Take the 2-minute tour ×
Programmers Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional programmers interested in conceptual questions about software development. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Why more or less monitors is worse than your configuration?

Why is important use it in this way (position)?

Productivity is obvious, but what specific advantage?

A picture would be nice.


locked by Yannis Dec 21 '13 at 8:48

This question exists because it has historical significance, but it is not considered a good, on-topic question for this site, so please do not use it as evidence that you can ask similar questions here. This question and its answers are frozen and cannot be changed. More info: help center.

closed as not constructive by Walter, Mark Trapp Oct 5 '11 at 16:58

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

I would say that ideally a programmer would need at LEAST ONE monitor to be effective </sarcasm>. The few places I worked where I had more than one monitor I found myself actively using both rarely and even then it was for fringe cases like comparing two web pages on different resolutions. I personally would rather have multiple workstations and a KVM switch as I can quickly switch between OS and other types of envioronments. –  maple_shaft Aug 29 '11 at 11:05

40 Answers 40

up vote 36 down vote accepted

This is my current configuration:

I continue to recommend a triple monitor setup because it gives you a "center", and it's the practical sweet spot (or limit, if you will) for head turning anyway.

how do you typically use those three monitors? email, debugging windows. would really interest me. –  Patrick Klug Sep 23 '10 at 23:06
@bryan Showing it off may be an e-peen thing. Having it is most certainly not. With prices what they are (and my large corner desk) I'm leaning towards this setup more and more. @jeff One vid card or two? –  George Marian Sep 30 '10 at 13:05
I use one for email/messaging... middle for what I'm focused on... left for reference (SQL Query results, Webpage reference, work log). I envy the bigger/newer monitors, but I couldn't live without 3 monitors at work now that I'm used to it. –  WernerCD Oct 7 '10 at 2:41
I love the Portal's Companion Cube. –  Kendall Hopkins Jan 26 '11 at 14:15

I have 3 x 22" for a cumulative resolution of 5760x1200.

And although I wholeheartedly agree with Jeff that three monitors is the sweet spot, I'll probably have to get a fourth monitor when I have a fourth kid.

Three monitors, one for each kid?

As for usage, it's typically:

  1. Docs for whatever API I'm using at the moment
  2. IDE
  3. Web browser for whatever app I'm working on at the moment
+1 for one per kid. –  user1249 Jan 26 '11 at 13:57

There are many factors to consider to answer this question.

1. How your monitors are rotated and placed on your desktop?

If those are wide screens in landscape mode, you can hardly have more than two. Just because your eyes can focus at a limited angle, and motion outside this angle will mostly disturb you and decrease productivity.

Actually I have two wide 22'' and 24'' monitors in landscape mode. If I buy a third one, it would require me to turn my head each time I want to look at it. If I can't see all the workspace at once, what's the point in having more monitors?

On the other hand, portrait-rotated monitors fit well and you can have three or four of them, since you will be able to see the whole workspace from side to side.

2. How many windows can you handle at once?

I can't imagine working with more than three windows at once. Just because my brain will explode. Most of my work is done with two only windows:

  • two pieces of source code,
  • class designer and source code,
  • database schema and source code,
  • browser and source code.

I can deal with three windows, but it's hard. I can't do it with four. If I'll have four windows displayed at once, I'll just forget about one of them, and "switch" mentally to it when need.

3. What is the size of your monitors?

It's not about the number of monitors, but about space.

I often see in some companies developers working with two monitors, one being 21'', the other - 17'' laptop. Theoretically, they have two monitors. In practice, they don't even have one.

If on the other hand you bought two 26'' displays, chances are you'll not need a third one very often.

In theory, one 40'' monitor will be enough. In practice, it's difficult to rearrange windows on a single large monitor (at least in Windows; I heard in Linux it's much easier, but I don't have enough information on that), and your productivity will be affected.

4. Do you have always-on applications?

As a developer, you may have applications which are always running and it would be helpful to show them permanently. For example, time tracking app can be a good candidate. Bug tracking display with auto-refresh is another one. Ideally, you would have those applications running on a small tactile screen positioned on a side where you can watch from time to time.

