Double Your Fun with DoubleSight

Lothar writes "If you are looking for another reason to throw out that old CRT and upgrade to LCDs here it is. The DoubleSight DS-1900 packs two 19" LCD panels in a neat package and will take up less total space than that cathode ray tube whic has created the permanent bow in your desk. You will end up with 2560x1024 pixels of screen real estate, enough to increase productivity substantially, but you won't have to sacrifice too much space due to the reasonable size of the display's footprint. Just another reason to go LCD..."

Comments

LCD's

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Have they eliminated "Blurring" - We have cheap LCD's at work that suck as you scroll up a web page and it "blurs".

What aboud the dead pixel policy?

Re:LCD's

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Crap - Should of previewed - I meant "About" - I've read in some stores that you have to have at least a dozen dead pixles before youcan return the monitor.

On a side note? Two minutes between posts? 8/ Jeez - one minute was bad enough /.

Re:LCD's

[Eugene]

usually there's a policy that under X number of stuck/dead pixel in a given size (15", 17", and so on) is normal, you can only exchange it for another one if the stuck/dead pixel is above the monitor's policy. (or there's 2 stuck pixels within certain distance to each other)

Re:LCD's

[modecx]

Indeed, they've got LCDs around that claim ~10ms response time. I have a 19" touting 16ms response time, and I'm proud to say that it plays movies well, plays fast paced games well--Enemy Territory, HL2 both look beautiful, even with lots of fast movement.

Of course, there's people that will poo-poo LCDs until they render every itty-bitty thing perfectly at 100hz... As if their "super high quality" CRTs have phosphors that react fast enough to make a difference, and their eyes are from the planet Krypton....

Truthfully, I don't notice that much of a difference between this and my old CRT, except text is sharper, and I swear that colors in the magenta range seem more vibrant. The price was more than reasonable too--$360. You can find the 12 ms screens for around that now, but I needed mine in a hurry and couldn't find a place that carried them locally.

Re:LCD's

[modecx]

That's called interpolation. Not blurring, or ghosting. The monitor has to scale the image up to it's native resolution. Sometimes, a resolution that's a factor of an LCD's native resolution will look okay. This isn't an issue for most people.

What he's talking about is response time, which is the amount of time it takes an individual pixel to fully change from one color to another.. It's usually measured as the time between going from white to black, or from one grey to another grey... There is a definite, measurable response time on both LCDs and CRTs, but they have different implications.

Re:LCD's

[McGiraf]

yeah nice... but to get double sight it's cheaper to buy beer.

Re:LCD's

[Norny]

I think you explained why it blurs in your own comment "We have cheap LCD's...". That's why I invested $600 on a good viewsonic.

Re:LCD's

[timothv]

Ghosting has been significantly reduced in the past year. OverDrive panels Viewsonic VX924 (faster response, more noise)

Re:LCD's

[drsquare]

The DoubleSight DS-1900 packs two 19" LCD panels in a neat package and will take up less total space than that cathode ray tube whic has created the permanent bow in your desk.

The bit that gets me is, it takes up more space, not less. My desk space is limited by width rather than depth. Moving from a CRT to an LCD doesn't give me extra room at the sides, it gives me more room behind or in front of the monitor. Unless these LCDs are going to be in front of each other, it's not taking up existing CRT space. If I had width-space on my desk for another monitor I'd get another CRT and save spending ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS on a monitor. That's assuming the cheap, short cables that come with monitors would actually reach the computer.

Other than the blurring/dead pixel issue, LCDs are pretty good. The image is a lot sharper and less harsh on the eyes than CRTs. Although the colours and resolutions aren't so good, for most people not doing graphic design and not playing games, they're pretty good for word processing or spreadsheets or something.

Now all they need to do is reduce the price.

Re:LCD's

[Anonymous Coward]

How about polarization? Do they have screen I can see without tilting my head if I'm wearing sunglasses? Nope.

Re:LCD's

[Lew Payne]

> Crap. Should of previewed. What does "should of previewed" mean? Why is it that so many supposedly educated people on here are illiterate?

Re:LCD's

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, fuck this. I was going to post a detailed explanation of the inherent motion blur common to all hold-type displays, even the fastest ones, but I'm told that "Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting. It's been 30 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment", so there, now all I'm going to post is this rant.

Re:LCD's

[jbarket]

The real problem with these monitors is that for $1,000, you could pick up a couple of nicer 19" LCDs yourself.

As far as your space problem, my personal recommendation (having a similarly small desk) is to wall mount your LCDs.

I picked up a mount for about $40 not too long ago, and I can extent the monitor out from the wall, tilt and pivot it, et cetera. Combined with a wireless mouse and an easily stored keyboard, I can regain use of my entire desk fairly quickly.

Can't recommend it highly enough.

Re:LCD's

[NeoThermic]

Dead pixels will relate to the ISO rating class that the pannel has combined with its native resolution.

ISO 13406-2 (Class II) states that you can roughtly have 2 dead pixels per million pixels. So for a native resolution of 2560*1024, you will get nothing more than 4 dead pixels.

You can get better, of course, if the pannels are rated to Class I, they must be perfect, i.e. no dead pixels.

NeoThermic

Re:LCD's

[MightyMartian]

For about the first two or three days after I got an LCD monitor at work I actually was getting headaches and felt nautious. I have no idea why, but after a few days it all disappeared. Mind you, I still prefer my CRT, though I really couldn't put my finger on why.

Re:LCD's

[Anonymous Coward]

And then the literate people can't change the drop-down to POT...

Re:LCD's

[peragrin]

Why don't you actually try it out instead of complaining about it?

My HP laptop(P2 400mhz 128mb ram just to age it for you) at work blurs when viewing images, and browsing pages. My Apple Powerbook, and NEC 18" (both brand new)displays work beautifully, for playing quake, HL2, etc.

So why don't you try it out. Technology is always changing, and improving. Last year's model might of sucked, but this year's might be great.

Re:LCD's

[modecx]

You can get better, of course, if the pannels are rated to Class I, they must be perfect, i.e. no dead pixels.

And in truth that would only be important if it were being used in a medical setting or similar. Wouldn't want to mistake a dead pixel for a budding prostate cancer or anything.

Re:LCD's

[smiffy1976]

Why are you wearing sunglasses inside?

Re:LCD's

[molnarcs]

Short answer: yes, absolutely!

Long answer:
There are 3 lcd panel technologies: TN, *VA (MVA, PVA) and IPS. TN panels have achieved a very fast response time last year. My viewsonic vx912 has a response time of ~12ms, which is fine not only for movies, but for fast paced fps as well. The downside of TN panels is the smaller viewable angles, especially the vertical ones, and 6 bit panels (that achieve 16.2 million colors with a 'trick'). Contrast ratio is average.

*VA panels had an average of 25ms - that was fine for movies, and not so fine with games. Especially since 25ms was usually the black-to-white-to-black response time, and for some colors, switching could took as much as 60ms. However, *VA panels have excellent color reproduction capabilities (truly 8 bit panels) and excellent viewing angles, and high contrast ratio. S-IPS panels has also 25ms response time, but that's more or less even for every color transition. So a 25ms S-IPS panel is much faster than a *VA, has great viewing angles, good color reproduction, and sucky contrast. Newer S-IPS panels have improved on contrasts however a lot. APPLE displays have S-IPS panels (from LG.Philips).

Recently, various panel vendors (AUO, Samsung, Fujitsu) have experimented with increasing the response time of *VA panels. You'll see those panels described as P-MVA (premium mva) or S-MVA (super MVA), that boast a grey-to-gray response time of 8ms, while having still 25ms average response for non grey to grey transitions. Still, they proved to be excellent gaming monitors even for fps, without sacrificing viewing angles and contrast like in the case of IPS and TN panels, and they are out on the market and affordable. There is little or no reason to buy CRT-s now, because LCD Monitors are actually cheaper if you don't consider the initial price only! My 19'' LCD's average power consumption is 35W. A CRT with similar size (that would be a 20'' CRT) will consume 110+ Watts. Depending on your usage pattern, the additional cost of an LCD monitor can be saved up on energy usage in one to three years. Moreover, LCD monitors have perfect geometry (important for cad related works).

I put a site, a community effort to create a table of what's what in LCD land. The site is here. direct link to monitor table, and a direct link to LCD-TV table. If you are looking for characteristics of various panels (not end products), you'll find them here.

Re:LCD's

[47F0]

Or, for just over twice the price of your wall mount (about $90 US), I picked up two used 19" Trinitron monitors - the the balance of the thousand dollars will buy you a much roomier (again, used) desk, and leave enough left over for quite a lot of beer - which, if you consume enough, will let you percieve a four-monitor setup...

"Sigs? We don't neeed no steenking sigs"

Re:LCD's

[molnarcs]

LCD monitors don't have to be 100hz. In fact, hz value only determines the maximum framerate, so having a 60HZ lcd (at native resolution on a DVI link, analog link is usually 75hz) that only means that you get 60fps, which is more than enough for movies that only do 25 or 30, and games as well.

hz in CRT's is important because it is the refresh rate of pixels. A pixel in an LCD monitor doesn't refresh, it stays the same color until it is directed otherwise, in other words, there is no flicker at all (good for eyes). Now the biggest bullshit CRT monitor vendors pulled is the values they give for refresh rate. Before you turn your monitor to its maximum refresh rates, check out the default values your vendor gives for them! This is because CRT monitors have to adhere to certain standards. The TCO standars for instance defines the maximum radiotion a monitor might have. However, vendors cheat in a way that a TCO '03 monitor will only work at low radiation levels if you use it at the 'suggested' values. In other words, if your monitor's suggested resolution is 1600x1200@85hz, you should leave it at that, even if your monitor can do 110hz@1600x1200, because at 110Hz your TCO '03 monitor might not conform even to TCO '95 specs, and you will end up sitting before an electron cannon radiating at a level that wasn't OK even 10 years ago.

Re:LCD's

[Total_Wimp]

The pivoting part is important, at least to me. I run dual LCDs at work and each of them is on a pivoting base. We have a highly colaborative environment and it's very common for me to want/need to show something on my screen to a coworker. I can actually swivel one of the displays and then hit a hot key so that both the coworker and me are looking at the exact same material, but then reverse the process and have the ability to use both screens as one giant display. If I had a single base that contained both screens, this wouldn't be possible.

Another technology that makes this expecially usefull is USB mice and keyboards. I actually have an extra set on my desk in just the right position so my coworker can do input when they're looking at my swiveled display. Ever have someone try to reach accross you so they can use your mouse to show you something? Ever switch chairs so someone else could "drive" and then realize you have stuff you need to show them too? Dual displays keyboards and mice are amoung the best investments I've ever made to enchance teamwork in our workplace.

TW

Re:LCD's

[Anonymous Coward]

Or if you do anything that involves looking at images. Do you have idea how annoying it is to have to move a 3000x2000 pixel image around on your screen do dodge the dead pixels?

Re:LCD's

[the_Bionic_lemming]

That's what I was referring too.

I have the lcd at work - but I love my crt at home.

I do want to switch to lcd's - but only when they act like a crt.

Re:LCD's

[modecx]

I've never heard about a correlation of increased refresh rate to increased radiation output...

Thinking about it, it dosen't make much sense, though perhaps my instinct is wrong. Does the output of the cathode increase somehow? I confess, I don't know much about CRT design, but I'd think that the potential between the cathode and anode would have to remain fairly constant. I'd expect that the electromagnets which direct the electron beam would need more power. More switching per second and all.

I've always thought that the values vendors give was designed around the phosphors themselves. If a phosphor mix is designed to exhaust it's energy at a certian frequency, it dosen't make much sense to go much more than that, because the phosphor dosen't have time enough to dim befor it's re-excited. I'm probably not being clear.

For instance, if a phosphor mix were designed to operate at 60Hz without flickering--that is the phosphors don't get the chance to fully discharge in 1/60th of a second--illumination is fairly constant, but it's prone to blurring in the same way LCDs are today because the phosphors can't react fast enough. There was a day when monitors operated at 60Hz and we didn't have problems. Only when you run a monitor that has phosphors that were designed to react at 72+Hz at 60Hz will you notice the flickering.

As far as I can see, the only advantage and difference between running a monitor designed to operate at 72Hz vs. one designed to operate at 60Hz is that the time in which a transition between pure white to pure black will be 20% faster... 20% less blurring, so to say.

I'll have to read up on all this and see if what you say is true... 'Cause it's interesting, and unexpected that a CRT would operate that way, I think.

Re:LCD's

[luna69]

You should go look at more LCDs. You're not going to find a perfect LCD for $199, but if you're willing to spend a little, you'll be floored not only at how much it doesn't suck, but at how much BETTER than a CRT it is. I don't want an LCD that acts like a CRT, because that would be a downgrade.

I saved my pennies and bought one of Dell's nice new monsters. Very fast response times (12ms for grey-to-grey, 16 or 17 I think for black-to-white) and has ZERO dead/stuck pixels.

It's the best monitor I've ever used, and I've been staring at computer screens since sometime in the late 1970's.

Re:LCD's

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot is teh borken

Re:LCD's

[the_Bionic_lemming]

For four hundred dollars - I can have a 21 inch crt that outperforms the 17 inch crt I have at work.

When it costs four hundred dollars for an LCD that matches or exceeds the performance of the 21 inch crt I'll switch.

Re:LCD's

[molnarcs]

lol, you may know more about CRTs than I do (been reading up on LCD technologies and OLEDs in the past year). I don't know if the values given are designed around the phosphors or the capabilities of the tube.

I can't seem to find the link to the article about corellation b/w refresh rate and EM radiation (seemed very convincing when I read it, and it makes sense: why would a vendor recommend lower refresh rates at given resolutions if the monitor is capable of doing more? it might be to preserve its lifetime though...).

If you did read up and think I'm wrong, I would be pleased to read about it :)

Re:LCD's

[sharkey]

I have a 19" touting 16ms response time, and I'm proud to say that it plays movies well, plays fast paced games well--Enemy Territory, HL2 both look beautiful, even with lots of fast movement.

Don't name names or anything ;)

Re:LCD's

[loraksus]

Hell, 2 nice Dell UltraSharp 2005FPW 20.1" widescreen displays (that use the same panel as the apple cinema displays) can be had for well under $100 (they were going for $379 shipped about 2 weeks ago)

Re:LCD's

[Anonymous Coward]

That guy may be illiterate, but you are a fucking moron for not being able to comprehend the meaning of a simple, common English expression.

Re:LCD's

[modecx]

D'oh! Yeah, that might've been helpful. It's a BenQ T903, I got it from Microcenter for $369, and I forgot that it had a $40 rebate on top of that. I need to send that in! It's funny, because that actually made it cheaper than the 17" BenQ they had there, though I do belive that was a 12ms model. Anyway, it's serving me better than I expected, it has one stuck pixel, in the lower right hand corner. It's stuck blue, and it's pretty hard to see, so no biggie.

