s a life saver.
[1] http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
1-https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23480918
Such perceptions are notoriously unreliable. I know this from having spent countless hours looking at data on this kind of thing in an HN context.
Especially if the one screen is a laptop screen.
I find myself much more productive having a standard keyboard, mouse, and large monitors. Then when I have to attempt to do my work using just a laptop with no accessories.
I am impressed with the people who are highly productive with a tiny laptop screen. I have seen them in action. Unfortunately that isn't me :(
Found that the more screens I accumulated the more work I tried doing concurrently, and, well:
Fuck that noise.
MUCH more productive, and feel much less jittery about workload by allowing myself to focus on the cadence of work instead of the volume of work. Boss is happy with it too ;)
Are you implying the workload is some form of sexually satisfying your boss, that you're keeping them happy nudge nudge wink wink say no more?
Are you implying sarcasm, that your boss is actually NOT happy with your improved mood and improved productivity?
Are you implying that the boss is "happy", nudge nudge wink wink, so now you're the one getting extra favours, if you know what I mean?
Are you implying you're not more productive, you're doing less, and you're putting on a sham act which your boss is falling for?
I'm trying to imagine someone actually saying in-person "I rethought my workflow and now I'm calmer and more productive. And my boss is happy with it too". and then winking at me. And me not feeling skeeved out by it.
Edit: I do love me some Anne Robinson though.
and if that's not the most frustrating reply I could put to that, because of the winky face, I don't know what is. btw, after reading all of the entire comment ... wink wink, not serious, just kidding, gotcha!
I've also got an ipad with sidecar as a second monitor for always on things like spotify or the occasional zoom.
About the only thing I use a second screen for is videoconferencing.
But, to each their own. Everyone's work style is different.
I’ll take one decent sized (27” for me) 4K screen over two. Completely solved all problems.
Productivity? I can only focus on one thing at a time. Managing windows and which screens they are on is an overhead I don’t need to deal with.
When the pandemic started I left a couple of my monitors at the cowork space where I had my desk, and had to do with what I had at home (one 1920 x 1080 and another at 1366 x whatever).
I had another monitor lying around, and eventually I plugged it into my box as well.
As I didn't have a way to keep the monitor in a decent position... I put it as a "console" window, almost on level to the keyboard and right in the space between it and the larger monitor I had.
Eventually I went to pick my stuff from the cowork, so now I have 3 HD monitors arranged in portrait mode side by side; and I still crave for the "console" window.
Although I do reckon I wouldn't mind having a 4K monitor, but the price of those in my country are prohibitive (To the tune of +400 USD last time I checked).
Also I'm looking forward to the point that I can buy a decent VR headset, and then I think I'll be at a point of no return.
I'd love to have 2 or 3, but alas I don't think my MacBook is powerful enough to handle it (even aside from the expense)
I find that having different things live on different monitors (and virtual desktops on those monitors) helps me focus on things more easily. E-mail/calendar/Jira is on my side monitor, whereas my main one is filled only with my editor and terminal. It helps because I can _avoid thinking about_ things that aren't on my main screen, until such time as I need a break and deliberately shift focus.
Maybe it's my slightly lowered perception threshold, but having a screen in my peripheral vision where e.g. new emails could be seen wouldn't be useful: I'd still see that a new email has arrived and would still need to decide whether I want to look at it now or whether that can/has to wait. And that's only a small step away from having a popup notification on my main screen about a new email.
The multi-screen trend is now pursuing its mainstreamification to every offices and home desktops. But at the same time Earth is sending us warnings: we need to slow down. Given the state of our knowledge on that matter, I am surprised that the general consensus on YN is not to have less screens and reserve the resources to better usage.
I have two 28" 4K external monitors, and both are completel covered in multiple windows for the one thing I am working on right now (well, would be if I wasn't posting this).
It really depends on what your workflow is like and what constitutes a "thing".
Are they windows you need to look at at the same time?
I get these when I have monitors unbalanced off to one side and have my head constantly turned in that direction. On the other hand I've had 5-wide monitor setups and been fine, because they were properly balanced.
> Managing windows and which screens they are on is an overhead I don’t need to deal with.
Conversely, constantly managing which windows are on top and visible is overhead I don't need to deal with. I use a quad 4k 29" monitor setups at minimum these days, and bought the extra monitors for workplaces that won't provide them. I want documentation, my IDE, my fullscreen game I'm debugging, etc. all visible at once without the need to constantly alt+tab around.
