Borland had that feature if you had a Hercules as a second monitor as far back as early 90-es. Wonderful. Microsoft finally achieving where others used to be nearly 20 years ago. R$dmond Innovation at its best.

I developed with VS for some years with three screens. One for code, one for call stacks, output windows, watch windows etc, and the last being for the actual debugged exe.

OK, so thats more debugging than development. But still.....

Oh - and I worked for city traders as well ;)

Did I somehow walk through a time/space hole?

I use VS on occasion and you can run it fine on a dual monitor setup putting anything anywhere.

Other requests:

Nice simple way of getting a file size off the 'net before it's downloaded

A wrapper for SAPI so it's as easy to use as in GlovePIE (just with the ability to get the contents of the speech buffer as a nice simple variable)

WMP control that doesn't flicker when transparent windows are placed over it

Though multiscreen does sound pretty good- a lot of people are going multi-monitor these days!

...from making the application window large enough to span more than one screen and using multiple windows/split windows across that area? I have been doing this for years as well...a better improvement would be to include better XML-spy type capabilities into VS.

...I'm sure they'll find a way to @#$% up my current dual monitor strategy in the process... How about making it not crash all the damn time first?!

Paris, because she's usually occupying my second monitor...

...if they would fix the ncb file getting corrupt every few seconds and make intellisense live up to its name a bit more and add a bit of intelligence and sense.

Aren't developer tools supposed to be on the CUTTING edge? You know, not the TRAILING edge?

Oh sorry, Microsoft.... forget I said anything.

Paris because ... hell, just because.

You can drag all the snap-in items out of the MDI window and put them on any monitor you want. It has worked that way since VS 6, which was the first version I used.

In SDI mode you get a flotilla of little windows and can drop them anywhere. What are they on about? At work I frequently spread my work out across four screens (dual head on main box and two test boxes).

Noah Coad is Microsoft program manager for the Visual Studio platform? Noah Coad? Riiiiiiiight....

Like other people, I'm a bit confused about this too. VS already is able to be "spread" over more than one monitor. In fact, looking at my home setup right now, I have the main window on one monitor with the solution explorer, output, and find windows open on the other.

Maybe they mean a simple expansion on VS so that you can have multiple documents open on different monitors? That\s the only think it seems to be missing (or I can't find that feature).

But please Microsft....concentrate on making thinks like intellisense work properly with classes derived from templates first, eh? This would make me a much happier programmer.

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2007-10-16/

YEah, I run VS on two screens; I generally have the code on screen one and the web site on screen two.

But VS is a single-window app; I can't have one of its windows on one monitor and one on another, and hit maximise on either without filling both screens. IIRC one of the bigger apps (Corel? Aldus Pagemaker?) tried a "totally independent window for each control" approach a few years back, but it was too cumbersome.

Oh, and the Hercules setup - ah, happy days! <oldSchool>When I wrote a DOS-based graphical CBL authoring system in the late 80's/early 90's using MS C6, I used to have a three monitor system: EGA for the output, Hercules for debugging and video for the LaserDisc</oldSchool>

And you try to tell the young code monkeys of today that, and they won't believe you...

If they said they could use multiple computers that would be an advance.

On Linux you can do distributed builds on multiple machines.

WTF?

This is an ADVANCE?

They are just catching up!

And still from a great distance.

Don't you dare change Microsoft!

Headlines like that will sink them!

Paris, because even she will be laughing at that!

Seriously?

I mean, come on. Every other IDE I've used lets me put what I want where I want, and always has. Christ, some of my *games* support dual monitors. Surely this can't be a new thing. Their software's not the best, but surely it can't be that bad?

I clicked on the link to Coads blog, but it looks like blogs.msdn.com is down. blogs.msdn.com seems to be down all the time these days - it's a bit worrying if Microsoft can't keep their own servers up...

This is really disappointing from El Reg. It's not "going multi-screen" nor are they hinting that they are "allowing developers to spread out across different monitors". If you read the original referenced blog entry http://blogs.msdn.com/noahc/archive/2007/10/10/multi-monitor-support-in-vs10.aspx you can see they're talking about ways of improving it.

It's got to be Paris, it's as dumb as.....

Now if I could get Eclipse to do multi-screen better than it does right now (Drag and drop code windows over to other screen, etc) I'd be happy.

I like Eclipse, but I miss writing Java, C and Perl in vim. I could see so much more in a text-only environment, and I actually had to think about what I was doing to make sure I got my syntax correct. Plus vim had all the syntax highlighting done so I could see what everything was...

I wouldn't need dual monitor if I was still able to code in vim. Plus, I wouldn't need 1000 times the memory as I used to have space on my hard disk.

*sigh*

This has been a feature in NetBeans since 6.0. So has integrated support for version control. You have to pay for V$ (now in version 9.0). It never ceases to amaze me that people actually do.

Paris, because even she thought of this feature before Microsoft.

Windows has supported dual monitor output (depending on the driver availability for the hardware) since version 3.

Even DOS apps could do it. I clearly recall seeing AutoCad doing this in 1989-1990.

... Notepad++ on screen 1, SQLyog on screen 2, Firefox on screen 3.