If it'll last me a couple years (I'm more than sure it will), it'll be better than the Viewsonic P220F I had that still has my room smelling of magic smoke. If I had a few days lead time, I would've got the 19" BenQ from newegg, 12ms, and with shipping it would've been the same price. Maybe I'll get one of those dual-dvi cards they have there and go dual LCD! It's amazing, because it's actually affordable today. Heh.

Re:LCD's

[Lew Payne]

You're a moron for assuming I can't understand it. Since you're obviously
slow, I'll summarize for you in painstaking detail...

I was able to comprehend the message he was trying to convey. My comment
was about the fact that he's basically illiterate... as is most of America, sadly.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, bright guy.

Re:LCD's

[Shadowlore]

We have cheap LCD's

Buying cheap LCD monitors and then griping about them is a tad ridiculous, no? If you buy cheap, expect cheap.

Re:LCD's

[Otto]

The bit that gets me is, it takes up more space, not less. My desk space is limited by width rather than depth.

Then you have an unusual desk. Most people have the opposite problem. Plenty of width, very little depth. Setting the monitor back a bit by making it thinner increases the amount of desk space substanially, on most desks.

Although the colours and resolutions aren't so good, for most people not doing graphic design and not playing games, they're pretty good for word processing or spreadsheets or something.

The resolution of LCD's is usually better than most CRT's of equal size. Colors are a toss up, but the res is easily superior on the LCD side of things. The problem is the blur effect when you scroll, and it takes a rather high end LCD to eliminate that. Which is where most of the price comes from, really. Still, they're making bigger and bigger LCD screens now, which means, as always, a price drop for smaller ones. But it will take another year or two for the major decreases.

Re:LCD's

[CyberKnet]

Just a short note about your site:

Given that you posted in english to a predominately english-reading site, I think it might have been prudent to indicate in your post that your community effort site is not in english.

That said, for anyone reading this comment you still ought to be able to make great use of the tables linked to by molnarc, they contain good information that ought to be legible if you know the kinds of attributes LCD panels are usually measured by.

Re:LCD's

[ngrier]

The above is very comprehensive!

For those having trouble figuring out the columns, the following is a decent automated translation: http://www.tranexp.com:2000/InterTran?type=url&top frame=yes&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tftpanel.hu%2Findex .php%3Ftopic%3Dmonitortablazat&from=hun&to=eng

Note, though, that it screws up the contrast ratios (250:1 becomes 2501: and the light measurement is Candelas (Cd)/m2 not Compact Discs per m2.

Re:LCD's

[Anonymous Coward]

moron for assuming I can't understand

"assuming that I".

I'll summarize for you in painstaking detail

"summarize it for".

the message he was trying to convey

"message that he".

Re:LCD's

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, since the electron beam flys over an area more quickly, I would assume that the electron gun would have to put out more electrons/sec to achieve the same brightness. OTOH, it flys over the same area more times/sec, so maybe it all evens out.

Re:LCD's

[Lew Payne]

Redundant. Learn the rules of English grammar. The object is to reduce the sentence while still
retaining reference and understanding. Thank you for proving my point about the abundance of
illiteracy in today's society.

Re:LCD's

[molnarcs]

Yeah, you're right, I forgot about it! We are still working on it (and a new plugin for geeklog to handle direct editing of the tables - presently we are imputting everything via html) - and there will be directions in English on the frontpage (short descriptions of the tables and such) when we're done.

Re:LCD's

[tabrnaker]

$$$!=quality. Viewsonic lcds aren't anything special.

CRT can do this too

[camcorder]

Why this is a reason to switch LCD? You can do same with CRT as well. You'll also have better colors if you pay same amount of money.

But I can't argue that real desktop real estate will be better with CRT.

Re:CRT can do this too

[Uber Banker]

Yeah, I cant think this is a reason to switch when I've had it on my Bloomberg terminal for 4 years, and it wasn't new then...

Re:CRT can do this too

[Tet]

Why this is a reason to switch LCD?

Indeed. I'm all for multiheaded setups. But until the quality of LCDs improves substantially, I'll be sticking with CRT. Yeah, so it requires more desk real estate. But I care more about my eyes[1] than I do about saving space. I'ts much cheaper, too.

[1] Many people claim that LCDs are better for your eyes than CRTs. All I can say is that my experience is the opposite. LCDs cause my eyes to strain, and give me a headache with prolonged use. And they're too low resolution for me anyway (although that is changing, and it won't be long before mainstream LCDs get to a decent resolution).

Re:CRT can do this too

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this even a news article? People have been using dual-headed displays for years. These guys just hooked it into one stand and suddenly it's a front page slashdot article? This smells like a slashvertisement to me.

Re:CRT can do this too

[lastchance_000]

Yep. I remember Dell advertising 2- and 4-panel (2x2) lcd displays not too long ago.

Re:CRT can do this too

[Badfysh]

Seriously, all the non-geeks I know have changed to cheapo LCD and if they were honest it's because they just look cool and modern in the house, something to beat the Joneses with. The cheap ones are just furniture, you'd be better off using the money for a nice watercolour if all you want to do is improve your decor.

Re:CRT can do this too

[peragrin]

And how many years ago were you using LCD's?

Today's cheap LCD's don't suffer from most of those problems. Dead pixels is another story, but even then if a certain number are bad the manufacturer exchanges it for you.

Of course if you consider 1280x1024 at 18" dia. to be low resolution then you need your eyes checked anyway.

Re:CRT can do this too

[Matthew Weigel]

Perhaps you are comparing high-end CRTs to the LCDs that could be bought a few years ago? If you can get "high resolution" CRTs without eyestrain... I must assume you're talking about at least 1600x1200 at 85Hz or more. That's a damned expensive CRT, and until recently you had to pay about that much (if not more) to get an entry-level LCD doing 1024x768.

Modern LCDs have improved significantly... The worst LCDs of today outstrip most LCDs of a couple years ago. A good LCD that does 1600x1200 and doesn't have ghosting problems will run under 600USD. That's a difference of about 150USD and between 30 and 50 pounds. Make that two, and you're looking at as much as 100 extra pounds sitting on your desk.

With all that said... this DoubleSight doesn't look like a very good deal. 19" LCDs run around 300USD, buying two of them leaves you with a budget of 300USD on your mounting system (more than enough these days) and you'll still save money.

Re:CRT can do this too

[Ralph Yarro]

Of course if you consider 1280x1024 at 18" dia. to be low resolution then you need your eyes checked anyway.

"Low" resolution is obviously relative but that's lower resolution and smaller screen size than I'm used to, so it's unappealing. Personally I'll probably switch when 1600x1200 resolution LCDs come down in price, as I expect them to. Saving a little desk space isn't worth it to me to pay out money for a smaller, lower resolution, screen. YMMV.

Re:CRT can do this too

[Badfysh]

>Yeah, so it requires more desk real estate

What makes me laugh is these people who get LCD panels and then stand them on a desktop form factor box. What's the point of that?

Re:CRT can do this too

[Uber Banker]

My laptop is 1400x1050 at 15 inches, and that was only $30 more than the basic 1024x768, bought in October 2004. I'm no monitor pro, but this resolution is acceptable.

Below this ratio, I agree, is inadequate.

Re:CRT can do this too

[NormalVisual]

He doesn't need his vision checked - I have 20/10 vision as measured during my last exam, as do a lot of other people, and we can quite easily see individual pixels at better than twice that resolution. How do I know? I've sat down in front of a 22" IBM T221 running at 3840x2400, and yeah, I can still see the pixels although it's not objectionable at all at that resolution.

1280x1024 on a dual-panel setup is very low-res given what my eyes will resolve, and is absolutely the coarsest resolution that I would even consider purchasing, and would prefer something at least 1600x1200 for dual use. I wish that more high-resolution devices were available as opposed to larger devices - a 19" display is nice, but for that added real estate I'd rather have more pixels rather than bigger ones.

Re:CRT can do this too

[grumpygrodyguy]

Why this is a reason to switch LCD? You can do same with CRT as well.

I couldn't agree more. For the last 8 months I've been trying to find a double-LCD without a plastic divider between the two halves. I.e. a 2048X768 pixel LCD. Noone carries them.

It amazes me that manufacturers don't think they will sell. What can you do with a 2048X768 LCD?

1) Watch 16:9 DVD and HDTV content
2) Play games in widescreen mode
3) Have the option of two 1024X768 displays in one.

The cheap hack of gluing two 1024X768 LCDs together is not revolutionary, or even useful...unless maybe you're a system admin or a stock broker.

Re:CRT can do this too

[Lord of Ironhand]

One reason I'm sticking to CRT's is that the affordable LCD's I've seen suffer from the problem that the colours are only right as long as I'm exactly in front of the monitor. If I move my head to the right too far, I notice the left edge of the screen slowly changing colours. Not even that bad in itself since I don't usually have much reason to move to the sides so far, but I've noticed that when I'm doing graphical work on an LCD, I get paranoid about "odd" colours and have to move my head around a bit to make sure it's not caused by the LCD.

Another problem I have is that most affordable LCD's have a 1280x1024 (aspect 5:4) resolution. In a world where widescreen TV is promoted as being more "natural" for the human brain (something I actually tend to agree with), why go from 4:3 to a narrower 5:4 resolution?

For now, I'm staying with CRT's, and I'm re-evaluating once 1600x1200 LCD's with a wide viewable angle are affordable.

Re:CRT can do this too

[walt-sjc]

Power consumption? Heat? LCDs use about 1/10 the power (if that much.) When you have a lot of monitors, that really adds up.

As for desk space issues, I built a custom wooden box that puts my 2 LCD's at the perfect height, and allows my to slide my keyboard / mouse under for when I need deskspace for paper work. The LCD's being MUCH shallower allow me to push my desk right to the wall instead of sitting out 12" giving me more room in my office. My modern LCDs are MUCH sharper than my previous high-end CRTs. For a while I was running one LCD and one CRT in dual-head mode. I found myself dragging windows over to the LCD all the time since it was easier to read and had less eye strain. Out went the CRT.

Re:CRT can do this too

[PyroMosh]

You don't need a "doube" LCD. Just get a widescreen LCD.

They do exist.

Re:CRT can do this too

[Tet]

Of course if you consider 1280x1024 at 18" dia. to be low resolution then you need your eyes checked anyway.

Ha ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha. Ouch. Stop me before my aching sides split. Yes, I consider that to be very low resolution. How anyone can cope with that little screen real estate is beyond me. Yes, I know that most people do. But I'm not most people. I'm currently running at 2048x1536. Affordable LCDs can't touch that (yet).

No, it isn't.

[sglider]

Just another reason to go LCD...

I'm afraid not. LCDs are very expensive, and with the current level of technology (dead pixels, et. al.), the cost doesn't justify the product. So what if the Resolution is higher? How many people use a dual display? The average joe -- or even average geek -- could build 2 systems for the cost of this one monitor.

Unless you are into digital editing, or watching TV on your PC, this dual monitor bit is nothing more than a rich man's folly.

Re:No, it isn't.

[Klar]

Unless you are into digital editing, or watching TV on your PC, this dual monitor bit is nothing more than a rich man's folly.
Having a second monitor isn't all that expensive -- what like $150 for a 17" crt? Also, many people I know who program, including myself, find having two monitors much more productive. There is so much more desktop real estate. eg, if you are working in java, you can have the api open on a monitor as you are working on code. Or, have some code on one monitor, and test it on the other. etc etc. All the people I know who have had two monitors never go back.

Re:No, it isn't.

[sH4RD]

Actually, yes, LCDs are very expensive, but there lies the problem. Most people aren't willing to pay for this expensive technology and end up with something subpar. My LCD is three years old, but never blurs, has a super-quick refresh (it's amazing for gaming), and not a single dead pixel in sight. And why's that? It's because it cost $800, that's why. Good LCDs are not cheap. (Oh, and Dell makes great LCDs. Surprising eh?) However, I must agree with you, why buy a fancy dual setup when it's cheaper just to get one screen which works well? Do one thing, and do it well.

Re:No, it isn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

> All the people I know who have had two monitors never go back.

Agreed. In my experience there are two types of people, those who have two (or more) monitors, and those who have never tried it. My coworker used to make fun of my three monitors. One day I installed a 14" secondary monitor on his computer. Now he'd shoot me if I tried to remove it.

Re:No, it isn't.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Normally, dual head isn't very expensive. And it is useful for heavy multitasking.

Most video cards now seem to support it, $100 will get an excellent dual head ATI or nVidia card new, you can buy Matrox G400s/G450s used for $20 or less now.

I had as much as triple head several years ago when I put multiple $10 Matrox Millennium I PCI cards in the same computer and put together a bunch of cast-off CRTs.

I wouild do dual head CRT right now, but my desk doesn't have space for two of the cast-off 21" screens, so one screen is an LCD, it works pretty nice, I can keep tabs on a lot more things now.

Re:No, it isn't.

[doc modulo]

Great sig.

Re:No, it isn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hardly believable. Motion blurring is an inherent flaw of hold-type displays, which includes all LCDs.

Re:No, it isn't.

[Esion Modnar]

All the people I know who have had two monitors never go back.

Same thing can be said about a woman with no teeth.

Re:No, it isn't.

[steeef]

I recently replaced my old 19" CRT monitor with a Samsung 19" CRT, but not before I looked at comparable LCDs.

I knew I wanted at least a 19" that was capable of displaying 1600x1200. I scoured NewEgg, but all I got were 19" LCDs with a native resolution of 1280x1024. I could put up with a lower resolution, but the fact that they all run at a non-4:3 resolution kills the deal for me. It just looks wrong.

In order to get 1600x1200, I would have had to buy at least a 20". And judging from the current prices at NewEgg, that's at least $600. So I went with the Samsung 997DF-T/T CRT monitor for $210. That's nearly a third of the cost for a flatscreen CRT with great colors and dotpitch.

LCDs are great, and had I $600+ to spend, I would have jumped at the chance. But for now, the cost difference is enough to make me stick with CRTs for now.

Re:No, it isn't.

[St. Arbirix]

This is one of the arguments for OSX not having a maximize button but rather a zoom button instead. Nothing ever fills the screen so you can always see the windows open behind what you're doing. Couple this with a widescreen and you've got a setup with room your reference to one side and an editor to the other.

All the people I know who have had a Mac have never gone back.

Re:No, it isn't.

[mlrtime]

You don't know me then, got rid of my first and only powerbook. I'm going back to a thinkpad and not looking back. .02

Re:No, it isn't.

[ucblockhead]

Two monitors are a godsend for any kind of GUI development. Debugger goes on one, the app in the other. It's no fun trying to debug a GUI when every time you switch to the debugger you get more draw events.

Re:No, it isn't.

[ArmorFiend]

You'll have to invent a third type of people to include me. I tried dual head, but there was a big annoying FRAME running through the middle of my screen. Putting windows fully on one side or the other of the boundary was a bother. In the end it just wasn't worth the window-manager-fiddling-time or desk real-estate.

So in the end I did away with dual head, bought a $600 20" monitor that does 2048x1532, and haven't looked back.

Re:No, it isn't.