Would it increase productivity? It depends. It may be useful to see relevant information permanently for some people. For others, it will rather distract them too much and decrease their productivity a lot.


I have dual 17" CRT monitors on my system. Why? Because of productivity.

Productivity can be increased because you have more information in your peripheral vision. Instead of having to constantly switch between files, folders, IDE/editor and browser, IDE/editor and program, etc, you can just drag it to the other screen, glance, and go back to work. It might sound extremely small, but it really does help.

Situations I've used this in

  • IDE in one screen, documentation/guide on other
  • IDE with debugger on one screen, misbehaving program on other
  • IDE in one screen, browser/desktop app in the other'
  • Chat help (IRC) in one screen, something else in other
  • Very long but important progress bar in one screen, something else in other
  • Etc etc etc
CRT? Really?? It makes my eyes hurt... the rest is well argued though. –  Johannes Rudolph Sep 12 '10 at 0:12
I cannot handle CRT's The flicker makes me really sick after an hour or so. A cheap LCD is way better on your eyes –  WalterJ89 Sep 12 '10 at 2:07
A high end or even just a decent CRT kicks the pants off a LCD for color constancy, clarity, lack of motion blur etc. You can get some of this off a high end LCD but that kind of LCD is very pricy (EIZO & cinetal are brands I've had experience with) pity good CRTs are getting as rare as hens teeth. –  Michael Anderson Oct 7 '10 at 4:50

I think that the most important case for having dual monitors is when you are trying to follow a tutorial. Being able to glance at a tutorial on one screen and have your IDE on the other makes it so much easier to follow

An important case, certainly. But, the most important? –  Bevan Sep 30 '10 at 0:23
@Bevan: This is the only case where I really feel the productivity slow down from having to swap –  Casebash Sep 30 '10 at 0:24

Dev machine:
one vertical 23" screen for code
one horizontal 23" for everything else

Test system:
2 machines sharing a 23" horizontal via kvm
Since I work on low level stuff, the host OS gets hosed semi-regularly, hence the extra test machines.

+1 for vertical screen. That trick still amazes people when they see my desk. –  Ryan Hayes Sep 24 '10 at 20:02

This is the first place where I've worked that provided dual monitors. I will never go back to just one. I will make sure to put it in my employment contract the next time I change jobs!

I tend to put some things always in the same monitor (Outlook is on the left, often buried but always there and Excel generally lives on the right), but others move around depending on what I'm doing.

I often have two different versions of SSMS (SQL Server Management Studio) running, one in each monitor which makes it easier for me to compare different things in different databases or lately I am working in two schemas in the same database that has a gazillion tables, so I filter for each schema in the object browser in a differnt SSMS on a differnt monitor. Or one might be for one project and the other for a different project. It is nice to be able to do a quick fix on one screen without losing your place on the task you will be retuning to.

Long running tasks that just need occasional glances to check progress always go on the right.

I also often have the requirements doc open on one side the and SSIS package on the other, to make sure I don't miss any required tasks in my ETL process. Or if I'm creating documentation, I have the word doc on one side and the interface I want to take screen shots from on the other.

Sometimes I have the raw version of a file I'm importing open on one screen so I can compare what the client sent with what is in the database.

If I have a help window open it goes on the right and what I'm working on that I needed help with is on the left.

I find I tend to do more concentrated work on the left and quick reference glances on the right. I think that has to do with the cubicle set-up where the aisle is to my left as I feel the need to see if someone is coming (get attacked in the office and you won't want to work were you can't see who is coming either, it was almost 30 years ago and I still hate having people approach me when I can't see them, they actually had to rearrange the cubes before I could sit here as they faced the wrong direction).


2x24" on portrait position. Some times I rotate one to landscape position.


The answer to your question varies on the type of work you do.
If you are a graphic designer or a stock market analyst, you probably could use even more than three, if you work in a hotel reservations desk or a restaurant order desk one is enough.
For programmers, I feel that 2 monitors is sufficient in 99.9% of the cases. And one monitor is sufficient in more than 90% of the cases. It may look cool to have 10 monitors but it's a real waste and also an eye stress if you only use one of them while the others just sit in front utterly blinding you. But of course it's a personal preference, I can only tell you that in my >100 programmer company no one ever asked for a third monitor but it's pretty common to see dual monitor setups (I also have 2 monitors).



