Sorry, but a few replies come from a very acute perspective, or experience pool... and I can't blame you...You don't know what you don't know. Perhaps I don't know something I have no idea about. Very possible.
You shouldn't assume what some folks "don't know" ... I opened my custom pro darkroom serving a select group of 20 portrait/wedding pros in 1979, I opened my own studio in 1980, by day, from 1988 to 2003, I was a chief photographer/photo editor for a medium size daily newspaper ... additionally, I was their itinerant trainer for Ps and color calibration/profiling for prepress CMYK workflow at the entire chain of 16 papers ... photography has been my sole source of income since 1978 ... I'll let you determine if that qualifies as "professional" ... I converted to a complete digital workflow long before it became popular with the cool kids and have been using Photoshop long before it became a verb.
I may indeed have been comparing apples and oranges ... I was merely pointing out that the trend from here into the future is going to be increasingly in the digital medium with the necessity for a pixel level workflow is going to be an increasingly smaller segment of the market ... professional or otherwise. I'm sorry that upsets you ... but that IS the trend. No different than burning images to CD/DVD is growing passé ...
..ok maybe a few on Aperture with 1 monitor(In case they have to fit the Apple status quo of "don't think, we got everything figured out for you. This IS how you'll do it").
Well ... for someone who seems to take it personally when others mention you may hold a minority point of view ... you seem to spend some time pointing out other minority views. Your opinion of Apple and Aperture seem to be based upon ignorance and not actual work experience with the OS and Aperture. It's like politics, some folks think if you repeat untruths often enough, in time, the general populous will accept them as fact ... your assumptions of Apple and Aperture in this respect are way off the mark. While I have my own issues with Apple, and Aperture 3 (nor do I believe they are perfect) ... the idea that Apple is a closed and confined system with limited customization and strict usability is simply not true. It is actually quite the opposite when compared to Lightroom.
I have FAR more control, customization and freedom in my workflow using Aperture 3 than has ever been available in Lightroom 5 ... dual monitors ... no problem ... it isn't perfect, but it works a heck of a lot better than it does in Lr ... Can you fully customize and create you own set of keyboard shortcuts in Lr? Didn't think so ... in Aperture 3 you can. Does that sound like a ... "This IS how you'll do it attitude?"
I personally don't find the need for dual monitors ... when I can go to a true full-screen mode (not what Adobe thinks is full screen mode either) in a single keystroke, bring up the Heads Up Display (HUD) with another keystroke, adjust and process the image, add/edit metadata, navigate my entire library from the same panel ... even temporarily hide the HUD except the slider I'm adjusting so I can actually see my full or zoomed in image using nearly EVERY pixel available in my monitor ... use another single keystroke to go to thumbnail view of my project to select the next image, another keystroke back to full view ... all on a single 27"-30" monitor ... I don't need
two monitors to get the job done properly ... I can see my
pixels just fine without using two viewing sources to complete the task. Unlike the days of yore, when working with Ps on two CRT screens, placing tools on one screen and images on the other, I fail to see how a second monitor would further enhance my finished product given the ease of use my chosen workflow offers. YMMV.