But those aren't visible at the same time since you can't fit your whole 9 monitors in your field of view and focus on them at the same time. You can only focus and work only on a monitor at a time, and so you need to constantly switch monitors, meaning the monitors you aren't looking at each moment are basically a redundant waste.

I don't judge, whatever floats your boat. But I managed to replace multi monitor setups with virtual desktops and shortcuts. Way cheaper and more space efficient, and more ergonomic since I don't need to keep my neck at an angle all the time to the monitors on the side, but always to the one and only in the middle.

Or turn your head and track faster than you can jump back and forth between several overlapping windows?

That’s also bit like saying you don’t need a monitor bigger than your fovea, because you can only read in your fovea.

Eye movement, head movement, and internal tracking a good part of a sphere of awareness around ourselves are what our visual system - physical and mental - were designed to be extremely fast at.

Just because we can see movement on the outer ends of our field of view to see predators, doesn't mean I can also comfortably stare at code via the side of my eyes. Filed of focus != field of view. Yeah, I can see nearly 180 degrees, but I can only comfortably focus for work on what's in the center of my FoV.

This is not what I suggested. I never suggested coding in your peripheral vision, and to suggest it is just trolling.

I have long-running tasks in windows open around and I need to know when they update. Peripheral vision works extremely well for this, but having the window submerged under the code I'm working on behind dozens of other windows, I would never see it. then I'm forced to have my code at half the width of a tiny screen so I can see the long-running task progress in another half of a tiny screen? No Thank You. I'll take multiple screens all day long for the complex development work I do.

But sure, go ahead and invent whatever you want out of what I said to win a pointless internet argument, I don't care. I just won't be replying anymore.

My three 32" 4k screens are equivalent to 6 pretty big 24" screens, essentially one big 55" screen and sitting with my head against my chair's headrest I my eyes can see every corner of all of it without having to move my neck one millimeter, my eyes effortlessly move around and I can see all the data. Maybe you have some kind of problem with your eyes that prevents that, but it's absolutely easy to find the data I need with zero additional effort.

It's way more efficient than having 1 screen and locating the data required constantly. The difference in friction is very noticeable and painful when I'm only on one screen because it does slow me down, and there's no way around that for anyone, one screen always means more cognitive load and higher latency to getting the data in front of your eyes. Shortcuts and virtual desktops don't change that. And, often things happen that I catch in my peripheral vision, like console logs I'm expecting to happen, that I wouldn't be able to catch if the window isn't visible.

Sorry but you'll never convince me that 1 monitor is in any way superior to multiple monitors, it just does not compute.

NEITHER DO I. I don't know how much clearer I can make that, yet you still refuse to understand.

><super + ]> and the screen for the web browser appears in front of my eyes. To be fair, on my keyboard super + ] is right thumb + right index finger. I have shortcuts for every program that I use, and every program that I use has its virtual desktop binded to some key combination on what is a very weird keyboard.

None of this is relevant to me in the least. I don't have to do any of it, because all the info I need is already in view of my eyeballs >>without moving my head at all<<, as if that's even some kind of manufactured inconvenience.

>And I maintain that a small screen is perfect for redacting code (and I had a similar setup of yours in the past).

Sure, if all you do is interact with one single text editor, and not any of the many other screens that modern development requires.

Having this conversation with you is pointless, enjoy your mediocre computing experience.

And I can see more going on at the same time. It's absolutely more efficient than a single screen for my complex development needs.

There's just so many workflows that are so much better with multiple displays, but you really just can't see it? I'm sorry, but you have a mediocre computing experience, and I know it, because I have a laptop and I know what using one screen is like vs. efficiently being able to see more data at the same time. I know all the tricks, I've been computing for 40+ years. I also know that hardware is cheap, and my time is not cheap, and more information being displayed definitely does increase my efficiency.

I was just developing a 3d model using OpenJSCAD with code in one window, and a view of the 3D model in 2 perspectives in 2 other windows. I write code, hit save, and see the 3d model update, and it's a very visual oriented thing, switching windows so I can see the result would remove my ability to see the updates happen, which informs me that the model is updated correctly. I also have a debugger window open and other windows that I always need to see all the time. You just can't do this with a single screen, it's not possible without cutting the screen up into tiny sections or constantly flipping between them which is DX friction. It's simply an excruciatingly cramped experience to get what I have within a single screen, and no mental gymnastics you could do would change that.

>"98% of users preferred a dual monitor configurator to a single monitor."

https://www.ie-uk.com/blog/how-multiple-monitors-affects-pro...