[Slayk]

I'll second that. If I keep myself to 78 characters per line in my code, I can split my buffer in gvim 4 times at 2560x1024 and have four files up at the same time. Having an API reference up or a terminal up for compilation is also very very handy. (I don't like compiling via vim itself because I need to keep the error messages visible while I'm working through the code fixing whatever error gave the compiler a fit)

Once you realize exactly how much information you can keep visible and how long it takes to change what window it being displayed on a single head system (with a non-trivial amount of applications open. I find while at work I'll have anywhere between 6-12 depending on what I'm doing), you won't want to go back to having one monitor without a fight. Having a (real)desktop pager only partially alleviates this issue, since you can organize what applications you have up in a given desktop, but you can't keep access to it available the instant you need to reference it.

Other nice things are being able to have a video playing on one monitor and still browse/code in the other (assuming your player of choice handles dualhead well. xine+twinview is a mess, while totem and mplayer do a respectable job)

Re:No, it isn't.

[timothv]

That's a bunch of bullshit. Any LCD ever made has ghosting if you're not blind. Even my 1-week old Viewsonic VP191b 19" with 8ms gray-to-gray has some ghosting. Check Tom's Hardware for LCD response graphs.

Re:No, it isn't.

[taylortbb]

No, it is a result of slow displays. I too have a 17" Dell Flat Panel and I have no problem at all with ghosting during gaming and movies.

(And I do know what to look for, I also have a 17" BenQ illuminated crap (yes, it's that bad) and the ghosting is horrible)

I may not like having a Dell computer that much, but my Dell Flat Panel is the nicest I've seen.

Re:No, it isn't.

[LurkerXXX]

That isn't a third type of person. You are are just a single monitor person. You do realize there are people doing multi-heads with 20" high res montitors as well, don't you?

Re:No, it isn't.

[bahamat]

Unless you are into digital editing, or watching TV on your PC, this dual monitor bit is nothing more than a rich man's folly.

I beg to differ. I'm a systems administrator and I've been using dual 19" LCD's on my Linux workstation for months. I regularly load my screens with more xterms than you can shake a stick at. I have two virtual desktops filled with terms, one with a browser and my e-mail each a full screen and one for various other things (usually Ethereal, Gimp or OpenOffice) and I still find myself craving more space. And when I see the tripple screen desktops from Digital Blasphemy I start thinking to myself that it's time to upgrade.

2560x1024 is nice, but it's just too derned cramped.

Re:No, it isn't.

[The Snowman]

In my experience there are two types of people, those who have two (or more) monitors, and those who have never tried it.

How about a third type of person: someone who had a dual-head system, but whose manager took the extra video card and monitor so he could have TWO emails open at once.

Re:No, it isn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then the video card support for dual head wasn't properly configured or the video card had poor dual monitor support.

With linux and xinerama, or on windows with a video card that has a good driver, each screen has its own area and any maximized window will maximize to a single screen and managing the different screens becomes almost effortless.

Re:No, it isn't.

[teh kurisu]

Screen spanning on OS X annoys me, because you only get the menu bar on the 'primary' screen. So if I, say, move my web browser to the secondary screen, I have to go back to the first screen to open the Bookmarks menu.

I do agree with you Re the zoom button, but it's annoying when it doesn't quite work. When reading PDFs, Preview.app sometimes doesn't fill as much of the screen as it really should, and I have to expand the window manually to make the text readable.

Re:No, it isn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or if your mind can handle the idea of only focusing attention at one physical display all the time you can use a window manager that has multiple desktops.
You don't look to type so you shouldn't be looking for what you want to see either.

If you are spending lots of time jumping to different windows I'm of the opinion that you could easily be replaced by a simple shell script so watch your back!

Re:No, it isn't.

[electrosoccertux]

My friend who works at IBM got around getting a new monitor by spending a day (only!) to program a window transparency program that lets him make changes to stuff he's writing and see instant results. So whats the GUI update "Longhorn" waiting on?

Re:No, it isn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what's funny?

That the panels that go into Dells and other brands come from only a handful of places.

Samsung. Panasonic. Phillips. etc. There's probably less than eight actual mainstream panel manufactuers, and even then they tend to cross-liscense eachother's technologies.

It's entirely likely that the panel in your $800 monitor is also in about 4-5 "inferior quality" brands' monitors.

Re:No, it isn't.

[mattyrobinson69]

totem uses xine-lib as does xine-ui. due to the separation of xine-lib and xine-ui, you can use xine with many different frontends. i use amarok's xine audio engine, xine-ui for vids although occasionally totem if for some strange reason i find myself browsing for video's in konqueror instead of konsole (never bothered to change the avi association to xine)

Re:No, it isn't.

[NitsujTPU]

You're right on that front.

Of course, the poster may have been referring to the particular setup described in the article... which is expensive, and LCD, so any videophile will go "ick".

Personally, 2 widescreen LCD's sounds like heaven to me. The only thing that gets me down to 1 monitor these days is my notebook, and I considered buying a dual screen notebook.

Re:No, it isn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

I regularly use a 4 monitor/3 machine setup. It's a great way to work, and makes accessing multiple platforms a breeze. But you do need a good KVM, or even better x2vnc, x2x, and osx2x.

Besides that, you can easily get used 21" trinitrons on ebay for $200 each, including shipping.

Re:No, it isn't.

[Nexx]

If you need that many xterms, perhaps it's time to look at a good system/network monitoring solution instead?

obDisclosure: I work for a company that builds monitoring solutions for financial institutions.

Re:No, it isn't.

[jacksonj04]

The only time I have ever used dual screens was when I was dealing with documents. Lots of documents. Having two screens allowed me to keep two 'source' documents open on one monitor and the interface I happened to be transcribing them into (which needed a lot of screen estate) on the other.

I tried it with one screen and alt+tabbing, I gave up and demanded a 2nd monitor after 20 minutes.

Re:No, it isn't.

[FLEB]

Depending on what you're using it for, even a Free-$30 garage-sale 15 or 17" CRT can be a great improvement for dual-head. If it's just going to have palettes(sp?) or web docs up, it's not even worth buying new or high-quality.

Granted, some people might have aesthetic sensibilities which are offended by the look of a rotting-yellow colored beige-box monitor on the desk, but I've never been one to get hung up on look when the usefulness/price factor is so good.

Re:No, it isn't.

[sixteenraisins]

Dont knock it 'til you try it. I'm using two 18" LCD's (total cost around $700), no dead pixels on either screen, and the amount of screen real estate is unbelievably useful. I originally tried two displays with two CRT's, one 17" and one 15", using the smaller one for email, Windows Explorer, etc. and the larger one for applications. Now that I'm using the LCD's, they take up less space, they don't get as hot, and the picture is a lot more crisp and easy on the eyes.

I still use the Dualview setting by Nvidia, and very seldom stretch a single application across both screens (usually movie and/or sound editing or CAD), but having both monitors has been a great productivity boost.

Unless you are into...watching TV on your PC, this dual monitor bit is nothing more than a rich man's folly.

I don't know how you usually watch TV, but one screen is plenty for that, I think.

And the dead pixel problem is pretty easy to overcome - I had them take them out of the box at the store and hook them up to test them.

Re:No, it isn't.

[Slayk]

I'm aware of that, but it doesn't change that totem will properly fill one monitor when fullscreened, while gxine will try to span both montiors in aspect ratio, but only fils the first monitor (such that I only see half of the image).

Re:No, it isn't.

[Tetrad69]

but the fact that they all run at a non-4:3 resolution kills the deal for me. It just looks wrong.

The reason they run at 5:4 resolution is because, get this, the monitor itself is 5:4.

Re:No, it isn't.

[Iffy Bonzoolie]

Some people are more sensitive to that stuff than other people. Generally the same people who get headaches with 60Hz CRTs also can "taste the rainbow" of DLP projectors, and get really annoyed with ghosting on flat panels. I'm pretty sensitive to this stuff, and I've found I need 10ms response time to not notice ghosting anymore. For many people, 13 or 25ms is fine.

-If

Re:No, it isn't.

[mattyrobinson69]

ok, sorry about that - i can't remember why i thought that was relevant

Re:No, it isn't.

[netsharc]

We have 17" LCD's at work with 1280x1024 resolution, and they really have the 5:4 physical ratio, which is correctly represented with 1280x1024, meaning the pixels are still rectangular.

In 4:3, a 1280px-wide display has a height of 960px, (1024-960)/960 is 0.0667, meaning it's 6.67% taller than what it would be if it were 4:3. I didn't even realise for a while that it wasn't 4:3. Of course if you watch 16:9 DVDs have more black bars at the top and bottom, but if you want to prevent that it'd be better to use a 16:9 monitor anyway. :)

Re:No, it isn't.

[pomo monster]

Dude, that sounds more like a software problem than a hardware problem. What OS were you using that insisted on spanning everything between two screens?

Re:No, it isn't.

[Lord of Ironhand]

My story is very similar - when my old 21" monitor started to deteriorate, I looked at my options, and bought the exact same Samsung monitor you mention. One thing I noticed is that the introduction of LCD's has already significantly affected the diversity in available CRT models, this Samsung was the only monitor below EUR 300 that met my requirements.

I can also greatly recommend this monitor, in addition to the technical quality you mention, it's very slim & light - the outside dimensions are more or less the same as my 17" LG Flatron monitor and I don't have to ruin my back carrying it around like with my old HP RISC workstation monitor.

Re:No, it isn't.

[WillerZ]

I went back from dual-screens to a single screen because dual-screens didn't suit the way I work.

At first I tried putting the monitors together and treating it as one larger desktop, but the 2x screen-surround gap in the middle meant that didn't work for me. I was hoping that this story would be about a screen with no (or at least a 95% of my time on only one screen. I think this was mainly because I could only orient the keyboard and mouse comfortably for one screen at a time. The 5% of the time I was using the second screen was mainly out of guilt for not using it.

Like most people, I would prefer more screen space. At my previous job I had an SGI 1600SW, which was ideal, unfortunately there was only one affordable graphics board which worked with its proprietary DVI system. The closest thing I can find to that now is Apple's range of cinema displays, but they're a little too expensive for me at the moment (and the pixel density still can't touch the 1600SW).

Re:No, it isn't.

[ArmorFiend]

There were no driver issues. Everything was configured properly. Dual screen is just a dumb idea.

The point is, there's a big pesky line through the screen. By putting the same money into a single monitor, yes, you get fewer total pixels, but the pixels you have can be used in two different configurations.

1) Two windows side-by-side.
2) One stupendously large window, with no seam down the middle.

Dual head can only do (1) of these.

Don't tell me I'll like it if I try it - I have, I didn't.

Re:No, it isn't.

[Mindcry]

i actually got two 19" crts (MAG innovision, they do 1024x768@85hz just fine and thats all i use) for 100$ each (150 -50$ rebate) two years ago... you can get new 17" crts for 60-80$ depending on the week (compusa/bestbuy/circuit city)... and they're actually good quality.

Re:No, it isn't.

[zbuffered]

Or read your post and watch a movie. :p

Re:No, it isn't.

[walt-sjc]

Dual screen for you may not work. It seems you just can't get over that gap. Reading something in a three-ring binder must really piss you off. Most of the rest of us however don't give a shit about the gap. The massive extra real-estate is just to big a benefit to ignore. Since I can't comfortably read 6-point text, a single super-high res monitor does no good.

Re:No, it isn't.

[McCheese]

I am using that 997DF as well. What a great monitor it is, eh? I run the desktop at 1024*768 at 100 Hz, but for games or other uses the high resolutions capable are great. 1600*1200 and 2048&1536 are great for games. All is well.

Re:No, it isn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

Two e-mails at once actually sounds fairly useful, if you're replying to one e-mail and drawing from another e-mail simultaneously. If you're a manager, I imagine you send and receive a lot of e-mail, all the time (that basically being a manager's entire purpose in life), and so I could definitely see how a second monitor would be superior to just using multiple windows.

Re:No, it isn't.

[walt-sjc]

Um, needing lots of xterms does not equal needing a good system/network monitoring solution. I would seriously doubt that he just runs "top" in all those windows. I frequently have 10 xterms open and NONE of them are doing system monitoring. Monitoring is done by a completely separate application.

Furthermore, the second monitor is great for running remote desktops, etc. When I go on the road, I have a 1600x1200 laptop. Not having the second screen drives me nuts. It's not the resololution, it's the physical size (my dual 19's at 1280x1024 isn't even quite enough.)

The Only time I wish I had a single monitor that was really wide is looking at logs where you don't want line wrap. That's rare enough that it's not a cost effective problem to solve.

Re:No, it isn't.

[sH4RD]

It's a Samsung. And it is in a few brands. But trust me, it's not in any of those shitty brands.

Re:No, it isn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

Having multiple monitors to code is handy, but I wouldn't call it essential. People have been doing without for ages, and I still can code comfortably and productively with a mass of windows (fiddling with mouse focus rules is a godsend, though; being able to type in a window you can't see really helps maximize the available real estate).

Granted, I only seriously write server applications and other programs where the most interesting output are some scrolling log messages, but if you're doing GUI, wouldn't multiple computers work even better? After all, your programming environment is interfering with the testing environment. :)

Re:No, it isn't.

[teslar]

So what if the Resolution is higher?

I'm afraid it even isn't that. I've got a 19 inch CRT monitor at home running at a resolution of 1920*1440@85Hz - that's almost 145.000 Pixels more than that LCD setup.
My monitor at work is a 22inch running at 2048*1536@85Hz - that's more than half a million pixels (i.e. another 800x600 monitor and some leftovers) more at half the price.

So mine is longer, thicker and bigger - but the LCDs still get all the girls. I just don't get it,

Re:No, it isn't.

[Lisandro]

PS: The LG Flatron series are, IMHO, the finest CRTs manufactured these days. I've recently bought a 17" flat screen Flatron CRT and i couldn't be happier with it - it beats every other brand in quality, even Samsung. Excellent price-quality ratio aswell.

Re:No, it isn't.

[illumin8]

In order to get 1600x1200, I would have had to buy at least a 20". And judging from the current prices at NewEgg, that's at least $600.

You should have kept an eye out for the Dell deals. I got a pair of beautiful Dell 2001FP 20" LCDs, with 1600x1200 and 16ms response time, for something like $350 each. You just have to watch for coupon codes.

Re:No, it isn't.

[entrigant]

Those lcd's usually aren't 4:3. They are typically 5:4. They still have square pixels.

Re:No, it isn't.

[StikyPad]

Same thing can be said about a woman with no teeth.

A woman with no teeth never goes back?

Re:No, it isn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha. Spent a week with a new powerbook, giving Mac OS X a chance. It's horrible, cloying. So LinuxPPC it went, nothing wrong with the hardware after all.

Re:No, it isn't.

[Nexx]

See, from a monitoring perspective:

1. If you're running commands on multiple machines, you're doing something wrong.
2. If you're looking at logfiles, either something went wrong, or you're doing something wrong.

Seriously. A good monitoring solution, when set up, frees people from the mundane and repetitive -- takes the potential human error out of these things and frees these expensive resources to do other things.

Re:No, it isn't.

[Mornelithe]

That isn't a third type of person. You are are just a single monitor person.

Considering that the original "two types of people" were: "those who have two (or more) monitors, and those who have never tried it," he is indeed a third type of person---someone who tried it, and went back to one monitor.

