This doesn't directly answer your question, but I'd assume the larger question is "Will adding more or bigger monitors make me more productive?"

The answer is yes. I can guarantee it. I wouldn't recommend spending a bunch of money on a single monitor though. Buy two ~22" monitors off of NewEgg. It won't feel the same as a 27" monitor, but you'll have considerably more space, pay at least half the price, and have some explicit compartmentalization going. The downside is that it's not all the same monitor, and you need hte deskspace. As well as having to buy a cable for having multiple external monitors with a Macbook Pro.

I say give it a try, and return it if isn't as comfortable as you want it to be. You'll still be able to get your money back (assuming you return the stuff in the same condition you bought it), and you can go and try the 27" monitor too.

Which cable do you use for dual external monitors on the MBP?

You need to get a Dualhead2Go from Matrox which splits a single DVI signal into two screens by emulating a double-sized display.

http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/products/gxm/dh2go/

Newer Thunderbolt MacBooks can do this by chaining displays.

Having this problem, and I've been told a USB display adapter is the solution, which disappoints me.

Personally I went from a 24" and a 24" that I would use equally to a 27" and a 24" where I hardly use the second monitor now. The 27" does most of the work. The resolution is just amazing.

Just don't get one of those upsized 24" screens that's still 1080p at 27".

Compared to a single 1080p, yes. I got a 30" and it's been a great improvement. The ability to put 2 full size windows next to each other is fantastic (a utility like SizeUp helps). Having the freedom to have a bunch scattered around while seeing bits of each is great too. The productivity boost is almost certainly worth the money.

Hm, it's not really an Apples-to-Apples comparison, b/c all the 27" 2560px displays I can think of are IPS, while 1080p's in the sub-$300 range are TN's. You'd be paying for the added display quality on top of the bigger screen + resolution.

For dev work, I'd say the nicest thing about the 27"s is the ability to put two full pages side-by-side, either a browser window + IDE, or vert. split IDE code panes. 1920px isn't quite there for two panes of code.

And personally, I've had 2+ 24"s, and I've actually found it too cumbersome: having emails/IM's on a second window actually becomes distracting, and moving your mouse cursor across so many pixels was less precise than either alt-tabbing to the right program or switching spaces/virtual desktops w/ a keyboard shortcut. For me anyway, 27" is the sweet spot.

A Dell U2211H is under 300 and is a 1080p IPS monitor with all of the standard goodies:

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&#...

I'd suggest 2x24", which you can do for ~$180/each straight off of Newegg or ~$140-150 if you wait for a sale.

I recently had pretty much the same debate about upgrading my pair of 24" monitors, and wound up moving to 4x24" side-by-side in portrait mode. The extra real estate is totally worth it, but you get the added advantage of having that real estate divided up into screens, where you can maximize/tile windows more easily than on one huge display.

The cost is nice, too; the 4x24" monitors were only ~$700, so even with the extra $120 or so for a pair of decent stands off of Amazon, the damage isn't too bad.

(Just realized you're talking about an extra for a laptop, which makes the situation a bit different. Leaving this up anyhow in the hopes of provoking discussion---I'm curious what people do for multi-monitor setups.)

My Apple 27" Display was one of the best hw purchases I made lately.

The display is simply gorgeous and its the first time that I don't frequently wish it was bigger. I used a 24" DELL before and apart from it being extremely ugly compared to apple's, many times it was insufficiently big for my needs.

For example, when programming in vi, I have lots of splits (sometimes more then 10) open in the same window. I find it more effective to see various related parts at once then to switch b/w buffers all the time.

Other times I have a vi, browser and a terminal with autotest each occupying a third of the screen (vertically).

I don't think resolution is quite as important as context, or rather the ease that lies within multiple monitors for switching context.

I recently switched from three 19" monitors to two 27" monitors (I'm a php / javascript / python developer). I assumed that having the same horizontal resolution with extra vertical resolution would add to my productivity.

With three monitors I had three contexts in which I merely needed to glance in a direction. Almost like doing an "alt+tab" in my mind. If I wanted to check my current code in or run unit tests, look at my left monitor and type. If I wanted to read or write code, look at my center monitor and type. If I wanted to test output or find a reference, look at right monitor and type. *

With two monitors (regardless of resolution), I have one less context. I actually have to think about window placement. Those seconds add up. More importantly the cost of switching context adds up as I get deeper into what I'm working on. If something was important, I maximized it to a screen and that's all that screen was. That is what it meant to look in that direction. Now I maximize a window and... well a 27" window is pretty ridiculous unless your work involves graphics. There's less permanence and hence more to remember.

