Note
Access to this page requires authorization. You can try signing in or changing directories.
Access to this page requires authorization. You can try changing directories.
Our team just moved to a new building in Microsoft India campus. A lot of people were going around checking out other people's office. I got asked couple of times about my workstation layout and thought I'll do a quick post on that.
Like most people in our team I use a dual monitor setup. Last time I estimated I spend about 12% of my life looking for things (40% of it for my car keys). So even though there are people who use 7 monitors I'm never going to join that gang and bump that number to 30% by adding the time to search for my app window. And Microsoft will definitely not fund those many monitors either :). So for me 2 is enough.
Both monitors I have, are standard HP1965 (19" monitors) hooked on to ATI Radeon cards. One of the monitors (the one on the left) is looped through a KVM switch and I can rotate that among the other 2 machines that I have. The other I have rotated in portrait (vertical) mode and use it primarily for coding. The image below should explain why
This provides a much better code view. In the font size I use (Consolas 9pt) I can see 74 lines of code vs 54 in the landscape mode. So this means 37% more!!! Since I have ATI card I use Catalyst Control Center to rotate the display.
I also prefer dark background and use white/light-color text on it. My eyes feel better with it. I keep both Visual Studio and GVim in dark color mode. You can download my vssettings from here and .vimrc from here.
That kind of rounds up the workstation layout that I use in office. I try my best not to work on the laptop directly. I TS on to it in case I need to use it for any reason. When I took the picture it was quietly napping on the other side of my office :)
Comments
Anonymous
May 22, 2008
Hi, This settings file is not working with visual studio 2005. I guess it is of 2008 I read you blog and found nice and interesting.Anonymous
May 30, 2008
54 -> 74... nice, but won't this just encourage you to write longer more complicated methods? ;)Anonymous
May 30, 2008
yea right, as if I need excuse to do that :)