Cheers.

Re:No, it isn't.

[Superfarstucker]

I also have a Samsung 997 DF and it looks wonderful. Sure it doesn't have the footprint of an lcd, but in every other aspect (with the exception of geometry and power consumption) It trumps lcd displays 3x its price. Most LCDs you can pick up for under $500 US are either a.) 17" with a mediocre lifespan and gray - to gray response time (black to white is often double or greater) or b.) a total piece of shit 19".

I only paid 130 shipped for mine, so I'd say I made off well. You can still get these units from most retail outlets but you'll notice that they are pretty much hidden from view because lcds are where the money is at nowadays.

Re:No, it isn't.

[nrlightfoot]

Once you use dual monitors for even a few days, you'll never want to go back. Especially if you're like me, and the only free desktop space you have isyour computer desktop. Having dual monitors is almost orgasmic.

Re:No, it isn't.

[St. Arbirix]

Cloying, ouch. Yeah, use it too much and you start forgetting to loath the machine. There's always DarwinPorts if you want to complicate things.

I feel like I'd be betraying something if I put my usual breed on here.

Re:No, it isn't.

[luna69]

The problem with the 'zoom' button is that the OS decides where/how big my window should be.

It's MY WINDOW, not the OS's, and if I click the button with the big "+" on it, I expect "+" behavior, not "change the window size to some size that big brother decides is right for me" behavior.

Personally, I hate to drag/resize windows, ever. I browse/work with everything full-screen, and with Windows' or (or KDE, GNOME, etc) standard MDI behavior, it works precisely as suits me. I toggle back and forth with the alt-tab convention, moving between Windows that I made full-screen using the Windows equivalent of the "+" button...which actually does what it makes sense for it to do, IMHO. Under OSX, I have to manually drag, arrange, size windows to do this, making things a) annoying, b) harder, c) less intuitive.

Re:No, it isn't.

[sharkey]

Sure, you laugh about it, but being able to have two emails at once makes it easier to retype the one you are replying to.

Re:No, it isn't.

[luna69]

> I considered buying a dual screen notebook.

A notebook with two screens? Or just a notebook with a video out port for a second display attached? Seems like carrying a second display around would be a hassle...:)

Re:No, it isn't.

[luna69]

I've used one of these since 1999 or 2000, and just retired it two weeks ago. I used it with a whole series of gaming-oriented cards, ATI mostly. Worked fine.

It did require SGI's "Multisync adapter" to use anything other than the original Revolution #9 card, but it worked fine.

I agree about the pixel density - it was great to have those tiny, sharp (and, for the time, bright) pixels. I'v just moved to a Dell 2450, which is pretty close, and MUCH brighter and bigger (1920x1200, 24" diagonal). It's horizontal pixel density is about 94, not far from the 1600sw's 110.

Interestingly, since SGI released this adapter much later than when I bought the monitor (2001? 2002?), but included it with later monitor sales, I complained to SGI about the extra cost...they gave me a steep discount on it. Nice of them.

Re:No, it isn't.

[NitsujTPU]

I used to use a notebook with a second display attached at work. There were ads last year for a notebook with dual monitors though. I can't seem to find it for the life of me now.

Re:No, it isn't.

[daviddennis]

With the multilink adapter, the SGI 1600SW works fine with the VGA output of any PowerMac.

Unfortunately, you need the multilink adapter.

My 1600SW was retired at my old place because it didn't do well when there was a lot of glare around, but I may bring it back as a second monitor to my 23" Apple Cinema Display. Unfortunately I have mislaid the power supply for the multilink adapter. If anyone has a spare, please email me. (I figure 1600SW users might be watching this).

When using timeline-based motion graphics programs like After Effects and Flash, it's very useful to be able to put the timeline on the big monitor and the display of your work and pallettes on the other. I've found this is true no matter how large your display is.

My reaction to the DoubleSight idea is why not just create a frame that's the size of two LCD panels and squeeze together the two panels into what looks like a single monitor? At first, I thought that's what this was.

D

Re:No, it isn't.

[loraksus]

Expensive? Horseshit.
About two weeks ago, you could get a Dell UltraSharp 2005FPW 20.1-inch LCD Monitor with a stand for $379. This uses the exact same panel as the Apple Cinema displays.

Of course, you could pay retail (yes, Frys is anally raping you), or buy from the company in this /vertisement, but the cost of LCDs has been falling.

Re:No, it isn't.

[St. Arbirix]

Actually, it's up to the authors of the program you're using. Apple just sent out developer guidelines suggesting everyone keep as close to 8.5x11 as possible. And that's just default, most if not all programs will open up to whatever sizes you last had them at.

Re:No, it isn't.

[Jasin Natael]

Amen.

Having the ability to edit code, and see the results on a different screen does wonders for one's productivity. Especially on web development, you can have one monitor dedicated to your IDE of choice (Notepad++ for me) and the other monitor dedicated to output and documentation. I started using dual monitors five years ago when I got a Matrox Millenium G400, and NEVER went back. When I run BeOS or Linux, it is always in dual-monitor mode whenever possible. Even when I work on my Powerbook, if it's serious work, I'll hook up a big LCD or CRT as a second monitor.

I have one work system on-site at a client's business that won't support dual monitors. I cry a little inside every time I have to press alt-tab instead of glancing to the left or right.

Jasin Natael

Re:No, it isn't.

[canon006]

Dell coupons kick ass, I just picked up a 2005FPW, 20 inch widescreen(1680x1050) for around $450. Google "Dell coupons" and you'll find plenty of sites that list them.

Re:No, it isn't.

[doubleshot]

Unless you are into digital editing, or watching TV on your PC, this dual monitor bit is nothing more than a rich man's folly.

Dual monitors isn't a "rich man's folly" with most video cards touting dualheads adding on an additional monitor is not an expensive feat at all. These types of monitors however are useless and for the same amount of money you can buy 3-4 regular LCDs and sit them next to eachother. Maybe if they had reduced border size it would have been a better idea. I personally have a 21" CRT and a 15" LCD sitting next to it, having the second monitor makes coding and productivity skyrocket. Also, multipul monitor setups are highly prefered in the stock trading enviornment where they have 2-15 monitors set up for each workstation... Oh, and LCDs are getting fairly cheap...very affordable now, along with dead pixles not really being a problem, it's the response time you pay for nowadays...

Re:No, it isn't.

[Bob Uhl]

I don't like compiling via vim itself because I need to keep the error messages visible while I'm working through the code fixing whatever error gave the compiler a fit

Take a look at emacs: M-x compile will compile the file. It will continue compiling past errors, and while it compiles you can jump to errors with C-`. You can split a frame into multiple windows with C-x 2 and C-x 3, to get the behaviour you write about above. It's very nice.

And after time the keybindings are nicer too--you get used to C-a to go to the beginning of a line and C-e to go to the end. Oh, and the language major modes are excellent.

And there's a shell mode, and an SQL interface to most databases, and an email/news client, and a web browser, and an IRC client, and an IM client, and...

I open emacs and live the rest of my day therein!

Re:No, it isn't.

[CyberKnet]

FYI, if you are having a pallete up on a different monitor from the images you are editing, you will almost always want to ensure that you have accurate color representation on both monitors. This usually means buying two brand new monitors from a reputable manufacturer at the same point in time.

Two caveats:
1) That is not to say that you will not find a color accurate monitor at a garage sale, or a monitor that could not be made color accurate, just that it is less likely.
2) Inaccurate color representation on one monitor (not a dual monitor setup) whilst desirable is at least inaccurate in the same way on both the pallete and the picture, and if you have been using the monitor for any significant period of time there is a good chance you can adjust for it without thinking about it. It is less likely (imho) that you could do that effectively with two monitors that were both innacurately representing your colorspace.

Of course, YMMV.

Re:No, it isn't.

[walt-sjc]

Either you don't know jack about system administration or you are just trolling. Good sysadmins also do development - they don't just run monitoring software - that's for computer OPERATORS. If you area a sysadmin just using monitoring software, you are being SERIOUSLY overpaid. Monitoring and routine tasks should be taking MUCH less than 10% of your time. It's these non-mundane tasks and things that monitoring software CAN NOT DO. things that you spend 90% of your time on, that need lots of xterms, web browser windows, etc.

As for your point 1, can I get some of what you are smoking? As for point 2, no shit sherlock. I don't know know of anyone sitting around just tailing log files for the hell of it.

Re:No, it isn't.

[Nexx]

Sorry, 1 should've read: if you're running the same commands on multiple machines, you're doing something wrong.

As for Sysadmins doing development, in large environments, sysadmins do not do development. They may assist developers in new configurations, implementations of software, etc., but it would be very disingenious to call that "development".

And yes, I do know what I'm talking about -- my company supports the very "sysadmins" that you seem to be so fond of being, but ones who work for tier 1 banks, and I'm in a very customer-facing environment.

Re:No, it isn't.

[FLEB]

I follow you... I was just referring to "palettes" in the more Photoshopish sort of term-- control panels or toolbars. Although color palettes can be used if you go strictly "by the numbers" or have a system of selected colors that you know are correct to your output.

Re:No, it isn't.

[SociallyInept]

FLEB,

A pallete is a very specific thing.
A toolwindow is a generic thing.

Having a histogram up on a display that is not color correct to your existing display is not going to matter that much. Having a color picker or a pallete there can range from mildly annoying to the kind of anger that rivals Mike Tyson in the boxing ring.

This is why we have different words, so you can say what you mean, instead of using a word incorrectly and then making up another word to cover up the fact that you didn't say what you meant.

For web layout, or images with absolutely no anti-aliasing at all, it is permissable to work "by the numbers" using Pantone colors.

For everything else... unless you want to end up biting off the tip of someone's ear, I'd suggest you aquire monitors that represent colors correctly.

Re:No, it isn't.

[steeef]

Ah hah! Maybe next time I'll research further instead of instantly being turned off by the resolution.

Re:No, it isn't.

[walt-sjc]

Go read the SAGE descriptions>/a> of a senior sysadmin. System administrators worth their paycheck DO do development. Development isn't their primary responsibility, but it's quite hard to really manage systems without doing any programming.

Furthermore, just you do you think wrote a good chunk of the open source software that made Linux / BSD / FOSS what it is today? I'll give you a hint. It was people trying to make their own job easier to do... Unfortunately, only a small fraction of sysadmin development is released to the world due to company policies. Much of the FOSS tools were done by university sysadmins (which I would consider a "Large Environment.") Banks are "atypical" environments due to special federal regulations, security concerns, etc. (I did a stint at a bank a few years back, so I'm well aware of what goes on internally) so if you are using "banks" as a measure of all large IT shops, you are using a flawed reference.

mirror

[MankyD]

Mirror mirror on the web
please copy this website
so that this slashdotting might ebb.

(anyone?)

Re:mirror

[v3rgEz]

http://mirrordot.org/stories/a859968e8a446de3b6334 ac86a888d47/index.html

Just check mirrordot.org next time. They automatically do it.

Re:mirror

[fatwreckfan]

Working link

Re:mirror

[kalleguld]

But only page 1 works :/

Never!

[johansalk]

I threw out the LCD and got two old CRTs!

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

...what about the permanent bow in my chair?

Just get two of the same LCD

[DaRat]

Geez, just get two identical LCD monitors. You can get two good 19" Samsung LCDs for $500 each. Then put the two next to each other with one just slightly behind the other (to minimize the bezel). Then, you have the same setup for less with the advantage that you can split up the monitors down the road if you want. This is the setup that I have, and it works just fine.

Re:Just get two of the same LCD

[Anonymous Coward]

i picked up 2 dell 2005fpw (20.1" widescreen) for $400 each. 3360x1050 resolution... drool.

Re:Just get two of the same LCD

[Anonymous Coward]

But this is Slashdot man, where is your product placement and avertisement hidden in a news post?

Re:Just get two of the same LCD

[Anonymous Coward]

LCD prices are coming down a lot, you don't have to pay $500/screen anymore. For instance, at Newegg you can get the same panel I have, the LG L1930B, for ~$300. It uses an S-IPS matrix, which is the same kind as in the Apple Cinema Displays. Prices are supposed to drop even further throughout the year as well.

Re:Just get two of the same LCD

[Lockz]

Still requires more deskspace though. The monitors here share a single arm, which means that you can put more things around them (if your desk is cluttered) or you can use a smaller desk or table to put the monitor on.

Re:Just get two of the same LCD

[Slack3r78]

Personally, I'd rather get a single, widescreen display. I caught Dell's 2005FPW on sale for $400 a couple of weeks ago, and it's been outstanding, moving up from a dying 17" CRT @ 1600x1200.

I'd used widescreen displays previously on notebooks, but it was nice to finally get that kind of screen ratio on my desktop. The biggest thing about widescreen is breaking users of the habit many have of maximizing and subsequently minimizing *every* window they use and instead simply sizing the window down and leaving everything open. A widescreen allows you to work in a manner similar to a dual monitor setup, but without forcing your brain to constantly context-switch between the two displays. It's really a great compromise, IMO.

Re:Just get two of the same LCD

[crazy blade]

Maybe this thing takes one video input of 2560x1024 resolution and displays it across the two screens? (i.e. no need for two video cards / one dual-head card)?

If it doesn't, I agree with you that it's more like a huge waste of money. Oh well, I guess we'll never know... Nobody on /. will RTFA! ;-)

Re:Just get two of the same LCD

[gabebear]

I just picked up a Balance 19" 1280x1024 LCD w/ DVI & VGA at Walmart for $300. The nicest thing about it was that I could take it back for ANY reason for 2 weeks(it had a sticker saying so).

My Balance LCD is pretty nice, it has excellent contrast/brightness, but does have some color shift starting at about 45 degrees and has some reallllllly pitiful speakers.

Re:Just get two of the same LCD

[hedgie]

If you are willing to do that, you can just use 'thin bezel' setup for multiple monitors - as :-) shown here: http://www.9xmedia.com/ They even put it on one stand

Re:Just get two of the same LCD

[teh kurisu]

That's what I thought... why not just make a display that's twice as wide? Putting the central divide down the middle of this one seems artificial and unnecessary. Although I'm sure somebody'll come along and tell me why that's not physically possible...

Re:Just get two of the same LCD

[Saeger]

Indeed. By the end of this summer you'll be able to buy the Dell 24" LCD for only around $700(!), and currently you can get it for only $900 (25% off the official $1200 price) if you know where to look.

What used to be luxury displays will soon become commodity, much to the shagrin of the Apple Cinema fans (who fall back on the "aluminum style" defense).

Anyway, 24" is about the size limit a person can tolerate for a desktop display if you don't want to have to physically pan your head around to take it all in. The price drops can't come soon enough for me, as this is the huge, low-response display I (and everyone else) have been drooling over for months...

Re:Just get two of the same LCD

[NeoSkandranon]

Dell has "wide" monitors (and i'm sure other mfr's do too) however, i bet the LCD units that go in them cost more than twice what a 19" LCD does. That is to say, if you were making something like this, you could get two 19" LCDs for cheaper than one of the big wide ones.