In many cases I yearn for a 5th monitor. Debugging networked stuff, for example, might benefit from two debuggers, two fullscreen games, and then I'm already forced to split monitors if I want documentation. For desktop games I can at least split one monitor between two game windows - although that's not an option for console dev, typically, unless I want to resort to even more fiddly picture-in-picture nonsense...
EDIT: I'll also print off sheet music single-sided so all pages are visible at once - and so I don't have to raise my hands off the instrument to flip pages. Same principle IMO - place stuff in a relatively stable configuration once up front, so it's not constantly interrupting my flow.
So, for example, a primary monitor in front and two secondary monitors to the left can be problematic for me - my main content might be front and center, but constantly looking off to the left only, and not the right, causes problems.
Balance it with another monitor or two on the right - and moving content over there as well - and I won't have any issues, even if I'm still using the leftmost monitor some.
But then, I can cause problems with that same setup - if for example I have only the leftmost monitor(s) connected to a Mac Mini, and end up doing a bunch of iOS/OS X dev/porting/debugging in a row. When I first had problems, I was using Synergy - I stopped doing that as much in favor of a second keyboard/mouse, or shelling into that machine (despite it being on my desk!)
It wasn't my first choice (I was interested in some more expensive BenQ models), but when I bought it the options on amazon (or elsewhere, really) were limited. Still I would buy it again.
edit: also, I called it ultrawide, but while wider (and curvier) than other monitors, it is not actually ultrawide.
I even make use of three screens for Rust dev. One for documentation, one for the editor and one for execution.
This works for both Zoom and Teams - I haven't tried other meeting solutions.
Another solution that I'm going to experiment with sometime soon is to use my iPad Pro as the video conferencing device so that I can (hopefully - haven't tried yet) see a 9 box of people on the device. It's probably a step down in video quality for other folks looking at me, but that's OK :)
Also, when I’m the one presenting (from the big screen), I can see what everyone else sees on my phone. This helps a lot. You then know when slides actually changed, how big things are, etc.
Another trick that works well is to use my phone as the Zoom camera. There are a bunch of apps you can use (why? Quicktime can just connect to the phone) but I simply connect in multiple times.
An iPad screen is much closer in size to the MacBook display, and I find I make better use of this more balanced setup than I did my very lopsided previous big monitor and small laptop display configuration. Less can be more.
NB: Sidecar sometimes flakes out on wakeup, so it’s not a total win.
When I'm on meeting, I'm on meeting.
Actually, like the couch setup from article a lot.
Is this new Slack hell ?
The first screen is 27" away from my eyes with the top of the screen bezel being level with my eyes. This works great.
The second screen is the 23" above the first and is generally used in terminal sessions or when I'm presenting something in a meeting.
The screen on the right is portrait mode. It's only 20" or so, but that doesn't matter. Slack works SO WELL in portrait mode.
The 4th screen on the left is 22" and is 1680x1050. It works fine for email, stuff I need but not immediately.
My total investment in monitors? About $50. I do need two video cards though, but since it's for work, not gaming, that was cheap too.
The monitor on the right is no longer there, it was for my ham radio shack computer, which I now just teamviewer into.
https://imgur.com/lJFITgX
Coupled with FancyZones from PowerToys (https://github.com/microsoft/PowerToys ) it's even better.
You might think, well if you're just using FancyZones to split the screen up again doesn't that take you back to close to a two monitor setup, but the key is the flexible sizing. I have a main pane centrally for core focus and then I have really small side windows for scripts, upcoming reminders, and a bigger side section for calendar and chat, which are both handy to glance at (eg to confirm things during calls)
I honestly think it'll be a struggle to compete with "home me" when I go back to the office, as it's just so much better. A certain amount may be a placebo effect but I sense the effect all the same!
Maker's Schedule, Manager's Schedule http://www.paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html
As a maker (and permanent remote worker, even before COVID-19), I am constantly struggling to convince people to have fewer meetings, and having a second screen for the meetings I do have, isn't the answer: the answer is fewer meetings!
I know this whole "remote-work" thing is somehow new to people, but, in a word: evolve!
I am so not into a second screen that I have embarked on using a cellular-capable tablet as my sole device, so that I can do work anywhere, anytime. The "home office" with multiple monitors is not the answer to remote-work, doing your job with simple tools, is. But, of course, this is just my opinion.
At the same time, if I’d lose my second screen, I’d lose more productivity than I gained from all the won time. I think most dev related jobs benefit greatly from a 2nd monitor. I couldn’t imagine working on a website, having an IDE open, browser dev tools etc. and constantly alt-tabbing between all of those.
He may be right that the second screen helps. But maybe it's worth saying it in a way that isn't tied in with a level of wealth that signals that his problems are often unlike most people's problems.