What's the point of using two monitors?

what's the point of using two monitors?

I never understood this. You constantly have to move your head left to right, sounds terrible.

someone redpill me on it.

Former dual monitor fag here

having two landscape monitors is just dumb, but having your primary as landscape and secondary as portrait really works nicely.

You can have a website or even file explorer in portrait mode and it is just so much easier and space is utilized much better that way.

Ultimately though, just having a 1080p landscape monitor is enough, so that's what i settled with

>You constantly have to move your head left to right, sounds terrible.

lol it's not that bad.

not really necessary if you don't work with multiple windows/programs at once though. for certain types of computer work it's almost required.

It's cheap and looks cool, you get more space. You can save costs on graphics cards because you get all the pixels for the vision on the desktop, but usually only play on one screen (usually), which lowers the resolution being needed to render.

Nowadays, in 2016, you even get LCD screens for free already. So if you do so, hook it up. Used ones cost about 20 to 30 bucks. No single monitor can beat that.

You use one monitor for the main task, and put all your other windows that you would like to keep track of, on the second monitor. Or, if your program has multiple windows, put some windows on second monitor to maximize space on first one. You move your head far less often than you may think right now.

I like having multiple windows accessible without having to tab between them, and my desk is huge anyway.

Notice how most photos of workstations with multiple monitors reveal the use of Microsoft Windows or Ubuntu with Unity.
It's because Windows users, ironically, usually are TERRIBLE at window management. Most of them haven't even heard of virtual desktops, let alone tagging systems as offered by tiling window managers.
Multiple monitors are also a sign of low attention span and ADHD.
Linus Torvalds wrote the original i386 Linux kernel on a single CRT and he's still using only a single monitor to this date.
Multiple monitors, generally, are for:
a) gamers
b) posers
c) incompetent developers

If you're a fat and lazy piece of shit that can't even turn his head an inch to multitask, you don't even deserve an additional monitor.

You can have more stuff on the screen at once. So instead of shuffling between different windows, you just look over at the other screen. Have several source files open at once so you can easily look at any of them. Have code up with documentation in a web browser at the same time. Play a game with a walkthrough up on the other screen. etc.

Ok heres how you really do it. Buy a 4k 40in korean monitor and join the master race.

what the hell am I supposed to be "keeping track of" that is so important that I can't use my mouse and click on the taskbar?

try it out, how are we supposed to explain it to you

It's not necessary if all you do with your computer is browse the internet, but if you use it for anything involving creation (i.e. recording music, graphic design, editing videos, etc) it becomes impossible to use it on anything BUT a multi-monitor setup. Seriously, you do NOT want to set up a recording studio with just one monitor. It becomes a special kind of cramped hell.

>c) incompetent developers

I'm a web developer who always has the following open when working:

1) terminal
2) text editor
3) at least once browser for testing whatever I'm working on
4) a browser window for searching various shit on SO, etc.

you're telling me it's better to shuffle between those rather than see them all at once?

or just press Meta-[1234567890] and switch to one of your 10 virtual desktops in milliseconds.

think of it like a literal desk. You might be signing invoices or something and slide something out of the way

just because you have an 8 ft by 3 ft desk doesn't mean you can't focus on 1 piece of paper. you'll have a telephone, picture of your kids, a fucking sales award idk

you can still use only one monitor and slide your media player, your pornography, the drudge report over to where you can grab it if you need it

You're never reading both monitors at the same time. So why have two?
Just use virtual desktops and tiling.

As a net eng there is no fucking way I could get by with less than 2 monitors.. far too much to keep an eye on.

...

I'm convinced that using two monitors on a daily basis will fuck up your neck. You're not supposed to be sitting still and move your neck left and right every second for 10 hours at a time. You guys are fucked.

My second monitor is an old mid-2000's 4:3, usually it is for playing music or playing a video that doesn't require my full attention, but once I started getting into video and audio editing the second screen become really useful. I would say a second monitor is necessary for editing because the software itself will take up one screen and finding the media for it, as well as looking up files or tutorials online on the second monitor is a godsend. If you are using a chat or stream then it won't require your full attention, so drag that to the second monitor so you can monitor the chat/stream without tab switching.