Re:Just get two of the same LCD

[Nexx]

I have a friend with a 20" Dell and another with 20" Apple Cinema (both purchased within weeks of each other), and I will say that given nearly identical viewing conditions, the Apple Cinema is consistently brighter and offers a punchier picture. They're both phenomenal screens, but the picture of the Apple Cinema screen is more pleasing to view.

Re:Just get two of the same LCD

[Derkec]

Yeah, seems pretty straight forward. My rig laptop powered these days. I use the laptop's 1900x1200 with my 19" CRT's 1600x1200 to pull off a nice and easy 3500x1200 display. I can usually put all I need for coding on the laptop display and run the application in a test environment on the CRT. With the tiny resolution, I have to be close to the monitor to read without eye strain, so using the two monitors does involve turning my head. Not good for using reference code, but fine for code then test.

Re:Just get two of the same LCD

[Saeger]

Actually, from all the forums and reviews I've read, the 20" Dell edges out the 20" Apple Cinema on all points but subjective style. Also, the Cinema apparently has big problems with a reddish/pink cast on the edges, that a bunch of people on the mac forums still rightly bitch about.

Re:Just get two of the same LCD

[abischof]

By the end of this summer you'll be able to buy the Dell 24" LCD for only around $700(!) [...]

I read the linked article but I didn't see it mentioned that the LCD will be going for $700 by the end of the summer :-/. Did I just miss that part or is this forecast covered elsewhere?

Re:Just get two of the same LCD

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that there are better alternatives...for example: This will give you 30 inches of realestate at 1080i, be HDtv ready and have all the fun things like picture in a picture. Plus that doesn't leave you with a black dividing line down the center of your screen and it does it at a similar price. Granted that it doesn't have as good of a resolution, but given the other things it makes it worth it unless you're doing heavy graphics work.

Re:Just get two of the same LCD

[CastrTroy]

I don't really get this whole thing about dead pixels on LCDs. Most stores have a 30 day return policy. If they don't want to replace your monitor, just go another time, speak to another person, and tell them you want to return it. Most stores will don't put up a fuss when you try return something. If they do, just be persistent. The customer is always right. This way, they won't get any money at all. Which is really what they deserve.

Re:Just get two of the same LCD

[IntergalacticWalrus]

700$ is commodity to you??

Re:Just get two of the same LCD

[Anonymous Coward]

You can still buy a multi monitor mount. There are adjustable mounts for up to 5 screens in various configurations, and you can pick your own screen - probably some with a smaller border than those beeing slashvertised.

Re:Just get two of the same LCD

[Anne_Nonymous]

What is the surface area of a 19" widescreen, vs 19" in conventional ratio?

Re:Just get two of the same LCD

[StikyPad]

The biggest thing about widescreen is breaking users of the habit many have of maximizing and subsequently minimizing *every* window they use and instead simply sizing the window down and leaving everything open.

I think OS's are partly at fault here as well. The only resizing that's 1-button quick & easy is maximize and minimize. Having a button that say automatically sent a window to the left half of the screen, maximized from top to bottom would be outstanting. The other problem, in Windows at least, is that there's less border on maximized applications, since you can't drag one edge of the window to resize it when maximized, which also prevents accidental resizes. It's too easy to miss a scroll bar, and once again you're spending time getting the window back where you wanted it. Additionally (again, in Windows), it's not possible to accidentally move a maximized window. I'd like to see my "max half width" button do the same thing. That's one benefit of two displays -- you can maximize a window on each display. Now if they'd just implement cloning the taskbar without having to clone the displays, or at least unique taskbars for each window. This "one or the other," or "stretched across both displays," stuff is for the birds.. especially if your displays aren't the same size/resolution.

Re:Just get two of the same LCD

[StikyPad]

or at least unique taskbars for each window.

Oops, meant unique taskbars for each display.

Re:Just get two of the same LCD

[Mornelithe]

1280x768? 17" LCD monitors have a higher resolution than that, and I can still see the pixels. That would have to be all the way across the room for me to stand it.

Real estate is as much about resolution as it is about size of the actual screen. You could have a 40" monitor at 800x600, and you'd still have no space for anything---you'd just have giant windows---unless you like everything to be blurry.

There's a reason why Apple 30" cinema displays have a native resolution of around 2500x1600: having around 100 PPI is pretty necessary for having something that looks good as a computer monitor (as opposed to something you look at from across the room), although personally, I wish LCDs had much higher than 100 PPI.

Re:Just get two of the same LCD

[gabebear]

True, but finding a really good deal at a local shop can be pretty hard. Most online stores have preset limits where they will take back monitors (besides that you pay for return shipping).

Walmart also doesn't have restocking fees, or at least in my experiences.

Subscriber-free!

[Ochu]

Shouldn't be getting that many subscribers posting to this one; after all, they pay not to receive ads.

Two is the wrong number

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Isn't two LCDs exactly the wrong number to combine, since it puts the seam dead centre (or at least, that's how the image on their site looks to me)? I can see arguments for one large LCD, or possibly for a main central display flanked by secondary displays on either side, but two equivalent displays just seems awkward.

Re:Two is the wrong number

[xenotrout]

I have a dual monitor set up that is, you might say, like a three-monitor setup missing the left-hand monitor. Perhaps the two monitors on one stand idea makes the seam look like it should be central, but you can always offset and turn the thing a bit so that whichever side suits your fancy is the "primary" display--that is, directly in front of you.

Re:Two is the wrong number

[cbr2702]

With two you can put your documentation on one screen and your code on the next.

Re:Two is the wrong number

[VoidEngineer]

I don't know about you, but I happen to have 2 eyes. And I find that having two monitors works out quite nicely. There's a Left Monitor, and a Right Monitor. Simple! Having a center monitor kind of confuses things. Kind of like having a third eye. I suppose having a third eye works for some people, but most of us do just fine with Left/Right.

That being said, the difference between having dual 19" monitors and dual 20" monitors is amazing.

2560x1024 = 2.6 Megapixels
3200x1200 = 3.8 Megapixels


2.6/3.8 ~= 68%


That extra inch of monitor real estate on each monitor translates into a whopping 32% increase in screen real estate and screen resolution. If you're going to go with a dual monitor setup, go for the 20" monitors with 1600x1200 resolution. It may wind up being the best $500 upgrade you'll ever see.

Re:Two is the wrong number

[n6mod]

I disagree. The last place I worked went though some significant downsizing, such that I was able to scrounge 3 20" CRTs and suitable display cards. (a dual-head Matrox plus some ATI thing.)

Three monitors was absurd, and I ended up using two of them most of the time, and just had logs scrolling by on the third. (sometimes handy, but not worth the effort)

I'm now sitting in front of a pair of 17" 1280x1024 LCDs, and am very happy with the setup. I'm writing this on one screen while pondering the PHP code I'm working on in the vim window on the other screen.

One thought that occurred to me, as I read all the "but there's a bezel in the center" comments:

Do you remember "books"?

-Z

Re:Two is the wrong number

[mattyrobinson69]

what about a monitor for those really cool flash games at miniclip?

duh.

Re:Two is the wrong number

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

One thought that occurred to me, as I read all the "but there's a bezel in the center" comments:

Do you remember "books"?

Sure, but they're not really comparable. For a start, books are designed so that you can read one page then the other (with most people rotating the book so the page they're reading is actually central to their eyes), with a column width chosen to promote reading ease and reduce eye strain.

Re:Two is the wrong number

[Sethra]

I couldn't agree more. A couple years back I was running dual Viewsonic 21" CRTs and found it infuriating to to have a border in the center of my viewing area. I moved to a Sony W900 24" 16:10 CRT (at 1920x1200) with a 17" LCD (1280x1024) to my left. The CRT sits straight ahead and runs my core apps while the LCD is dedicated to the distracting things like IMs, Email, etc.

A large primary and a smaller secondary off to one side is absolutely the way to go IMO. Makes it much easier to concentrate on a central task while still being able to quickly glance to the side to check on less important things.

Re:Two is the wrong number

[kisielk]

What I do at work is put my primary screen directly in front, and then a secondary screen off to the left. Then I keep my main coding / other workspace window on the main screen, and email or some reference documentation on the left screen. Kind of the same layout as you would have with a 3 panel setup, but with only 2 panels.

Re:Two is the wrong number

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Yes, several of my colleagues at work do that sort of thing. However, they generally have one main monitor that's central, and a secondary monitor off to one side for when it's useful. The displays here appear to be identical, and the stand appears to position them left-and-right (with central seam) rather than principal-and-secondary, which sounds like a recipe for horrible eye and/or neck strain after not very much time using them to me.

Re:Two is the wrong number

[cbr2702]

I would probably take this and center the right panel on my desk. I would work on that monitor and put docs and notifications (im, music, email) on the left. Not too good for gaming but fine for working.

Re:Two is the wrong number

[Anonymous Coward]

Not meaning to be rude, but the increase is more like 46%. Because you are looking at an 'percentage increase' working from the lower screen size to the higher screen size then the calculation should be:

% Increase = (Difference/FirstValue) * 100
% Increase = ([3.8-2.6]/2.6) * 100
% Increase = 46%

Using this figure makes your point stronger (I think).

Re:Two is the wrong number

[CastrTroy]

I realized this when I went from my 1024x768, 17" CRT to my new 1280x1024 19" LCD. The newer monitor gives me 1.666 times more screen area than the first. Or at least usable area when you compare pixels. I could have set up the same resolution on a CRT, but I think it would have bothered my eyes too much. I don't know how people use that kind of resolution on a 17" monitor. You could if you jacked up the font size, but that kind of defeats the purpose.

Re:Two is the wrong number

[Anonymous Coward]

With two you can put your documentation on one screen and your code on the next.

So what you're saying is that you can put your code up on two screens?

Why?

[bleckywelcky]

Why would I pay over $1000 for this rig when I can pick up 2 Dell 1905s for $250 a piece?

Re:Why?

[klang]

Because it whould be easier to have your boss sign one once instead of twice?

Personally, I would go for 3 of these Dell1905's and avoid the hazzle of looking into the seam between the screens all the time, but that's just me..

Re:Why?

[gkuz]

Where are you getting Dell 1905's for $250/ea? Al's Midnight Discount?

Re:Why?

[xenotrout]

As I've said to another post, you can save the cost of one monitor if the only reason for three instead of two is the seam--have one as you would an only monitor, and put the other next to it (thus it's a side monitor to your center monitor). Yes, you lose symetry, but this setup works fine for me.

Re:Why?

[Brandybuck]

I got a Dell P1130 for cheaper than that. The best thing about LCDs is that they're driving down the prices of CRTs. Woo!

Re:Why?

[NanoGator]

"Why would I pay over $1000 for this rig when I can pick up 2 Dell 1905s for $250 a piece?"

Depends on how tight space is for you. Two Dell monitors would require more desk space (i.e. where the stand goes) than this monitor. If that doesn't bother you, then I'm basically all out of reasons. Although, it is a little bit nicer to have the monitors that close and in perfect alignment. (i.e. no growing gap between the two over the weeks that go by...) But I'll be honest, having used dual CRTs of differing sizes for years, I can't say this would make me spend that much more.

In any event, it's not like the cost of these things never ever goes down.

2560x1024 fractal wallpapers

[lycium]

since i have a 2560x1024 (crt) setup myself i've made some spangly wallpapers for that resolution...

they're available as the "pixelbath" series on deviantart (http://lyc.deviantart.com/ and on a faster server (http://mysticgd.com/thomas/slinkyspace).

Re:2560x1024 fractal wallpapers

[Ianoo]

Your CRTs should be set at 1280x960, not 1280x1024. All computer CRT screens are 4:3 aspect ratio, which corresponds with 800x600, 1024x768 and 1600x1200, but not 1280x1024, which is actually 5:4.

This means that the pixels on your CRT won't be square, leading to the screen appearing stretched horizontally.

With an LCD, the resolution is factory set, so a 1280x1024 screen will actually be physically 5:4, and so the pixels will still be square.

Re:2560x1024 fractal wallpapers

[Anonymous Coward]

thats odd, i just changed my CRT to 1280x960 and everything looks squished compared to the powerbook its spanning off; im sticking with 5:4 then

Re:2560x1024 fractal wallpapers

[Anonymous Coward]

You've just gotten used to retarded squishiness. It's bloody simple. Measure a square (x by x pixels) on a CRT doing 1280x1024 and you will see it is not square.
Whenever I see a person say they use 1280x1024 on a 4:3 screen I know they are clueless.

Re:2560x1024 fractal wallpapers

[Anonymous Coward]

so i guess my powerbooks lcd is also squished then, since it looks the same on there.. fucktard

Re:2560x1024 fractal wallpapers

[Anonymous Coward]

you'd be amazed at how much one can know without getting hung up on little details such as other people's preferred aspect ratios...

Don't throw it out

[m50d]

Give it to me :)

Increase Productivity Substantially

[drooling-dog]

You will end up with 2560x1024 pixels of screen real estate, enough to increase productivity substantially

Exactly how many pixels does it take to increase productivity substantially? How much more productivity do you get with each additional pixel? Just wonderin'...

Re:Increase Productivity Substantially

[yotto]

*Exactly how many pixels does it take to increase productivity substantially?*

Apparently, about a million. I'd say round it to a million, maybe make 1,000,000 pixels == 1 substantial productivity increase, call it 1Mipx=1spi

Re:Increase Productivity Substantially

[Anonymous Coward]

*Exactly how many pixels does it take to increase productivity substantially?*

Apparently, about a million. I'd say round it to a million, maybe make 1,000,000 pixels == 1 substantial productivity increase, call it 1Mipx=1spi

Can I get that in Libraries of Congress?

Re:Increase Productivity Substantially

[The_Wilschon]

1Mipx=1spi

No no no... 1 Mipx would be 1 Mebipixel, ie 1,048,576 pixels. You're looking for the SI Prefix, not the IEC Binary Prefix

So, what you presumably meant to say, (in order to remain consistent with the statement 1,000,000 pixels == 1 substantial productivity increase) is 1 Mpx=1spi.

Of course, this whole idea brings up another interesting point: Should management be handing out digital cameras to all the geeks in order to gain, what, 3spi, or for a more state of the art model, 5spi?

Re:Increase Productivity Substantially

[Jarlsberg]

This article looks like a big ad, but anyhow... I currently have three monitors on my desk, two LCDs (17" (left) & 19" (center)) and one CRT (24" (right)). It took a while to get used to, but now I can work without them. When programming, I edit the code in the center screen, test it in either right or left and have other assorted tools in the free screen. For me, this is the perfect setup and makes me more productive than working on just one or two screens. :)

Productivity

[Trollstoi]

enough to increase productivity substantially

Will it also increase my productivity if I work with Word documents?

Why buy 2 monitors

[stuttering stan]

I j-just cr-cross my eyes!

Resolutions on LCDs... Continuing dissappointment.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only 2560x1024 ie: 1280x1024 x 2.

I continue to be dissappointed with LCD resolutions that I see for LCDs... ie: a 19 inch that is only 1280x1024.

