Multi-head useful or useless with tiling WMs?

oskarn · 2009-08-06 21:45:15

I'm under the impression that the reason most people prefer multi-head is because they wish to easily have windows side-by-side maximized. In my opinion, a preferable monitor size and a tiling WM render multi-heads useless. Am I wrong? Please discuss.

Last edited by oskarn (2009-08-06 21:49:46)

mikesd · 2009-08-06 22:38:19

I have been using dual 1680x1050s in xmonad for the past 12 months or so. Even with a tiling wm I still find it useful. I'll often dedicate one monitor to firefox or a set of 4 urxvts or gimp or inkscape or a log viewer.

Dual monitors give me more screen real estate than one. Therefore I can view more applications. xmonad works well with dual monitors though it is a little different to other tiling WMs. In xmonad I have 6 desktops and with two monitors I can view any two of those desktops. I tend to think in groups of windows rather than individual windows.

oskarn · 2009-08-06 22:49:23

Your dual 1680x1050 is a great example. If you replace your dual monitors with one 30" 2560x1600 you have the same screen real estate (even larger). Thus enabling you to view the same applications simultanenously.

Forget the fact that a 30" monitor is probably more expensive. I'm just curious if multiple monitors have any productivity gain as opposed to a larger monitor.

Last edited by oskarn (2009-08-06 22:51:52)

thayer · 2009-08-06 22:57:58

oskarn wrote:

I'm under the impression that the reason most people prefer multi-head is because they wish to easily have windows side-by-side maximized. In my opinion, a preferable monitor size and a tiling WM render multi-heads useless. Am I wrong? Please discuss.

Hrm, wouldn't two "preferable" monitors always be better than one? That's just common sense to me.

oskarn wrote:

Forget the fact that a 30" monitor is probably more expensive. I'm just curious if multiple monitors have any productivity gain as opposed to a larger monitor.

Productivity gain? Probably not...but a dozen other equally valid reasons, definitely: cost, failure rate, flexibility of placement, power consumption, and on and on.

Last edited by thayer (2009-08-06 23:01:22)

jelly · 2009-08-07 06:57:42

Well without the costs, i have a dualmonitor setup again with XMonad wich handles this perfect, because i have 9 works spaces wich let's me show one of them on each monitor. So in a normal work day i have a 17" for firefox and 22" for coding , irc, music etc. To view two different layout at the same time was a big pro for me or what you call workspaces. You can actually combine two layouts with XMonad if you have such a large monitor.

mikesd · 2009-08-07 09:25:52

oskarn wrote:

If you replace your dual monitors with one 30" 2560x1600 you have the same screen real estate (even larger).

Even without the price difference I'd still rather have dual 1680x1050 monitors. Thanks but no thanks.

jelly wrote:

i have a dualmonitor setup again with XMonad wich handles this perfect

xmonad is great with two monitors.

majiq · 2009-08-07 18:44:59

I wouldn't know about Linux (not lucky enough), but at least for Windows I noticed considerable throttling in the usage when using one versus two monitors. The dual monitor somehow allowed one side of the screen to freeze up while the other one was fine, it would seem. I don't know why or if this was just a matter of perception, but perhaps something similar may occur in Linux with a multiple X server setup.

Also, dual monitors allows for a multi-head single-box setup, which can be quite handy if you have two young 'uns you're trying to teach.

giir · 2009-08-07 19:10:04

I have trouble using a tiling window manager with a single monitor ever since i started using xmonad with dual head.

I run a single at home and dual head at work, and it's noticably easier to use on a dual head. Granted, the actual pixel for pixel real estate is not exact - my productivity measure isn't exactly scientific - but I feel like having two monitors helps. Maybe it's just a psychological thing.

I've also used GNOME in both places, and I definitely would prefer a single with a non-tiling WM. I don't like all the dragging, and mucking around with a "dual sized" virtual desktop seems inefficient to me.

huffman · 2009-08-12 05:43:15

I use xmonad on my 15" laptop with a 20" monitor (1680x1050) when I am at home - I haven't tried any comparable single monitor alternative, but I imagine I wouldn't like it as much for reasons others have mentioned. Because xmonad allows me to display separate workspaces on each monitor, I usually leave my laptop screen on one workspace, and flip through other workspaces on my other monitor. If it weren't for this ability to multiplex workspaces to different monitors I would say that one monitor would be better.