In spite of the studies that show improved productivity for people having dual monitors, my standard is one good quality 24 inch flatscreen.

Why? Because I've always been a full-screen alt-tab guy, able to quickly switch between multiple full-screen applications at a moment's notice.

And because a widescreen 24 inch monitor has enough real-estate that Visual Studio lives quite nicely in it, with Server Explorer and the Toolbox on the left hand side, Project Explorer on the right, Build and Immediate windows in a strip at the bottom, and adequate room remaining in the middle to write some code.

By the way, in a previous life, I worked in a software development company that wrote software for CPA's. CPAs are notorious for keeping computer equipment longer than any human being has a right to, but a few years ago, all of them moved to dual monitors en masse. Why? Because they can now look at a tax return on one monitor, and their tax software on the other.

I have a 24'' widescreen at home, and 2x19'' at work. I've found that the window management the 2 monitors provide for easy moving around and maximizing saves me some time that I spend on the 24'' arranging windows. I can do alt-tab full screen but I've come to prefer tiled windows side by side. There is a program that lets you specify set window positions, and snaps programs to said positions by keyboard shortcuts that I find useful on the 24'': winsplit-revolution.com –  Fanis Sep 12 '10 at 1:08
-1 -- I'm also an alt-tab guy, but on the secondary monitor I keep something I always want on top, under my eyes. The alt-tab is reserved to the primary monitor, where I do the work. –  Lorenzo Sep 12 '10 at 2:04
@Robert I have a strange suspicion that you've never actually worked on dual monitors. I've often met people who don't understand what all the fuss is about with dual monitors until you actually set them up with a second monitor. Never once have I seen someone want to go back to one monitor. –  Nathan Ridley Dec 2 '10 at 12:45

You may need a LOT of monitors depending on what you do, this is a standard issue system for air craft simulation, requires at least eleven:


(from http://www.iconicaircraft.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=219&start=25#p23425)


I use dual 19" LCDs, one has code on it and the other is used for documentation and long-running programs. For short-running programs, I use Tilda on my primary monitor.


2x19'' LCDs @ 1280x1024:

  • IDE + documentation/email/browser
  • IDE + debug window/stacktrace/variables
  • 2 browser windows or 2 IDE windows for comparison/visual checks
  • browser + firebug/wireshark
  • diff 2 files, one in each. Sometimes the horizontal whitespace makes it easier on the eyes

Apart from system folders all programs are run fullscreen. I alt-tab alot but mostly for switching focus between the 2 screens. I've found that I work much faster now that I don't context-shift that much. Letting my eyes follow the focus switch between the 2 monitors makes it much easier to get into whatever the switch to.

Also, 2560x1024 wallpapers look kick-ass :)


I've used two screens before, and presently have an HD monitor on my Fedora workstation, but I actually prefer using a fifteen inch laptop. This lets me take my work with me whereever I go.

I am a freelancer and usually work out of my home. You'd best give up your fantasies about how great telecommuting would be because it is a horrible way to live. It is very isolating and lonely. When does the boss take me out to the lunch with the team? Never. For a beer after work on Friday? Nope. Project T-Shirts? Nada.

Having a laptop enables me to go out in public to work at WiFi spots, so I can be around other humans. That's the only way I could stand to do this work.

I'm considering buying a 17" MacBook Pro as my early 2006 15" MacBook Pro is really showing its age. I'd like the extra screen real estate, but I am not so sure that I want the extra weight in my laptop case.

+1 for the isolating effects of being a solo freelancer. I sorta did it in the past, and I've found that the human interaction between co-workers is extremely important. –  tehnyit Aug 29 '11 at 10:38

Unfortunately I work on a laptop (at least with 1680x1050 resolution) and I have a side 4:3 monitor in portrait (vertical) mode with putty on the serial output of the device I'm targeting.


At work: 2 19" horizontal monitors. I have in the past added a virtual desktop to one of them through VirtuaWin.