Perhaps I'm spoiled, but my Sony VAIO laptop has a 16.1 inch, 1600x1200 LCD that is awesome. I run a 19 inch CRT off it when at home, at a 1600x1200 resolution as well, for a 3200x1200 workspace.

This much money for a much smaller one??

More Pixels But Less Dead Pixels

[reporter]

More pixels at ever lower cost is nice. My employer foisted an old CRT with blurry lines on me and refused to buy me an LCD monitor. However, since LCD monitors are now incredibly cheap (compared to even 5 years go), I bought my own LCD flatpanel and hooked it into my desktop at work.

When I purchased my monitor, I ensured that I bought it from only a local (i.e., not Internet fly-by-night operation) store with a return policy. My concern is that a small but not insignificant percentage of monitors suffer from dead pixels. If my monitor had dead pixels, then I would want to promptly get a refund on the monitor.

The computer companies have conspired to contruct a marketing solution, instead of an engineering solution, to the dead-pixel problem. They simply convinced a standards body to officially declare that having, say, 8 (?) or fewer pixels means that the monitor is operating normally. Some stores (especially, the Internet variety) refuse to give a refund on any monitor that is returned due to 8 or fewer dead pixels.

Re:More Pixels But Less Dead Pixels

[Anonymous Coward]

My employer foisted an old CRT with blurry lines on me and refused to buy me an LCD monitor. However, since LCD monitors are now incredibly cheap (compared to even 5 years go), I bought my own LCD flatpanel and hooked it into my desktop at work.

Your boss is so cheap he/she/it wouldn't get you a non-blurry monitor? Decent CRTs are cheap, much cheaper than OSHA claims.

Re:More Pixels But Less Dead Pixels

[Anonymous Coward]

how much does OSHA claim monitors cost?

Not enough!

[scoopr]

Ah, but if we are going to go this route, I'd rather go for this offering.

(Sorry, the site is rather awful, check out the source, eww)

Re:Not enough!

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone really wants everything in the centre.

Is there a rate sheet somewhere?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, if this isn't a "slashvertisement," I don't know what is.

Re:Is there a rate sheet somewhere?

[Anonymous Coward]

tru dat.

Re:Is there a rate sheet somewhere?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've done business with taco before, and below is a copy of their not-so-secret advertising rates. Make of it what you will, but I think it's a great deal:
MAINPAGE SLASHVERT: $blowjob w/ $rimjob
DUPED MAINPAGE SLASHVERT: $full-on anal w/ reacharound
-1 CENSORSHIP OF CRITICAL COMMENTS: $handjob (up to 20)

Re:Is there a rate sheet somewhere?

[Michael Spencer Jr.]

If this isn't a slashvertisement, you don't know what is?

I know what is. An story announcing a Dell laptop for x hundred dollars off if you order this month is a slashvertisement. Especially since discounts aren't news for nerds, and Dell laptops don't usually have new technology which is news for nerds.

A story announcing new low web hosting rates from a certain company is a slashvertisement. No new technology there, just lower prices which are not news for nerds.

Do you see the difference? To me, a message isn't commercial just because it discusses a commercial product. If most of the people who read a message will just file it away for later, thinking "hmm, that's werid", and very few people who read a message are actually likely to be in the market for what the message is describing, I don't think it's a slashvertisement.

For example, I'm just filing this away for later. Weird monitor design. If some months down the road, some coworker muses about some futuristic dual-LCD design, which he could make a ton of money building and selling, I'll remember this story and email him a link. Neither of us are going to buy one, though.

So this is news for nerds, not a slashvertisement.

Make sense?

Re:Is there a rate sheet somewhere?

[Basje]

No, it's slashdotting the competition. The 2x15" is for sale on thinkgeek.

Re:Is there a rate sheet somewhere?

[Stiletto]

If you are looking for another reason to throw out that old CRT and upgrade to LCDs here it is.

Presuppose dissatisfaction in consumer's previously purchaced product.

The DoubleSight DS-1900 packs two 19" LCD panels in a neat package and will take up less total space than that cathode ray tube whic has created the permanent bow in your desk.

Explain how new product is better.

You will end up with 2560x1024 pixels of screen real estate, enough to increase productivity substantially, but you won't have to sacrifice too much space due to the reasonable size of the display's footprint.

More benefits to owning new product like "increased productivity", glowing description of product's wonderful features.

Just another reason to go LCD...

End of sales pitch. There was not even a SHRED of news in the headline.

Of course, at the bottom of the article:

Where to buy DoubleSight CDS-1900 (Black) 19 in. Flat Panel LCD Monitor ...

"Increase productivity substantially"?

[slavemowgli]

The article's (or at least the summary's; TFA is slashdotted) assertion that using two screens will increase your productivity by a substantial amount is, to be blunt, outright rubbish: if it really did, then we'd all be using dual-screen setups at work, anyway, since the cost for another screen is negligible compared to what an employee costs a company per year otherwise, so even a small increase in productivity would mean that the extra screen would quickly amortise itself.

Furthermore, I can also draw upon personal experience here: I used to use two screens at work for a long time (21" CRTs), and while it was nice to be able to put things like xload windows etc. on the second screen so you could keep an eye on them without wasting screen real estate on the primary screen, having a second screen is overrated.

The only exception I can think of is when you need to debug an application and can run the debugger on one screen while the application outputs to the second screen - but that's really a very special case.

Re:"Increase productivity substantially"?

[maxwell demon]

Of course you could also have a full-screen browser showing slashdot on your other screen. The increase of productivity would be negative, but probably substantial.

Re:"Increase productivity substantially"?

[Anonymous Coward]

We service quite a few small businesses that love dual LCDs. CAD work, engineering, even savvy
administrative staff that work in MS Word/excel use them. Most with dual 17" BENQ units.

They would have never used CRTs, though - too big/bulky/ugly for the standard user.

Re:"Increase productivity substantially"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Re:"Increase productivity substantially"?

[Hast]

I have two screens at home (LCD 20") and one at work (LCD 19"). Personally I find it a lot easier to develop with two screens than one. The biggest reason being that I can run my develop program on one screen and other stuff (docs, mail etc) on the second.

If I'm debugging it's even better as I can have program and logs etc running on one screen and the debugger on the other.

Many businesses don't buy added screens despite the added productivity because the people signing the purchase orders are not the same that see the benefits of money rolling in.

Re:"Increase productivity substantially"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't knock it till you try it. I ran a pair of 19 crt's and it was great with evertything from online classes, goofin off, photoshope, school work. It's much like having a little table to work at vs the giant ones they have in libraries.

Playing games with a pair worked well as well. Map and info sites for your favorite MMOG open on one while playing on the other.

My only complaint is that game/hardware wont let you play the game in a window and span it. RTS/FPS would be great if they could expand to the other monitor for all that extra room you need.

Once the prices drop down and PCI-E get more mature I have every intention of dropping in a second or even third card to be able to run four or so monitors.

And the price is ...

[oneiros27]

C|Net list the price as being US$1070 - 1337, with the basic price near US$1160.

When you consider that you're going to need to get a second video card, if you don't already have on lying about, just buying a 23" LCD (about 1920x1200) seems like a much better solution.

I'm guessing that someone has probably come up with a VESA compliant mount for two screens, or if they haven't, you could probably make your own from an existing base, a bit of sheet steel, a drill, and a few screws ... and then you'd be able to just recycle existing monitors.

Of course, the real issue the is stability of the base ... how high is the center of gravity, and what is the span of the base, so that we can compute the eccentricity required to tip it?. (it'd be more stable to just place two screens next to each other, and if you want them to stay in place, try a little bit of VHB or duct tape.)

I would think that the advantages to the small footprint would be those that couldn't fit two monitors side by site normally -- which would mean it'd be extending over the edge of the desk, and has that much further to fall when someone bumps it. (unless you VHB it down to the desk, of course)

Re:And the price is ...

[FidelCatsro]

I will happily pay the extra top get the $1337 version pwnz0rz

Re:And the price is ...

[Anonymous Coward]

A bunch of companies make dual+ lcd monitor mounts.

http://www.ergotron.com/3_products/flat_panel/mult i.asp
http://www.lcdarms.com/lcd_monitor_arms.php#arcvie w

Unfortunately, they come in at $200+ also, so buying this DualView would be a bit easier, and maybe cheaper.

Hate to follow up a slashvertisement with more advertising, but oh well. I'm sure you can handle it.

Re:And the price is ...

[beavis88]

When you consider that you're going to need to get a second video card, if you don't already have on lying about

If you have any "gamer" video cards, you probably don't need another card. All the nvidia cards I have with Analog and DVI outputs can drive both simultaneously using nView to manage things (including separate resolution/sync/etc on each monitor, if not identical). Granted, using an analog output with a nice LCD rubs me the wrong way, but I know you can get dual-DVI consumer cards now.

Re:And the price is ...

[StikyPad]

I haven't seen a video card with a single output in years. Almost anything newer than a GeForce2 or Radeon (original) has two outputs.. I think my ATI AIW has 4.

two monitors, like that, does not work.

[Lord Bitman]

Hey! Let's put a line down the middle of where I look! Great idea!

CRTs are getting cheaper and cheaper- and often have better resolution (and certainly more support for different resolutions, in case you *gasp* want to change resolutions sometimes.)

Odd numbers only, please. You _need_ unobstructed view in the center.

Re:two monitors, like that, does not work.

[LurkerXXX]

They used to have these old things called books and magazines. Believe it or not, you could actually swivel your head/eyes slightly and it all seemed to work out ok.

Re:two monitors, like that, does not work.

[Lord Bitman]

OMFG THAT IS THE EXACT SAME THING AND IS ALWAYS DOONE INTHE EXACT SAME POSITION AND IS HTE SAEM SIZE AND AT THE SAEM DESTINNCE!! U R SO RIHGT!!!

Don't use so many caps, It's like YELLING. Of course, most people know that, and only use caps when they are trying to give the impression of yelling a lot, usually to make fun of the person they are replying to.

Re:two monitors, like that, does not work.

[LurkerXXX]

I didn't use any caps. You replied to the wrong post. Must be that line down the middle of your screen throwing you off.

Try it, you'll like it

[Greg Hullender]

When you've worked with dual monitors for a while, you'll never want to go back. It's surprising how often you really want at least one full-screen document while still being able to look at others.

For example:

1) Writing code with your editor on one screen and a spreadsheet or word processor document on the other.

2)Preparing a report on one while surfing the web for references on the other.

3) Reading e-mail with your list of messages on one screen and the current message on the other.

4) Reading Slashdot on one screen with The Article on the other.

(Okay, I'll admit scenario #4 is a little farfetched.) :-)

--Greg

Re:Try it, you'll like it

[kalleguld]

hehe, or having World of warcraft on one, and Thottbot.com on the other.

Re:Try it, you'll like it

[eyeye]

But you only have one pair of eyes, or are you able to point them at different monitors simultaneously?

The way I see dual monitors is that it just saves you alt-tabbing or tiling windows. Multiple desktops (as is common in linux) with the desktop switching achieved by a footswitch would be a simpler arrangement.

Re:Try it, you'll like it

[gatzke]

I agree. I tried two for a while and it never did much for me.

I now run a 21 inch 1600x1200 LCD in portrait mode, since most docs, pdf, web pages run portrait mode. PDF bigger than real size is sweet, full page as well.

Now, I would love to have 3x as much real estate one day. 3x1200 wide by 1600 tall. The two monitor deal seemed distracting, like you have to change focus off the main but maybe one on each side would be more useful and balanced...

Re:Try it, you'll like it

[stg]

Have you ever typed something from a piece of paper into a computer? Did you have to keep one eye on each? :-)

I use the secondary monitor for comparing files or copy and paste a lot. The context switch for the alt-tab is very annoying by comparison. It's also nice when debugging, or working with a database.

Tiling never works as well for that kind of stuff - you have to fix the sizes twice, and either you have a tiny font or you will have much less content per window.

Also, I find the secondary monitor great for notifications - i.e. you can drop a CD-burning, copy, download, etc (any lengthy operation) to the secondary monitor and continue working on the main monitor. Then you can get the status at a glance and when it's done you will easily notice it, on your peripherical vision.

I also leave an e-mail ticker (from The Bat) on the secondary monitor - you can tell at a glance when an e-mail arrives, as well as what it is. This is very nice when gaming, with sometimes several seconds for a context switch - it is very annoying to stop playing just to see that you got another spam. And when it's a message from an user I can answer it right away (instead of, oh, it's probably another newsletter - I can check it later).

I also have another computer without a dual monitor. I'm always missing having a secondary display, and will probably upgrade it eventually.

Re:Try it, you'll like it

[adamfranco]

When you've worked with dual monitors for a while, you'll never want to go back.

Why stop at two when you can have 4?

I heartily agree though that its tough to use only one after being using several. I like to use
- one monitor for filebrowser/terminal
- one for code
- one for output/debugger
- one for IM/email

Yeah, the IM/email monitor is excessive, but if you have spares laying around...

- Adam

Re:Try it, you'll like it

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit! Here's a helpful clue: Don't run your application full screen. Of the tasks I see listed, I don't see any-damn-thing I didn't do 17 years ago with a good 21' tube running at 1600x1280. In fact I would go so far as to say I had done all 4 (ok, ok, no /. 17 years ago) at once.

And, yeah, I remember dual (and quad) set ups 12 years ago. Didn't use 'em much different than a glorified virtual screen.

And just to be a snotty prick, I've found I can work a lot longer with a good tube than even the best of LCDs.

Re:Try it, you'll like it

[noidentity]

Draw a line down the center of your screen. Boom, two screens!

What's the difference? Resolution? OK, run at a higher resolution. Not big enough? Use a larger monitor.

Re:Try it, you'll like it

[hritcu]

Sure, I'll use it together with this handy gadget to do pair programming :)

For only $750 you can get

[Anonymous Coward]

the old model on http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/display/price/d esc/0/25

may be "RipAGeek" would be a better name for that webshop...

$1100.00 ??

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha That's about the cost of four 19" LCDs

Double your Fun with a Dual-CPU server

[enoraM]

I would love to double might sight on that site, but the images already take minutes to load.

This technology innovation is old news

[Anonymous Coward]

Old news about multiple screen LCDs.

e.g.:

http://www.wedgwood-group.com/multiple_screen_lcd. htm

Futurama

[wildzer0]

Woohoo, one step closer to Futurama reality: Presented in DoubleVision (where drunk)

Picture

[wviperw]

Picture here

I find it funny that the sight lists the price of this monitor at $1337.00. Somebody is having fun with it...

Oh, and on the whole 2 monitors in 1 thing, I think it is kind of silly. You either buy 2 LCD monitors and dual-monitor them for cheaper, or if you really want a 30" LCD screen then by all means, get a REAL one, not one with an inch thick black line going down the middle.

New term " air space "

[nurb432]

Sure, these reduce the desk footprint, but they still take up *space*.. Having something that wide in the space above your desktop may not be an option for everyone. Many of us have book shelves, walls, etc. in the way..

Besides, LCD's still arent as 'crisp' and 'responsive' as a good monitor.. Both can easily cause eye strain.

U wana see big LCDs?