Also, slightly looking to your left moves your head less than 30 degrees, your body will not feel terrible from it, you do more head movement when you lean back or forward in your chair.

Ohhh you are such a bitch, falling for the tile meme

Nah.

If that was enough to destroy the human neck, we wouldn't have gotten past the stone age.

Explain to me why using virtual desktops is somehow an alternative to using dual monitors? Why not just a single physical desktop m8??

>got a second monitor for the first time ever
>has only been turned on for maybe 5 hours since I got it 3 weeks ago

Don't buy stuff if you don't know how to utilize it.

>3 weeks
I got my first second monitor at around 2008. Took me around a year to use it efficiently. I just recently purchased another 1440p monitor to make it a 3 monitor setup. I hooked up one to an arm to move it freely around my desk. I could not be any more happier

Linus Torvalds develops the world's largest open source project with a single monitor.
Sup Forums plays video games and develops "web apps" on 3 monitors.

>efficiently
Virtual desktops?
Tiling?

Because having just one monitor feels lonely. Just like says. One in portrait and one in landscape is great.

The point is optimizing your workflow and organizing your work environment in a logical way.
People who say that having two monitors is a meme are obviously (man)children who havent done any complex task that requires observing multiple datasets at the same time.
Cloning dna is hell on one monitor, where you need to have a bunch of sequences open at the same time and keep track of exact nucleaotide positions. Switching windows destroys your concentration and often leads to mistakes and requirea you to double check everything.

Its only a meme if you are a 12 yo gaymer or a bottom of the food chain office clerk. If you do actual work that involves a lot of actions then having them always leads to increased productivity and work comfyness

You could have just said that you have to sell your soul to Satan to get multiple monitors working under Linux, especially if their orientation doesn't match.

see

First display - ide, second display - documentation.

>12,000 BCE
>hunting for dinner
>see deer and pull back bow
>see another deer nearby, try to decide which dear to hunt
>look back and forth between them, suddenly hear shuffling in the grass behind me and start looking all around me in fear
>from twisting neck too much while hunting my neck snaps and blood shoots out as I lose consciousness
>man was not made to be aware of his surroundings, looking at too many things when hunting destroys neck

>You constantly have to move your head left to right
no you dont
unless you're sitting one foot from the monitor you just need to shift your eyes which is alot better than alt tabbing

Writing a word and putting a question mark next to it isn't asking me a question. If you're asking me if I use virtual desktops, the answer is no. I like to keep all my programs under one interface.

>standing desk

I tried it just now and shifting my eyes left and right is pretty painful.

I used to have 2 16:9 24" 1080p monitors side by side.
That shit took up wayyy to much space, but it was nice, then I realized that I never really used the 2nd screen.
I replaced the 2nd screen with a small 17" 4:3 dell monitor I got from school. That was alot better.
When I play vidya games, I'll have my discord, hwmonitor, obs, and other shit running on the 4:3 monitor.

I doubt you're using your monitor(s) efficiently without virtual desktops and optionally tiling.

perhaps you should get that checked out then that doesn't sound good
are you able to move your eyes to focus on different parts of the same monitor or is that painful aswell?

I'm convinced that NOT moving your neck and eyes destroys both your neck and your eyesight.

fine on one monitor. If I try to move my eyes right and left instead of using my neck, it slightly "hurt".

It's nice to have two monitors if you're a gaming streamer. One screen for gaming the other for OBS streaming software and chatroom.

Kek
RIP hunting man, you will be missed

I use dual 24". Sure, you need to turn your head left-right and it's not ideal nor optimal, but my work involves lotsa word, excel, pdfs, web browsing, kinda like light research if you will.
I need to copy/paste a lot, and translate things sometimes "on the fly". By using two monitors my productivity is like 40% higher if not more for some of those tasks. It makes life so much easier.
But yeah, ideally I'd love a single ultra wide or similar screen, 38-42". It would be a tad smaller that what I use now, just enough for me to be comfy with it.