One typically has the IDE, the other is everything else -- another IDE for referencing code in other solutions, Outlook, browsers, etc.

At home: currently a single 23" monitor running at 1920x1200. I don't do a lot of coding from home at the moment, but when I do I find I can just minimize windows to gain some real estate, so the push to clean my desk to make room for a second monitor has been relatively light. :)


At work, twin 20" 1680x1050 LCDs. At home, twin 19" 1280x1024@72Hz CRTs.

I use them for different things.

At work I do a fair amount of client/server development, making heavy use of virtual machines. I'll often have three or four remote desktop sessions maximized on my lefthand screen, switching between them using the taskbard conveniently docked on my righthand screen. Throw in a number of reference windows on the righthand screen (Outlook, Word, Excel, JIRA, TeamCity) and it's a highly productive environment.

At home, a wider variety of activities. For self paced training, reference notes on one screen and my work on the other. Often I'll have my RSS reader on one screen, and a collection of browser windows on the other. Usually OneNote is hiding beneath the RSS reader (just an Alt-Tab away) so I can take notes on what I'm reading. For writing blog entries or larger articles, I'll have Word (for writing) opposite OneNote and a browser (for notes and references).

What I notice, when forced to use a single screen environment for anything, is that I seem to spend a lot more time switching between windows and finding my "place". Having dual screens also seems conducive to entering a good "flow" state, probably due to the lower overhead.


It depends on whether I bring my laptop to work, but monitorwise 2-3. One with Windows XP running AVR Studio or QtCreator, the other running Fedora 13 with datasheets and the like. Sometime my laptop is also present running Matlab and Foobar2000.

At home, I have just my 15" laptop and a 19" LCD. The LCD has media running on it, TV shows or whatever, and I have everything else confined to the main screen. I just moved in to a new apartment, and don't have a desk yet, but I am getting a 40" or 46" TV and a desk within the next week or so, so I should be able to start using the 19" for code again, and have the smaller screen for documentation.

Hell, maybe I'll even get the code going on the 40"?


At work (where I spend most of time): One 19'' monitor of 1280x1024. I've never worked with more that one monitor. Cheap companies I guess...

But my most important concern is having only 2gb of memory and an antivirus that does a lot of I/O. Eclipse + JBoss for local testing + slow computer = fail.


A study that keeps coming up is a University of Utah study sponsored by NEC (a company that makes computer monitors, for full disclosure). There is also a Reuters press release that discusses it. A 2003 NEC/ATI/University of Utah study was also cited, but I couldn't quickly find it as most of the search hits were about the 2008 study that cited it.

I also seem to recall a study (not sure if it's the 2008 NEC/University of Utah study or not - I didn't read the whole thing this time) that provided people with one, two, three, and four monitors of the same size. Productivity significantly increased when going from one to two monitors, slightly increased going from two to three monitors, and (in some cases, anyway) showed a decrease in productivity when going from three to four monitors. However, the authors of the study suggested that if the person was working with high volumes of data data (think financial data or defense/intelligence analysts), then four (and maybe more) monitors might be useful.

Personally, I prefer two monitors since I frequently have an application full screened (my IDE) or multiple windows open (terminal windows). However, it depends on how you use your applications, at least based on the study.


The number seems to be whatever you are used to using. I was happy with one until I got two then I couldn't imaging coding without two. Then my current job I get four. And when I have to go back to two at home I really miss the space...

You're spoilt rotten :-) Seriously though I have quite the opposite experience. I have one (24") at work and had two (24" and 19") at home for some time. In the end I ditched the 19" one as I really didn't use it much. What I put on there was so much orthogonal (in a sense) to what was on my primary monitor I found myself working on either one, but never both simultaneously. Simply switching windows from the taskbar was just as easy. –  Marjan Venema Aug 29 '11 at 11:24
@swordfish, I imagine it is similar to being with 4 women at the same time. It sounds like an exciting idea, but then once you try it out you feel awkward and unnerved and ultimately a little disappointed. –  maple_shaft Aug 29 '11 at 11:43
@maple_shaft seems like a nice example but again i havent been with 4 women either –  swordfish Aug 29 '11 at 11:55

