What's the point of more than 1 monitor?

[ulillillia]

What's the point of having more than one monitor? Do note that I have zero experience with multi-monitor setups (don't have the funds or the space and stacking 40-pound monitors on top of each other is another issue). While I think I understand that multi-monitor setups allow for a higher resolution experience, such as connecting two monitors of 1920x1200 to get either 3840x1200 or 1920x2400 resolution. Still, there's that gap between the monitors that might cause workability problems. You could get 3 1920x1200 monitors for the price of a single 2560x1600 display and get far more total pixels. Beyond that, what's the point of having several monitors?

 

[4745454b]

I'd like to add that there is no shame in using only one monitor. I don't do any real work on my computer anymore and get along with only one monitor just fine. I would like to run a 3x1 eyefinity setup, but TF2 looks horribly stretched.

If you do a lot of real work, you should run at least two if not three screens. If you just play games or watch tv/movies, one is fine.

 

[Xolotl_72]

Two monitors are great in my opinion, I like to have one available so that I can browse the web or call/chat with people while playing a game.

If you are asking about Eyefinity and gaming... yeah not my cup of tea at all. With a giant monitor it would obviously be great but the typical eyefinity setup with 3 monitors completely destroys immersion for me due to the borders cutting through the image.

 

[4745454b]

Just wondering here, how many people who say the borders ruin thing have actually ever used eyefinity? I had a monitor with a chip in it once. If you looked for it you could see it. But once you started playing, you wouldn't notice it at all. Similar for Eyefinity. Sure if you for the lines you can see them. But considering those other monitors help form your left and right views, I'm sure your brain wouldn't care.

 

[king smp]

I've never experienced a dual monitor setup so, obviously, I'm used to a single-monitor setup. The super high resolution I use otherwise makes up for it for the most part. I just can't test in fullscreen effectively, but that's otherwise a minor issue as windowed mode works just the same. I have at least learned quite a bit from this thread. Still, being used to only a single monitor, it's likely what I'll intend on doing.

I only have 2 upgrades in mind. The first is my video card, since it can't play back H.264-encoded HD video in Virtual Dub at true speed as it can't decompress fast enough. The second is the RAM and CPU fan - I'd like to upgrade these. It takes a long enough time to save up as it is.

looking at your configuration
your video card upgrade is your most important
and trust me I know all about taking a while to save up
took me months to get my $80 HD 5670 LOL
and you have a great CPU (2600k)
so eventually when you get your new video card your system
will be top of the line

if you ever get a chance ot do a second monitor
I think you would like it
but not a priority

 

[jitpublisher]

chances are that if you are asking this question, you probably wont need a multi monitor setup.

Mmmm, yeah, that is kinda what I was thinking. If you have to ask "whats the advantage of multiple monitors?" you apparently do not understand the very basic function and simple revelation that the OS "Windows" brought to the table in the first place.
However, the question has opened an interesting discussion.

 

[king smp]

@ ulillillia

Check your PMs

I sent you one



King SMP

 

[hella-d]

I Run Dual Monitors Myself, Before Then I Always Asked Myself; "What The Point Of Multiple Monitors", But When I Went With Dual LCDs (Orginally A SGI 1600sw And A Gateway 17", Now A 20" Dell 2001FP And A 19" Sanyo HDTV-Monitor) I Was Like "WOW, This Is Very Handy" Point; JUST DO IT!, LOL

But As For CRTs In 2002 I Bought My First LCD And Never Looked Back Ha!, A CRT Is So Last Century, I Absulutely Hate Them Now Even At 85Hz AHHHHHH MY EYES IT BURNS!!! And Holy Hell Moving A CRT Is A Biatch, There Also Unsightly, take Up Way To Much Space And Feel Like Your Looking At An Elecrtic Heater On Full Blast.

 

[king smp]

this is going a little OT
but read this
http://bootstrike.com/Articles/LCDvsCRT/

of course LCDs are generally the way to go
but I could find other links where
CRTs are still used by video/graphic artists due to better
image and especially color portrayal

I made the switch just last year to LCDs
and I like them
but the image quality of my Mitsubishi Diamond Pro
especially at a jacked up refresh rate
was IMHO better than my LCD in some cases
obviously HD vids look better on the LCD
but for photographs and other images
the CRT was better

 

[ulillillia]

I wished CRT monitors would make a comeback. At $140 for 1920x1440 resolution, you almost can't beat it pricewise. They scale perfectly well with any resolution (unlike LCDs which must either leave black borders or stretch the image (blurring it while stretching)). 1920x1440 on a CRT looks just as crisp as 1280x960, 1600x1200, or 640x480. In addition, LCDs seem to have a fixed pixel resolution of around 100 pixels per inch - my CRT is calibrated to 144 dpi so that 1920x1440 fits in a 13-1/3-by-10-inch span. The size of one of those 2560x1600 monitors would be like having a 3840x2400 resolution in that space. I actually wished I could go even finer than 144 dpi, such as 200. I am limited to a 60 Hz refresh rate though, but, like with multiple monitors, I have otherwise no experience with refresh rates beyond 60 Hz.

Due to the fact you can't buy CRT computer monitors any more from retail stores, I'm unlikely to bother with a second monitor due to the huge costs of monitors. To match or exceed my monitor's resolution, I have to pay $1000 for a monitor, rather ridiculous.

 

[king smp]

alot of photographers still swear by highend CRTs

but the price of LCDs has dropped drastically

and for the home user it is the way to go

if you are going to spend about a 100-150 USD

then an LCD really is a better choice

just from the size and weight factor alone

but I disagree with Hella-D

I thought looking at a CRT was easy on my eyes with a CRT

but that is with high end CRTs like the Diamond Pro and yours also

lower end cheap CRTs were lame

but at higher resolutions and higher refresh rates

they looked good

some old time hardcore gamers will still use CRTs
competition gamers even


really a matter of preference

not something scientifically measured

cant measure an opinion

 

[ulillillia]

To match or exceed my CRT's resolution, these monitors are all I have for LCDs. There are no CRTs available. The closest to my CRT's resolution is 1920x1200, but that's lower than what I have, and their cheapest prices are about 50% more than what my CRT cost me. Double the price for less resolution - this makes for a bad deal, very bad. This is why I'm avoiding LCDs. For the price I paid for my CRT, this is what I have available - most of this is far lower in resolution than my CRT.

I'm not buying any monitors any time soon (and by this, I mean years).