Last edited by huffman (2009-08-12 05:46:14)

lifeafter2am · 2009-08-12 06:11:33

I think Jelly nailed it when he mentioned being able to use different layouts on each screen. I run 2 22" monitors and really like to be able to have different layouts on each of the screens; especially when you start using specialized layouts (at least in XMonad) like IM layout.

jelly · 2009-08-12 06:41:25

lifeafter2am wrote:

I think Jelly nailed it when he mentioned being able to use different layouts on each screen. I run 2 22" monitors and really like to be able to have different layouts on each of the screens; especially when you start using specialized layouts (at least in XMonad) like IM layout.

/me thinks I nailed it when i started talking about XMonad .
/me is jealous and only has one 23" and a 17"

Anyway since you can switch fast from monitor to monitor any tiling wm is nice with multiple monitors . But be aware that XMonad handles multi-head's different then AwesomeWM. XMonad uses twinview and has the ability to switch workspaces to both monitors etc. where AwesomeWM has a seperate X session and it didnt work out for me. And some other side effects that i think haskell is nicer, stability ,api etc.

@TS : If you have a multimonitor setup just try it for a month and compare it with a floater .

Last edited by jelly (2009-08-12 06:41:52)

oskarn · 2009-08-12 07:55:08

I've never actually tried XMonad on a multi-head setup. I can imagine the usefulness of having separate layouts and workspaces on each monitor and being able to move windows and workspaces between them. This has been a real eye opener for me, since I've only really used the traditional tiling WMs like dwm, wmii and ion3, which all use separate X screens.

The problem is that I prefer manual tiling WMs, and I went back to using ion3 after having used dwm and wmii for some months. XMonad didn't do it for me (on a single monitor setup).

I've read up on Musca which seems promising in this regard. It supports multiple monitors, with grouping of windows and manual tiling! Have anyone of you tried it?

ngoonee · 2009-08-12 16:49:07

Would XMonad or any other tiling WM be able to move windows between three screens? There's another topic asking about this.

lifeafter2am · 2009-08-12 17:07:58

ngoonee wrote:

Would XMonad or any other tiling WM be able to move windows between three screens? There's another topic asking about this.

Should be able to. Here is a screenshot from the main page of the XMonad site:
http://haskell.org/sitewiki/images/a/aa … galois.jpg

jelly · 2009-08-12 17:14:50

oskarn wrote:

I've never actually tried XMonad on a multi-head setup. I can imagine the usefulness of having separate layouts and workspaces on each monitor and being able to move windows and workspaces between them. This has been a real eye opener for me, since I've only really used the traditional tiling WMs like dwm, wmii and ion3, which all use separate X screens.
The problem is that I prefer manual tiling WMs, and I went back to using ion3 after having used dwm and wmii for some months. XMonad didn't do it for me (on a single monitor setup).
I've read up on Musca which seems promising in this regard. It supports multiple monitors, with grouping of windows and manual tiling! Have anyone of you tried it?

Go to community contributions and search for musca there is a whole thread there :0

Arch Linux

#1 2009-08-06 21:45:15

Multi-head useful or useless with tiling WMs?

#2 2009-08-06 22:38:19

Re: Multi-head useful or useless with tiling WMs?

#3 2009-08-06 22:49:23

Re: Multi-head useful or useless with tiling WMs?

#4 2009-08-06 22:57:58

Re: Multi-head useful or useless with tiling WMs?

#5 2009-08-07 06:57:42

Re: Multi-head useful or useless with tiling WMs?

#6 2009-08-07 09:25:52

Re: Multi-head useful or useless with tiling WMs?

#7 2009-08-07 18:44:59

Re: Multi-head useful or useless with tiling WMs?

#8 2009-08-07 19:10:04

Re: Multi-head useful or useless with tiling WMs?

#9 2009-08-12 05:43:15

Re: Multi-head useful or useless with tiling WMs?

#10 2009-08-12 06:11:33

Re: Multi-head useful or useless with tiling WMs?

#11 2009-08-12 06:41:25

Re: Multi-head useful or useless with tiling WMs?

#12 2009-08-12 07:55:08

Re: Multi-head useful or useless with tiling WMs?

#13 2009-08-12 16:49:07

Re: Multi-head useful or useless with tiling WMs?

#14 2009-08-12 17:07:58

Re: Multi-head useful or useless with tiling WMs?

#15 2009-08-12 17:14:50

Re: Multi-head useful or useless with tiling WMs?

Board footer