I currently work with a laptop+second monitor when I'm at the office and the laptop alone when I'm at home. If anything, I feel more productive without the external monitor than I do with it, since a) I never maximize windows anyhow, so neither screen is ever filled entirely by just one thing and b) I just put email/IM/etc. windows on the extra screen where they can distract me out of the corner of my eye; with the laptop alone, I put those windows on a virtual desktop where they're completely out of sight until I actively check on them. (My general coding style is "five xterms scattered across the screen running some mix of vi, man, and test runs of the code, plus a browser to look up additional docs." If you're an IDE junkie, what's best for me may not be what's best for you.)


It probably boils down to personal preference, with what you work and how you work. Here are my few cents if you are programming:

First of all, it is better with more screens than bigger screens once the screen size goes beyond 22-24 inch. It is better to be able to "wrap" your screens around than having one big wall in front of you. Also, on bigger screens the resolution tends to make the text smaller but if you increase the size you loose space and thus you won't be able to fit as much onto the screen.

When it comes to number of screens and you have a good work-place to fit them onto then I say three is pretty much ideal. One (the middle one) is your work-bench, that's where you keep your code editor, debugger etc. One is for reference, that's where you keep any guides, your friend google-search, stack overflow and other things that you need to look up when you work. Finally you have your test/monitor screen, this where you run the code that you are working on so that you can have both code and running code up at once.

This way you don't have to know exactly where every window is on your screen but as long as you know what you are looking for you know where it should be (center, left or right).

Beyond three screens I think it starts to get messy and probably is more for people working as sysadmins or working with monitoring systems. I don't think it will decrease your productivity but I doubt it will increase it as much as going from one screen to two or from two to three.

What's also important is that your screens are the same size, has the same resolution and similar brightness and colors. This is to reduce the stress on your eyes.


At the moment I'm using a 17.3" laptop screen, when I want to get more productive in the future I might consider a second monitor. I had two CRT's in the past but I've sold them to spend that money in new hardware...


I use dual 24" widescreen monitors, and the actual usage of the monitors will vary from day-to-day project to project, but some examples are.

  • Visual Studio on the left - Project specifications on the right
  • Visual Studio on the left - Code diff file on the right (Figuring out where something went wrong)
  • Application on the right - Word on the left and SnagIt sitting waiting (For documentation)
  • Application on the left - Test case on the right for testing

Otherwise I will also use my second monitor as a digital notepad, with a small todo list or other item. I find that I spend less time writing notes on my desk etc, when using multiple monitors.


3x 22in LCD's 5040x1050 that is the pinicle of productivity, 2 monitors is nice but 3 is great just to have the extra screen for whatever.

I usually have documentation on the left, IDE in the center.

The right monitor (or if my mood permits the left) I usually reserved for extra stuff. Extra

  • IDE window
  • media player
  • more documentation
  • pretty rotating pictures
  • if I have to quickly switch tasks temperarily I'll do it on that one opposed to messing up what I have going on the other 2.
  • conversations with coworkers

I'm fairly happy with my current three screen setup - 3x 24" LCDs with 1920x1200 each.

Two screens alone are a huge upgrade from just a single one, but I upgraded to three screens after using two for about a year or so, in order to limit the context loss during alt-tabbing.

The main usage scenario is web development:

  • left: application output (in my case a browser stack - native browsers, multiple IEs in virtual machines)
  • middle: my main context (e.g. an IDE, debug logs, file manager, SSH client)
  • right: supplementary information (e.g. documentation, database schema, minimized email client); vertical/horizontal switch when needed

The left screen is shared with a dev.server, and is also occasionally used for PCs that someone brings for repairs.


I have a laptop at work so I'm using the display of the laptop and 24" external display, the external display being on the right. At the laptop's display I keep Outlook and Skype to keep me connected all the time and to avoid switching from window to another every time someone skypes me.


A 17inch flat screen, one of them :-( . I work for a national corporation (in the UK).


One. I've a laptop, so I've connected a keyboard, mouse and a monitor to it, effectively making it a desktop for ergonomic reasons. I still have the benefit using the laptop when not in office.


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.