[Viper_Viper]

For all your extreamly expensive, high quallity, multiple LCD moniters, check out http://www.digitaltigers.com/

Re:U wana see big LCDs?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the parent was trying to ask us "Do you want to see large LCDs?". I could be mistaken.

Re:U wana see big LCDs?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the parent was trying to ask us "Do you want to see large LCDs?".

I think you're a fucking grammer nazi and a fucking faggot. Stick a knife up your ass faggot. Jam it!

It's crap

[David_Bloom]

I've read a PCMag article about that line, and it wasn't that flattering. By the way, NONE of their (expensive) products come with DVI inputs. Blurrrrr.....

A better idea would be to get two nice monitors with thin bezels and get a dual monitor VESA mount.

Re:It's crap

[David_Bloom]

I stand corrected - this particular monitor does have DVI (the company's earlier products did not). Still, there are better, more flexible solutions out there for dual display.

Re:It's crap

[lewiz]

The two VP171bs are working out great for me... but the price of the dual monitor VESA mount is just horrendous!

Re:It's crap

[David_Bloom]

The key is for mass production to kick in, and I'm not sure if dual monitor is going to ever have the mass-appeal to catch on and pull down the prices.

Most people prefer less PC on their desks, not more :(.

Re:It's crap

[whit3]

While it sounds nice to put CRT monitors cheek by jowl, that
will cause odd shimmy screen misbehavior. Trust me, I've
done it. You need a few inches space (on the order of half
the width of a monitor) separation to keep CRT displays
happy.

Single LCD displays at 30" are big enough for any single
window of info, and very pretty (if you can afford Apple's biggest and best).

For cheapskates like me, the old CRT still has a few years of useful life. Tubes rule!

Re:It's crap

[David_Bloom]

1) Before I uprgraded to two LCDs, I ran 2 old 17" CRTs that were touching. No interference problems. 2) LCDs are much better for dual monitor because their outer bezels can be made a lot smaller than those of CRTs. This means less gap between monitors, more desk space, and less heat (this room was probably one degree hotter while I was using the CRTs!).

Re:It's crap

[toddestan]

I've never had problems running two CRT computer monitors side by side (one TV and one monitor will cause havoc though). Perhaps it has to do with different refresh rates?

Err, whats the point?

[M3rk1n_Muffl3y]

At work I have two 19" screens at they work perfectly and were probably cheaper than this behemoth. Also, when I am buying branded monitors I have pretty good idea what I am getting, which I am not sure can be said for these guys. Sorry but it seems just like another gimmick. Anyway if you've got money to burn check out this bad boy

$1100 for two monitors?

[mpn14tech]

I just switched to using three 19 inch lcd displays. Between displays and two video cards(one dual and one single) I have about $1400 into my setup. I am sure I could have gotten the price down a few hundred less than that if I had shopped around. Going with multiple monitors is well worth it.

What the...

[Anonymous Coward]

This thing looks like a two headed monster! What happened to seamlessly (or as close as possible) connecting the two LCD panels? What a piece of crap!

Prior art?

[nEoN nOoDlE]

I did the same thing years ago with duct tape. As comments pointed out earlier, this is pretty lame. Just buy 2 monitors. At least you could pull them apart later on.

Tigervista have been doing this for years.

[MrAngryForNoReason]

Digital Tigers have been making multi LCD monitors like these for years. They offer 2, 3, 4 or 6 screens on a single stand

The best option to my eyes is the Tigervista Power Trio, one large LCD flanked by two smaller ones mounted portrait. This neatly gets around the problem of having a 'seam' down the middle of your eyeline where the screens join.

Oh and before the accusations fly I don't work for the company, but I have been lusting after one of their screen setups for a while now.

Of course you do need an extra graphics card to power the third screen, and the screens are by no means cheap.

Re:Tigervista have been doing this for years.

[keesh]

Which means you'll have to run separate X servers on all three displays, since the resolutions will be different. So no moving windows between monitors any more...

Re:Tigervista have been doing this for years.

[Fortress]

Their TigerVista Manager software seems to be a rebranded version of UltraMon, a great utility for managing multiple monitors.

"Double your Fun...."

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, the headline looks like most of the spam I get.

Whoa, what news this is...

[suitepotato]

I mean, no one has ever seen these over at http://www.tigerdirect.com/ and no one has ever visite http://www.9xmedia.com/. I am astounded that this stuff exists. Dual monitors. Wow.

Okay, dripping sarcasm aside, maybe there's a couple /.ers who haven't crawled out from under the glare of their monitors to look around and see what's new, but I am pretty sure most know that these things are out.

Yeah, you could go with a standard CRT, but I moved a 32 inch television the other day and used to roll out 21 inchers to coders at a former job and I really don't need to finally get a hernia. Personally, I'm waiting for laser based projectors to come down in cost.

Nothing special, really...

[thanq]

It does not look that exciting: large res image here.

It is much cheaper do one yourself with your own LCD's and a stand like these: horizontal or vertical.

Awesome for QA

[Anonymous Coward]

Having two screens for QA is the only way to fly. App under test on one and everything else on the other (bug tracker, email, spec documents, IM, media player to stay awake...). And with this: when that new employee shows up -> they can't take your second screen away!

OH PLEASE GOD NO

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for ruining my life life, asshole. For a moment I had thought that I couldn't possibly see anything worse than goatse, but you managed to prove me wrong. That ungodly sight of all those tags can never be washed from my brain...

what do you think?

[dwntwnboi]

is it me, or is this representative of this terrible marketing trend to get geeks to spend enormous amounts of money on their toys? i mean, these companies know if it has buttons and does something cool we goota have it. a lot of geeks don't always think of practicalities.

the fact of the matter is crts are still better than LCDs for a lot of reasons, namely price. sure there's downsides to everything (like no widescreen crts). for someone who's so concerned about productivity, should practicality and pricing (as well as quality of prduct) be just as big a consideration?

Custom screen resolution

[Twinbee]

Are there any graphics cards or operating systems which support a fully custom resolution? If I want 2560*1024 for an occasion, everything would look horizontally squashed on a normal sized screen, but it would still be great to have the option.

I loathe LCDs but they are nice for coding...

[purduephotog]

I recently upgraded my desktop at work with two high end LCDs (for testing purposes, of course) and the 21" CRT on the left.

Results so far:

21" CRT is not as sharp, but very low eyestrain.
23" LCD (Sony, 1600$) can't be run at full resolution in digital mode, requires a new card (no problem on the Dell)
20" LCD (Dell, 400$) works just fine at 1680x1050 from the card.

Mottle in the LCDs drives me crazy- I keep trying to clean them to get rid of the speckles.

Grey response is poor, low end flare is high (non-shiny surface (ie matte) scatters ambient).

All in all I'll take my desk-bowing 21" CRT anyday.

And yeah, I work specifically for calibrating and testing monitors.

I don't know about you.....

[Chiisu]

but I've got a hankering for some doublemint gum

This isn't the right package yet

[NextGaurd]

With two bezels side by side in the middle that's quite a large gap between screens and annoying for movies and games. I went with the 30" Olevia LCD TV/Monitor instead after considering the twin 17" Doublesight model. The resolution on the Olevia is only 1280x768 but the continuous real estate makes it superior for my uses. Besides, it's frequently on sale for $999. http://www.syntaxgroups.com/products/30inch_produc td.html

Full mirror - All pages

[winkydink]

All 8 pages mirrored here.

so when are they gonna

[advocate_one]

eliminate the ugly bit between the two screens then??? surely they must be able to put the two TFTs in the same housing and get them closer together...

yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

LCDs are so much easier on your eyes, anyone can easily prove this to themselves. Go stare at a lcd screen for 8 hours straight and you'll be able to tell the diffrence from your crt.

As for the dead pixels, yes they exist, but its a PIXEL for crying out loud.

My monitor at work has 1 dead pixel that i never notice ( i have to full screen a white background and search for it) and 1 stuck red pixel. I just landed an icon ontop of the stuck red and its effectivly gone.

My home lcd monitor dosn't have any dead/stuck pixels, but i don't goto work and complain, i'm just happy my pair of blurry crt finally died and they had to get me a new screen. I opted for 1 lcd screen instaead of 2 crts, i'd rather run virutal desktops then look into a crt screen all day again.

Stop starting into that vaccumm tube and open your eyes, LCD technology is here at last.

desktop LCDs in general

[timmyd]

Can someone explain to me why desktop LCDs (like 17") typically only do 1280x1024 but laptop LCDs that size (or smaller) and CRTs can often do 1600x1200? I don't think I've ever seen a desktop LCD around 17" or so do 1600x1200. Why is it such a problem?

Re:desktop LCDs in general

[Anonymous Coward]

They typically don't. Many times a notebook will have the option of setting them to this resolution, however it will be a virtual desktop size. You see a view of 1280x1024 which, when reaching the edge, scoots along to allow you viewing of the rest of the 1600 x 1200 area.

All that productivity...

[Mulletproof]

"You will end up with 2560x1024 pixels of screen real estate, enough to increase productivity substantially"

Ah, so that's what they're calling gaming these days...

General office work too

[cgenman]

It's great for pretty much any office work.

I can't tell the number of times I've had a spec open in one monitor, and whatever it was I was working on open in the other. Glancing back and forth between screens is a lot faster than grabbing the mouse, clicking on the taskbar icon, absorbing as much as possible, clicking back, and repositioning your cursor.

In my particular field, this lets you have the game you're working on open in one monitor, and an editor open in the other, so that you can change values / setups on the fly and see how that effects gameplay. Sure, I could click over, but this is much, much faster. For Midi work I've had the current detail window open in one monitor, and a broad overview of where you are in the song and detail on the vocals you are trying to sync to in the other. For web work, it's great to have Dreamweaver open in one monitor and either a spec or the actual rendered HTML in the other, set to a 1 second refresh. Or a Word Doc open in one monitor, and an Excel Spreadsheet open in the other. Anywhere you have to compare data, a dual-setup is much, much nicer. I'd even like to get a 3rd monitor as basically a dedicated chat/e-mail window, as most of the communication at my company happens over that medium.

Old CRT's are so plentiful these days that it doesn't make sense not to. I've found 4 free monitors in the past 2 weeks without even looking. If something is going to speed up your workflow, there is no reason not to do it.

If you've never used a dual-monitor setup, I can see how it would look frivilous. But nearly everyone who uses it loves it, and finds it helps them in their daily tasks. And with monitors basically free and all video cards shipping with two outputs anyway, it doesn't cost a thing to try it out.

Re:General office work too

[fm6]

I can't tell the number of times I've had a spec open in one monitor, and whatever it was I was working on open in the other. Glancing back and forth between screens is a lot faster than grabbing the mouse, clicking on the taskbar icon, absorbing as much as possible, clicking back, and repositioning your cursor.

Faster, and less error prone.

For years, people have been talking about paperless offices, but that can't happen until computer displays are as convenient and as pervasive as paper already is. That means you not two displays, but dozens in an office. They'll cover your desktops and walls the way printouts, memos, yellow-stickies, posters and memoes already do. Not feasible yet, but we're getting there.

Re:General office work too

[StikyPad]

They'll cover your desktops and walls the way printouts, memos, yellow-stickies, posters and memoes already do.

I can't wait for that day to come.. I'll never have to get my radiation straight from the sun again.

Re:General office work too

[fm6]

Sorry, you'll still have to go outside now and then. Simple cheap displays obviously aren't going to be based on electron guns or backlit LCDs. Pervasive displays would almost certainly resemble paper.

Re:General office work too

[StikyPad]

Awwwww..

Text too small

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed.

I love high resolution as much as the next guy, but text on a 19" 1600x1024 monitor is tiny. It's likely unreadable at 2560x1024.

If you're spending your days coding, a 19" 1200x1024 LCD monitor can't be beat (two are even better). It's easy on the eyes (much better than the equivalent LCD monitor) and because you can move it to the back of the desk, you have a whole lot more desk room....more than enough to put that second monitor you're talking about.

Re:Text too small

[pomo monster]

Can't you just adjust your systemwide DPI setting or use larger fonts?

Re:Text too small

[izakage]

As you said, working on a 1200x1024 LCD is awesome, but this thing tops that, without even changing DPI settings. This appears to be simply two 1200x1024 displays, side-by-side.

After all, it's not the resolution that makes text hard to read, it's the PPI. If you had 800x600 on a 1" display, the test would be tiny! With this, you just get more screen space. Neat, if you ask me.

Re:Text too small

[Grishnakh]

This is just stupid. You just increase your font and icon sizes.

Exactly.

[Cyno01]

I have an 20" Apple Cinema display, and a 15" CRT that i scrounged to the right of it. Main ones for browsing, gaming, etc (and tv, since my tv will only display on my primary monitor) and the second monitor i keep my IM windows, winamp, or if im watching videos or a movie while doing other stuff. Pic1, Pic2 (mine on the right, roomies on the left, he runs a 17" and a 15" CRT) Then i can just move my browser to the second monitor if the TV is maximized for whatever reason. I do however plan to replace the probably 10 year old CRT with an LCD soon, since the brightness sucks compared to my ACD.

Daddy, what's that black thing with the metal bit?

[Dogtanian]

Anyone else find it weird that the drivers come on a floppy disk?.

Is there *anyone* out there with the money to spend on this that does't have a CD/DVD drive? I'm willing to guess that the proportion of (potential) buyers without a floppy drive will far outweigh those without a CD drive.

Besides which, if a floppy is that important, they could put a "create floppy" option on the CD.

Why bother LCD Technology?

[dayton967]

Again I have said this before, and I would say this again. LCD's are too expensive to buy and to expensive to own (though compared to CRT they still use less power). But with the advent of newer and cheaper technologies, why isn't there such a push to get these products developed. (Oh wait the consortium that was formed to push LCD technologies might be a reason for this) There is many other technologies coming to the market place in the next few years, such as TDEL (http://www.ifire.com/ warning flash heavy site) or even OLED's. Both of these eliminate (or nearly eliminate) the dead pixel problem, they both use way less power, and in the case of TDEL they will be cheaper to manufacturer hence cheaper displays. Maybe it's time to encourage companies like Samsung, or the other manufacturers on this push.

2560*1024?

[LordJezo]

How could it be considered that if there is that huge ugly black gap in the middle?

For that kind of money I'll just get myself an Apple Cinema Display instead. What's a couple more 100 dollars when you are spending that much already?

Re:2560*1024?

[Eil]

Exactly. Before R'ing TFA, I thought the slashvertisement was for two LCD panels in one enclosure. Not two completely seperate displays joined together by a plastic base, as these are. No thanks, I can get two better quality moniors than that and sit them side-by-side on my desk for far less than $1k.

You can do a lot better...

[arete]

1. Get a setup that doesn't let windows span the monitor boundary. Most of the major drivers do this, if they're set right.

2. One great giant monitor is better than 2 crappy monitors. Two giant monitors is even better!

3. To me, your remaining major concern seems to be the focus of the display - my recommendation is to take your nice monitor and put the two smaller monitors on either side of it, making for a triple-head design. This gives you a clear, great, primary monitor and then some "extra" desktop space.

