I don't think you're proving the point you're trying to prove. Mind you, this all started in response to Paula's question about her hard to see LCD monitor. You asked - in what seemed marginally reasonable at the time, "Why would you replace a proven technology that still works with a newer technology that apparently has a shorter lifespan?"
Who would have thunk Paula's original email would have been the one to launch a thousand (it's starting to seem that way) emails that don't seem to have much of a point. No one asked at the time for your data to prove your point and if it is indeed true, I suppose we could delve into why we don't see more CRT monitors being sold nowadays? <---- this is just a rhetorical question - I really, really, really don't want to start another discussion on the data presented. Then, at some point, you switched the discussion to focus on RAM... since more RAM equals faster system response time. Now (assuming I've kept this straight), you've switched to suggesting that people before "us" did more with less. Which is the first time I'm going to agree with you. Yes, people in the days before GUIs (who used dumb VT100 emulating terminals and DOS-based PC-XTs / dual drive floppy-based systems) did a lot with 13" monochrome monitors. This is your argument (as I read it) to prove a larger monitor won't make someone more productive. But then again, those people who came before us weren't running a Graphical User Interface system. They were using DOS or Unix - both of which (at the time) were command line oriented. Although full screen editors were available - such as Vi or (my personal favorite) Emacs, but the basic problem is real estate (ie: larger monitors) either weren't available or were so ludicrously expensive that many of those same coders didn't buy one. But since we shouldn't speak for them, perhaps if they were given a chance to use a larger display, they'd take it? Wait a minute... in my days in academia, I programmed on a VT100 terminal with Emacs and then later on a dual-floppy drive PC with a 13" Monochrome monitor and edlin (at times). The 13" monochrome monitor suited my needs just fine but that's also because nothing else was available. Given that I'm running XP and have multiple windows up, I'll stick with a bigger monitor. Perhaps if you're so productive with a non-large screen, you wouldn't mind switching back to a 13" monochrome monitor since as you've stated, a bigger monitor doesn't make someone more productive. I also still assert that giving people newer (dare I say) "cooler" equipment can help improve their productivity - if only by making them feel more important or valuable. Reading over this, I'm confused...what point are you trying to prove: 1. There's no business reason for getting a larger monitor? 2. More RAM will make a person more productive? 3. That a smaller monitor is actually the way to go? Larry P.S. I'm a freelance photographer and use Photoshop and PageMaker. Photoshop, I can still get by with a small-ish 17" CRT display. However, for PageMaker or any sort of layout software, I'll take the larger monitor any day over the smaller one. Does it make me more productive? I'd say it does since I don't have to shift items back and forth to see the workspace as much. -----Original Message----- From: Computer Guys Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony B Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 3:00 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [CGUYS] tool size I suppose I really should know better than to question the size of someone's tools. Were this a carpentry list, and I dared suggest those with smaller hammers were just as productive as those with bigger ones, I imagine the small firestorm from a very few people would be about the same. And god forbid I suggest those with TWO hammers weren't outproducing those with only one. But where would it end? Surely the guys with THREE hammers would be deeply offended at any suggestion they weren't any better than the guys with only two! BTW There are actually lots of studies that can be designed to show more (or bigger) monitors mean higher scores on certain tests. Here's one: http://research.microsoft.com/displayarticle.aspx?id=433 Here's another which is probably closer to the mark: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/screen-productivity.html >It's a classic mistake for people who are new to usability to test individual system features as opposed to higher-level tasks that users want to perform. In other words, you can whine all day about how some part of your specific job would be made tougher if you had to sit closer to a smaller screen, but that doesn't prove your point. Don't worry, I'm not suggesting you give up your bigger (or multiple) monitors, heck, I wish I had a wraparound monitor here. But there have been coders/editors/carpenters that came before you with much smaller tools and they still had no trouble coding/editing/hammering rings around you, regardless how big your monitor(s) are. ************************************************************************ * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** ************************************************************************ * ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