Save money on the resolution and get yourself as many decent-sized monitors as your desk / system can handle. I assume it's possible to have too many monitors, but I feel I would have done better with three slightly larger monitors (or just a fourth monitor) than I am with two that can hold more pixels than the three. I plan to find out very soon.

* By "look and type", I mean tap my mouse in that direction and click to activate the window and then type.

To me screen resolution matters...with a higher resolution you can accommodate more into the screen real estate and don't have to switch things around. I used a super high resolution 15.4" laptop at work once and even having 2 dual 24" monitors didn't come closer to the productive experience that I had with that laptop...maybe it's just me but I would prefer super high screen resolutions.

More screens also means less switching things around - at least it did for me. With three screens, I almost never switched windows around. With two larger screens, I find myself moving, resizing, and alt+tabbing all the time (or expose'ing which is "cooler" but not much better).

Regardless I think it's a matter of taking time to get used to the pros and cons of a monitor layout, and figuring out what works best for you. Personally, after about 6 months with the 2 big monitors, I still miss my 3 smaller ones and will likely switch back soon.

I recently picked a 27" Dell U2711 (2560x1440) over 2x24" Samsung (1920x1200) at work. The better display panel (IPS vs. TN), better resolution, better contrast and so on made it a logical choice. Can't say that I regreted it.

With the recent window tiling options in both Ubuntu and Windows it's as easy to organize windows on a single large monitor as it is with two.

I don't think you can ever have too much screen space. Your workflow adjusts to make use of it.

I've currently got a 27" iMac with two 20" Dell monitors turned portrait either side. I keep things like IM, Twitter, Email etc in the two portrait screens and keep what I'm working on in the middle.

I have a 27" 1920x1200 Dell and what I wouldn't give to have a higher resolution on it...

27" models at 2560x1440 are becoming more affordable. My brother pointed me at Hazro, which he's using in his iPhone dev shop. I've also seen a substantial fall in price for the Dell U2711.

I've been looking at this a lot recently as I consider moving away from the 2 screen setup I've had for years. My main motivation is that my laptop docking stations only have one digital output. VGA just doesn't cut it for a clear screen.

The drop in price on the 27" models has me hoping that the 30" 2560x1600 ones will also come down. I've wanted one of those for ages, though when I once used an Apple cinema screen at that size/resolution it felt kind of weird.

It's hard to determine without knowing how you would actually use at 27" monitor compared to the 1080p. Is it possible to "rent" one for a week from a local retailer to test drive your use case?

My thought is that I'm staring at a monitor more than 14 hours a day. It's like the tires on a car, where the rubber meets the road. It's such an important connecting between physical and the computer, that it's worth the additional investment.

That said, I can't make these judgments for you. I still recommend trying it out for a week if you can, and then decide if you're more productive with larger screen space. Good luck!

We only have the new 27"'s at work. We're almost exclusively a mac shop, so sticking with just one configuration works really well with these displays.

It doesn't matter where you're sitting. Just plug in power and the display port wherever you go and that's it! I don't have to bring more than a FedEx letter-sized envelope to work every day (it conceals my macbook air).

I can't compare it to dual lcd monitors, but as other people have mentioned I find it perfect for full screen vi or tmux sessions with a lots of splits, and wouldn't want to go back to a smaller form factor. :-)

My 27" Imac has been a real pleasure to use. I program 80% of the time, and that much screen real estate can really help you keep everything you need for a certain development task visible at a glance. I have a larger 30" 2560x1600 screen on my linux box, and the more the merrier. It is worth it.

Also, I bought mine through apple's refurb program, and it's been running perfectly. I would suggest that as a good way to save some money.

Splitting a 30" display (2560x1600) in half vertically (editor|browser) for web-dev feels natural. It's 2x1280 displays, no bezel, effectively.

It does require an optimal seating position though.

I also have a cheap 1080p next to it for testing and for secondary boxes/iPad dev or dashboards. Splitting a 1920 horizontal into 2x960 displays feels cramped.

There are displays that use the same 27" panel as Apple for less dough. The economics work out a lot better there.

I have a 17'' (1920*1080) laptop at home and a 27'' iMac at work.

For displaying the likes of Netbeans, both are comfortable. I don't display the browser in full screen on the iMac because it's ridiculously large. For watching videos however, the 27'' are impressive. I would say programmers don't need huge screens nor multiple ones but I suppose it depends on one's preferences and habits.

From a highly buzzed stupor - which I will regret later - no. A dual or triple monitor setup makes more sense. Being able to maximize separate applications on individual scteens makes more sense to me.