Well, I honestly do such things on one monitor and I don't need more, I don't know what else to say; switching virtual desktops seamlessly is second nature and from this I fail to see the point of having multiple monitors when there is a clever approach to the problem. Shader editor, game engine, IDE, debugger, all of this can fit on a single screen, be peeked when needed to, you can layer stuff, make use of transparency, whatever you want given the appropriate window manager and keybindings server, I prefer to invest on this than on monitors as it seems a clever way to get informations from the computer. You can develop a 3d model by not looking at it when you code, because you are coding and not drawing or sculpting and because what you do is deterministic.

>"Microsoft researchers found that switching to multiple monitor configurations could boost productivity between 9 percent and 50 percent2. Tech consultant Jon Peddie Research reported that *users of multiple monitors estimated productivity gains averaging 42 percent3*."

>"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.

These studies show how people with mediocre window manager and that doesn't know how to manage their windows benefits from a second screen. That's not my case and I am pretty sure I could show that one monitor is the fastest and most productive environment. I am pretty sure that tiling window managers, clever keybindings that never makes you need to move from the home row, replacement of the mouse by a keyboard based solution and vimification of the desktop are faster on a single monitor, and that they are faster than normal desktop on several monitors.

Are you baiting me into calling you delusional? Because that's exactly what I have to think from all your nonsense comments.

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.

Well, actually the informations you provided are unrelated to what is discussed here, and I shown why by the previous message. My message are perfectly meaningful and I exposed why I think my setup is more productive and efficient than yours, and that 9 monitors are not necessary by any mean.

>Well, actually the informations you provided are unrelated to what is discussed here

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.

You only ignored my claims, and ignored the fact that your "studies" are unrelated and don't take efficient window managers into account, and ignored the fact that I was using a similar setup than yours in the past before finding this current solution, whose productivity is superior. Anecdotes do matter, unrelated studies don't. Now, I do hope microsoft will publish a study taking powerusers of i3/awesome/bspwm into account, because otherwise it seems your pride will force you into cultivating a taste for uneffective and expensive solutions, which wouldn't be a problem if you weren't at the same time showing signs of interest to the subject of what constitutes a good work tool. I wish you the best in life.

Enjoy your sub-optimal computing experience. Goodbye.

Hi, this answer feels immature and unconstructive to the discussion; I don't understand how and why you continue to treat my setup as "sub-optimal" when I described why it was that great, and you treated me as a "troll" while sourcing unrelated information. Could you please explain what is going on with you, and why you seem that upset by this discussion ?

Enjoy your sub-optimal computing experience. Goodbye.

> one monitor is the fastest and most productive environment

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 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.

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.

> My dream actually is to have one monitor. A single 65" curved 8k screen

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

About 4 to 5 feet, and I will turn my head 0 degrees. "Head turning" isn't a thing with large/multiple monitors. It's a manufactured problem by people who think multiple monitors are somehow bad or evil or just have never used them.

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.