Another option is to buy another 25-27" monitor, use it as a central landscape, and flip two existing ones into portrait, but I'm afraid that would be an overkill. Anyone have experience with this kind of setup, 1l + 2p?

You're sitting too close then.

You wouldn't uderstand if you didn't need to.
You're not doing much productive work there, are you?

You wouldn't uderstand if you didn't need to.
You're not doing much productive work there, are you?

>Explain to me why using virtual desktops is somehow an alternative to using dual monitors?

How is it not?

Rotate your head or switch desktops.
The end result is the same

I personally still like dual screens, but I can totally see how some people prefer a single screen with virtual desktops.

Scenario 1:
You type up notes/skeleton for a paper you are writing. You put the notes on one monitor and the text editor you are writing the paper in on the 2nd monitor.

Scenario 2
browse Sup Forums on one monitor while you have your favorite comedy show that you've already watched playing on the 2nd monitor. You can tune into your favorite parts of the tv show in between shitposts

Scenario 3
Doing research, it's easier to have 1 monitor have your web browser/sources and 1 monitor to have your text editor for notes.

Scenario 4
You're streaming yourself playing vidya and you want to be able to see the stream output / comments without minimizing the game

Scenario 5
You're doing some sort of homework on 1 monitor and the prompt/instructions are on the 2nd monitor

I agree that if the monitors are large and spaced out and close to your face then it's annoying to swivel your head back and forth, but if they are smaller and further from your face then it's pretty easy to just flick your eyes over. Faster to flick your eyes over than to take your fingers off of home row for alt+tab

Scenarios 1, 3, and 5 can all be done on one monitor and probably preferable to two unless you're running multiple small monitors in portrait.

>programming
Primary for editor, secondary for documentation
>gaming
Primary for game, secondary for guides
But most of the times, a secondary monitor isn't needed.

>be me
>single monitor fag
>use Arch + i3
>Mod key+ number to switch between virtual desktops
>Mod key + R to resize tiles however I want
>Laugh at wangblows pajeets who fell for the multiple monitor meme
>saved half a grand by not buying inferior OS and unnecessary monitors

Multiple monitor setups are a meme

I only use one screen but one of my friends has dual screens and he watches his stocks on the second screen.

>he has multiple monitors
>$100 walmart or ikea chair

youre probably right, though the sole reason for my extra monitor is so i can play ps4 and shitpost

>t. pleb who never used linux

>Ultimately though, just having a 1080p landscape monitor is enough, so that's what i settled with
Don't listen to this cuck. WQHD is the minimum for being productive nowadays.

define your idea of 'actual work' then disclose your profession.

>inb4 call center

What about 21:9 monitors for productivity?

Grown-ups tend to prefer 16:10, 5:4, 4:3 and 1:1

Do you not have peripheral vision?

You don't move your head, you move your eyes.

>implying I'm not a shitposting and anime watching NEET
>implying I'm not using a $6 5:4 monitor from Goodwill
>implying I won't switch to windows if I wasn't such a poor lazy piece of shit

>web developer
>codemonkey
incompetent by definition

why do you want 2 and half monitors?you cant even power the broken half

>Grown-ups tend to prefer resolutions that cost 3x as much for no other reason than they aren't produced anymore

Actually if you were to go by pure sales figures the vast majority of "grown-ups" as you call them buy and use 16:9 because they don't give a flying fuck as long as their monitor works.

16:10 and 1:1 are still produced.

Because I mostly tile my windows side by side.

I just have my laptop in front of my monitor, so I just have to look up and down. Pretty comfy tbqh with you.

Sure, you can get a 30" 2560x1600 60Hz IPS 16:10 for $1000 or you can get 27" 2560x1440 60Hz IPS 16:9 for $400-600.


Or instead of a nice 3840x2160p 16:9 4k IPS for ~$1000, you could buy a single 1920x1920 Ezio 1:1 monitor

Fantastic value

Aesthetic sense can't be measured in USD.