>"FAIRLY INEXPENSIVE PRODUCTIVITY BOOSTER Purchasing another display is a fairly low investment when looking at technology. Monitors range in price based on size and specification but typically a suitable one can be purchased from £200. And with a 42% average productivity boost, it can provide a great ROI. Even an ultrawide monitor with a built in dock to reduce desk clutter only costs around £600."

https://itfoundations.com/are-two-monitors-really-more-produ...

>"A study in 2017 by Fujitsu Siemens Computers analyzed whether multiple monitors boosted productivity. The company found that two monitors increased productivity by 25 percent compared to single-monitor setups. Workspaces equipped with three displays can increase productivity by 35.5% >This study was further backed up by scientists from the University of Utah have shown with their studies on the subject."

https://www.graphicdesigneire.ie/graphic-design-blog/multipl...

>"Over 15 years, Jon Peddie Research conducted three separate studies on the effectiveness of a two-monitor setup compared to using just one monitor. >It found that the overall average productivity boost was 42% when users added that second monitor. >The firm also found that between 2002 and 2017, there’s been a significant rise in the use of two monitors, with a compound annual growth rate of 10%. The company’s namesake put it simply saying, “The more you can see, the more you can do.”"

https://www.cloudavize.com/dual-monitor-setup-productivity/

> 1. Increase Productivity

> 2. It’s More Enjoyable!

> 3. Excellent for Meetings

> 4. Make Fewer Errors

> 5. Reduces Switchtasking Time

> 6. Cutting & Pasting

> 7. Better for Team Work

> 8. Helps Maintain Focus

> 9. Sharing Data

https://www.cloudavize.com/dual-monitor-setup-productivity/

But sure, you're right and everyone else is wrong.

I wonder if you consider an "ultrawide" to be one monitor?

My dream actually is to have one monitor. A single 65" curved 8k screen, sectioned off into about 8 different virtual screens. It's not really about how many screens you have, it's about how many pixels and viewable surface area (screen real estate). I stopped counting my setup in "screens" years ago and count it in megapixels for a long time now. Right now I have 24 million pixels across a 55" area. It's pretty fantastic. I think big, and do big things. I don't know what you do, but you're doing it - according to research - 42% slower than you could be.

Enjoy your trolling elsewhere, this conversation is over. I've supplied very relevant information proving you are wrong, and you've provided nothing but your feels. Enjoy your sub-optimal computing experience. Goodbye.

Only in your trolling mind. You lost this pointless internet argument but you simply cannot accept it.

>My message are perfectly meaningful

Only to you. Your messages are anecdotal and I provided studies that prove most people want multiple monitors exactly because it makes their jobs provably easier than whatever virtual desktop nonsense you have to deal with.

> I exposed why I think my setup is more productive and efficient than yours, and that 9 monitors are not necessary by any mean.

That doesn't mean you aren't completely wrong, because you are completely wrong.

Enjoy your sub-optimal computing experience. Goodbye.

Okay, but ... how big of a monitor? Consider that a 50" 4K monitor is a bit like four 25" 2K monitors. Except that space is undivided.

I agree that it's better to whip around virtual desktops with a hot key than to twist your neck between two monitors. But we have to agree on the monitor size first.

Is it better to have a 24" 2K monitor with a 4x4 virtual desktop, or a 50" monitor with no virtual desktop?

There is one special application that benefits from multiple monitor: when you have to monitor numerous real-time events and respond to them.

If an alarm starts blinking on an object on one of your screens, you notice, even if that screen is in your peripheral vision.

For things that your attention is riveted on, switching virtual desktops is fine.

I have 3 32" screens in portrait, which is the equivalent to one 55" screen. I'm not sure where this "twist your neck" nonsense comes from. I can assure you I never, ever have to "twist my neck" to any degree to see the entirety of my 3 screens. My eyeballs might have to move half a centimeter in either direction, if that much, but no, my neck never has to move at all.

>Is it better to have a 24" 2K monitor with a 4x4 virtual desktop, or a 50" monitor with no virtual desktop?

Why not have a 50" monitor with virtual desktops. I do it all the time, and it's an amazing thing, far better than a single small monitor with a fraction of the pixels/real-estate.

>For things that your attention is riveted on, switching virtual desktops is fine.

Multiple screens is even better.

How far from your face, and how many degrees will you turn your head?

I have a comfortable chair with a headrest, my head sits against the headrest and my eyeballs do all of the moving, my neck doesn't need to move a millimeter to view the entire area of the screen(s).

Neck strain is simply not a thing with multiple monitors unless you have so many monitors that some sit behind you - but that is not what we are talking about. We're talking about 2 or 3 screens or an ultrawide or a large 55" or 65" curved screen sitting in front of you on a desk. None of these scenarios requires turning your neck at all, unless your eyeballs are permanently fixed dead ahead and you cannot move your eyeballs at all due to some serious neurological problem, and then you should go see a doctor.