No but thankfully basic financial intelligence can be evaluated through such means.

The 1:1 monitor is an extremely niche product with a specially made panel, of course it's expensive.
It's not a sensible purchase for most people, but that doesn't make it any less nice.

I'm sure you always choose the cheapest apartment as well. Who cares about aesthetics?

No I go for value per $. I don't go for the cheapest,

Getting the cheapest monitors would mean 20-24" TN 1080p

I have dual 1440p IPS that I got on sale for under $300 each.

How do you determine the value of aesthetics?
Is an original Van Gogh painting worth $50,000,000?

Asthetics is personal and I find 1:1 monitors disgusting, 16:10 I don't find anymore useful than 16:9

I had dual 1920x1200 before upgrading to dual 1440p. If 1600p were the same exact cost as my 1440p, or maybe $50 more expensive, i'd have considered it.

But more than double the cost? Hell more than 3x the cost. I could have gotten 3 of my 1440p dell IPS monitors for $900. A SINGLE 1600p monitor of similar quality is $1000.

>I find 1:1 monitors disgusting
>16:10 I don't find anymore useful than 16:9
Subjective opinions.

That's kinda how aesthetics work user.

Everyone has different tastes and you'll never find something that everyone agrees on so stop arguing for 1:1 and 16:10 as if EVERYONE should obviously know they are superior when 99% of people don't give a shit.

The fact is, 1:1 is scientifically superior as it matches the human field of vision most closely.

>OP is too much of a sissy to move his neck every so often

you can fit more shit

lol what a joke. If a 50" 1:1 4096x4096 monitor existed, sure i'd be tempted to agree.
But no such monitor exists, it likely never will.

Stop memeing for 1:1 and 16:10 just because they're different, you're obviously that annoying asshole in highschool who disagreed with the every fucking technicality they could just to bring attention to themselves.

They're not of comparable quality just because they're both Ultrasharps, the U30** are the highest-end panels Dell uses. aRGB monitors are all very expensive to begin with.

i dont even have to move my head to look at the different monitors, and i use 3

>50" 1:1 4096x4096 monitor
You can use 4x 24" 1:1 1920x1920 monitors.

There are a good amount of 16:10 monitors at 2560x1600 and I think the 4k equivalent of 16:10 as well. Two 2560x1600 monitors would be my ideal setup

He's correct though (almost, 1:1 isn't the best fit).
With a widesceen you either have to fill only a portion of your vision or scan back and forth over the screen which is uncomfortable over long periods.
With a 4:3 monitor, all the content at hand can be accessed more immediately.

$5000 and the bezels would make it shitty looking. Not to mention I can't imagine many programs play nice with 1:1 displays, let alone an array of 4 of them.

UP2516D
and
UP2716D
Both 1440p IPS, both 100% aRGB
and both have ~97% DCI-P3

>Two 2560x1600 monitors would be my ideal setup
Sure that might be your IDEAL setup.

But wouldnt you make the compromise of dual 2560x1440p for $550 instead of dual 2560x1600p for ~$1900+

I have a 28 inch monitor as my main then on the right, about 6 inches lower, i have a 23 inch monitor, I love it because i can now use my nain monitor without it being cluttered by any file browser, music, chat box.

You're right, my knowledge is out of date.

It's fine, I've just gotten tired of the 16:10 and 1:1 meme being pushed hard here in recent weeks as if they're actually a viable alternative to the 16:9 offerings.

Unless you're leaking money from every orifice I can't see the value in ponying up the extra $ for either.

1920x1200 is still viable.

The dominance of 16:9 is unfortunate, it's a terrible ratio that is good for neither movies nor work. I'm very happy that 3:2 is becoming popular.

Show me your landscape and portrait setup.

>he doesn't have a portrait monitor for dedicated shitposting

OSX Sierra - same thing here.

4 fingers flick left and right - new desktop!

Literally no reason to have multiple monitors.