Personally, I have two 21" monitors on my desk, and it makes me much more productive. Almost enough to make up for reading /.

4 LCD displays in one

[VeganBob]

I'm waiting for the 4-LCD displays to hit the market.

Re:4 LCD displays in one

[Anonymous Coward]

http://store.viewsonic.com/html/ibeCCtpItmDspRte.j sp?section=19488&item=69913&IBE_COOKIE=558D12C29D3 1A7A37636170040C276DC&IBE_COOKIE_pses=IBE_COOKIE%3 D558D12C29D31A7A37636170040C276DC~

2560x1024?

[TrevorB]

Work just got me a new fancy Dell (3Ghz) which came with two 19 inch LCD monitors. It seemed a decent replacement for my old triple head system (a 21 inch CRT flanked by 2 17" CRTs)

However, these Dell LCDs have an option to rotate 90 degrees on their base, and I've turned each of them on their side, giving me a resolution more like 2048x1280.

Maybe this isn't the best setup for gameplaying, but since I'm not playing games at work I've found the setup to be fantastic. There's no serious neck turning to look from one end to the other. Web pages feel more natural to read when they're actually page shaped. The very best part is compiling a kernel with the tall tall windows. It looks fantastic.

tangent

[rhizome]

you know, i'd like to find the first use of the phrase "increase(d) productivity." it's certainly been one of the most substantially rewarded of pithy marketing phrases.

Better dept.

[Anonymous Coward]

from the My double vision always seems to get the best of me dept.

They could do better than that

[dalesc]

Why not butt the two panels seamlessly to get a proper panoramic display with an unbroken virtual desktop?

Now, that, I'd buy.

Try it

[Dakisha]

Try using 2 mons for a while; then try going back.. Within a week you'll be checking your credit card balance to get your 2nd monitor back.

I use a 19" hitachi crt, and a 17" iiyama 431s side by side. Viewable space between the two, there is 1cm or so difference in either direction. For all intents and purposes they are the same size - both running at 1280x1024.

I usually have irc open in one fullscreened (I work from home, so use it to keep in touch with the boss + co-workers) and my browser in the other. Often notepad and the like sitting over mirc with notes in it, for the work I'm doing in my browser.

When I'm not using it for work; mirc still stays open to keep in touch with friends, while I can play games in the other. Okay you might say - basically I'm just paying for having irc in a 2nd monitor, and you'd be mostly right; however when I've got work to do, irc in a 2nd monitor makes life a lot easier. That, and working from multiple documents - I just couldn't go back. I swapped my 9800 out to build a 2nd pc the other day, and used my old gf2 mx with only one monitor out - it was hellish ;/

Benifits of dual mon aside; you'd have thought these guys would have gone for a model with a thinner bezel. After all; when they were picking which one to use - just pick one that doesn't have a half inch bezel. I don't really notice the ~2 1/2" bezel combo with mons sitting next to each other - but it'd be nice to not have one.

In a related story

[chroma]

Xdmx allows you to use a spare computer as a secondary display. It even works with Xinerama. And it's even included in the latest releases of x.org, meaning that you likely already have it installed.

This is great for those of us who have laptops, but don't want to spring for a second monitor and video card.

I recently set up my Thinkpad to be a secondary display. It works well, though the video doesn't seem quite as snappy, and it's a little difficult to set up.

Web page for Xdmx:
http://dmx.sourceforge.net/

a good idea but...

[generalleoff]

the need to do it so the 2 LCD screens are right next to each other with no gap between them so you can get a seamless screen. Then they need to boost the res of each panel to 1920x1440 (3840x1440 combined) and increase the size of the panels to atleast 25 inches or larger. After they do that they need to make the responce time super fast to get rid of the blurs and offer a zero dead pixle return policy. But I would rather see this done on a screen type that has variable resolutions rather then a fixed resolution cuz LCD just sucks no mater what.

Dell screenshot shows MacOS

[Petronius]

see for yourself. ha ha.

2 at such low resolution is not enough... try quad

[ecloud]

The quad (disclaimer: found this randomly on pricewatch, don't work for them)

I have 2 21" CRTs at 1280x1024 and don't see any reason to upgrade to LCD until I can have higher resolution than that, on both displays. Or I could just get one of those $3000 Apple displays, and have a bigger desktop all in one piece, with no divider down the middle. :-)

These guys could at least try to get the dividers ultra-thin.

Another alternative, which I would go for if I was ultra-rich, would be to use a bunch of projectors, with the images seamlessly merged into one big high-res display. About 12 of them, a 4 x 3 array, would be nice.

1000 bucks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just use desktop switching and then use the $1000 to buy a larger desk and a motivation poster stating: "Organization is the key to success" with a big picture of a key, or a guy climbing a mountain, or something else that inspires those that believe they'll be twice as productive with twice the screen real estate...

Two is right

[swtaarrs]

Two is perfect for me. I have a 19" crt as my main monitor, placed directly in front of me. To the right of that, I have a 17" crt that I use for tasks that I like to have available all the time, like IM and winamp. I do all my main work on the monitor on front of me, and to change music or send a friend an IM, I just have to glance to the right and there everything is, no minimizing or moving windows.

dual LCD screens

[Anonymous Coward]

Multiscreens are good.

I have used three AOC 17" LCD screens with a Matrox Parhelia card for over a year now. It is commended to anyone working with Multimedia.

If the budget is tight hook a second monitor out of a rubbish skip & add a £5 SVGA card to your system. Windows XP will support this.

Playing Unreal on three screens is a blast too.

Slightly offtopic...

[0x20]

Is there a way, with monitor setups like this, to run 3d games such that one part of the display runs on each monitor? Like a flight simulator with front and side windows, for example?

Re:2 at such low resolution is not enough... try q

[toddestan]

I have 2 21" CRTs at 1280x1024 and don't see any reason to upgrade to LCD until I can have higher resolution than that, on both displays. Or I could just get one of those $3000 Apple displays, and have a bigger desktop all in one piece, with no divider down the middle. :-)

1280x1024 is not that high of resolution. Most people run their 21" CRTs at 1600x1200 or more. You can buy 17" LCD screens for about $300 now that run at 1280x1024, and 1600x1200 will run you about $600.

But, if for whatever reason (bad eyes?), you like to run low resolution on a large display, you are probably best sticking to CRTs for now.

CRTs are great, but

[Sycraft-fu]

Let's not be blind to LCD advantages. Now please note I just bought a professional 22" CRT for home a couple months ago. I'm a CRT fan for a lot of things, but LCDs have advantages as well.

Their big advantage is the clarity of text, related to them being digital. Since it's a direct 1:1 mapping and since it's digitally controled, the image on an LCD is just rock solid. Even with really good CRTs, you never get that. Mine has damn good focus, so good I can use the sub pixel font AA, which normally doesn't look good on a CRT, but it still isn't perfect. Specificly the lower right hand corner goes a little fuzzy, perfectly readable, but just not 100% in focus. No problem with an LCD, they are always in focus over the whole display all the time.

Along those lines, because of the digital signal, there's no interference. I currently can't run my CRT at 1600x1200 or above because of RF interference. If I do, I see little jitters in the image. I need to upgrade to a better shielded cable, however the one I tried won't bend to fit in the space needed, so I'm still shopping. That's never a problem with an LCD. So long as your cable is within spec, the image will work perfectly, no RF problems.

Then there's space to consider. On my desk here I could easily fit 2 20" LCDs if I wanted to. However this one 22" CRT (which is the same viewable size as a 20" LCD) is all there's room for. It's too bulky to put another one up here. The depth is problematic for some people too. I have plenty of space, but this monitor needs about 2 feet worth of clearence behind it. Not everyone has that kind of room.

Finally there's the flicker. I don't notice it when it's over 75Hz, but it still bothers some people. One of my coworkers is under doctor's orders to avoid using CRTs. He doesn't see the flicker, but it fatigues his eyes all the same. He looks at a CRT for 4 hours, he feels fatigued, he looks at an LCD for 4 hours he's fine.

So while I agree, LCDs aren't ready to take over the world yet and there's a lot of reason to want to use a CRT instead, please don't think that there's no reason to want to switch to an LCD. I use a CRT because they are superior for games and colour work. However at the office, I have an LCD.

Pick the right tool for the right job.

Another Title Misread

[goldenratiophi]

I saw this title and immediately thought "Double your fun with Doublethink!" Big Brother is Watching...

Then go vertical

[ecarlson]

http://www.lcdarms.com/lcd_monitor_arms.php#pole

And with good 19" LCD's running $250 these days (I paid $230 for my new Dell Ultrasharp 1905FP - see it on my web site), if you spend another $250 on the vertical stand, you have a nice dual display for around $750. And most video cards these days already have dual video outputs, though one is often analog VGA, and LCD is best with DVI.

You might also consider putting both monitors next to each other in portrait mode, so they will take up less horizontal space, and you can use the included stands, so that would be $500 for a nice dual 19" setup.

I will agree with others that this particular slashvertisement is considerably overpriced.

Re:Then go vertical

[drsquare]

The problem with a vertical set up is, I sit so close to the monitor (say 2 feet) that I'd be straining my neck to look at the 'upper' monitor. It's not very ergonomically safe to keep turning your neck to view your monitor.

if you spend another $250 on the vertical stand, you have a nice dual display for around $750

I got my current monitor (17" crt) for £20 second hand, I can't really justify spending all that money on what at the end of the day is just another part of the computer. Also how do they justify $250 for a stand?

Re:Then go vertical

[ecarlson]

I agree that the stands are very expensive at $250. That's probably because corporations are willing to pay that for them, and because the monitors that attached to them used to be very expensive. Once multi-monior stands become more mainstream for home use, there will be $50 multi-monitor stands. Maybe now that LCDs are hitting the $200 range, and since multi displays are becoming more mainstream, the stands will become more mainstream, and a lot more affordable.

how about a single large lcd?

[xannik]

I think I would perfer a single large lcd. Having a gap in the middle is the most annoying thing ever. I think my preference ultimately would be a wall mounted lcd. Now that would be sweet indeed.

And I still say my CRT is better

[pegasustonans]

I have a 21" flat-screen Sony Trinitron CRT. I haven't seen it matched by any non-CRTs on the market and I've had it for over three years now. I don't plan on replacing it anytime soon, and, when I do replace it, I'll just go with another CRT if they still don't have anything else that measures up. I don't care about how much space my monitor makes up, but I do care about picture quality. I hope they continue making CRTs as long as their picture quality is superior.

Read the fine print (specs are a bit wimpy)

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

With the exception of the resolution number, the specifications of this monitor duo are pretty lackluster. The brightness and contrast are sub par, as is the response time and the off axis viewing capability. You'd be MUCH better off springing for a pair of nice 19" or 20" displays that have better contrast/response/viewing angles/etc. The cost would be about the same, but you'd wind up with a substantially better viewing experience.

What a waste of money

[JustNiz]

Why would you buy this?

My Dell 2405fpw (24" widescreen 1920x1200 panel)costs less than this thing, has more pixels, faster refresh, and doesn't have a friggin' great big black bar (or 2) right down the middle of the screen (where the two monitors join). It works great for HDTV/DVD's too, which this thing wouldnt either.

Viewsonic has had this for at least a year

[Alowishus]

Big deal, Viewsonic has offered stands that mount any of their Pro series LCDs (15" to 21") in not only dual horizontal but also dual vertical, triple wide and quad (2x2) layouts. You buy the standard LCDs, remove the included bases, and mount them to the special stands. If you ever decide to split them up, you still have the original bases to reattach and use standalone elsewhere.

I priced out the same 2-wide setup at CDW with 19" ViewSonics and it came out cheaper, for better quality monitors IMHO.

Re:Worse than That = Flickering

[Anonymous Coward]

> What gives?

You bought a lame monitor.

Sure, if you like 85 pixels per inch

[stienman]

Look, a large monitor is nice, but if you can't fit anything on it, why even try?

I'm certianly not buying a 19" monitor that only gets 1280x1024, nevermind two of them.

For that price you can nearly get an Apple 30".

What I'm holding out for is something that is large and has at least 100 pixels per inch for a middle monitor, then two smaller outboard monitors with the same pixel per inch rating. Ideally the middle monitor will have at least full 1080HD resolution (1920x1080 or larger).

I would really like Dell and others to take their high resolution laptop screens and put them in a desktop screen. The 17" 1920x1200 has 133 pixels per inch and I would like to use up my eyeballs as much as possible before they go bad...

-Adam

Yeah? This is for the suckers.

[DroopyStonx]

...considering you can buy two SEPARATE 19" flat panel monitors for HUNDREDS LESS than what this gimmick costs.

Way to go, nothing innovative or advanced here.

weight is also a concern.

[krunk4ever]

besides the space, one also has to consider the weight. my friend hurt his back this weekend when he was moving his 19" 50-60lb sony trinitron. great display and quality, but super duper heavy.

price is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

the price difference between LCDs and CRTs means you can still get 2 CRTs and a bigger desk with better picture quality for less than this 2 LCD system or any 2 LCD monitors

References, anyone?

[szilagyi]

I have to place myself in the minority of posters that have tried a dual-monitor setup and not liked it. However, I would call that a personal preference, i.e., I don't claim to have measured my productivity one way or the other.

Anybody want to step to the parent and show some kind of quantitative evidence that 2 monitors increase productivity? 3 monitors? N monitors? Surely, someone has at least tried with different monitor setups and measured their ?

Feel free to flame me for not doing my homework on the subject, of course, but there does seem to be a fair amount of advocacy going on here, and I missed any supportive scientific references that may have been posted.

LCDs suck

[Anonymous Coward]

CRTs have better resolution, better colour, better viewing angle, better refresh rate. LCDs suck in every way except physical size. And that's why you numbnuts buy them? Save me from the human race!

Dual is not expensive

[ecarlson]

Lots of people are getting rid of 15" and 17" CRT's, so many are free for the asking, and since many video cards already have dual outputs, and since used PCI video cards are pretty cheap or even free for those who don't already have dual outputs, you often don't have to spend any money to go to dual (or more) displays.

In any case, good new 19" LCD monitors are going for $250 these days, which isn't exactly expensive. I paid $230 for my new Dell Ultrasharp 1905FP a number of weeks ago, and have no dead pixels or other problems with it.

As a programmer/network administrator, I wouldn't want to work with less than 2 monitors, and even when I'm not working, having the extra desktop space is handy.

On the flip side...

[lullabud]

I've been considering buying another Dell 2005FPW, and on my desk I *do* have room for two of those, but not for one of these, because my space is vertically limited but not horizontally. So I guess it's back to the old "having options is good" conclusion.

Multiscreening is fun, yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

While multiheading has its perks (I currently run 4800x1200 on my main workstation), seamless desktopping is also fun. Run one mouse pointer across a multi-head desktop made from the displays of Linux, Windows and MacOS boxes with Synergy (http://synergy2.sourceforge.net/) or some such freeware, and there's all kinds of interesting efficiencies to discover.

They even call it a "DS"

[Headcase88]

Hmm, a two-screen set-up called the DS? I know I've heard of this before somewhere.

Maybe computers of the future will ditch that whole CD format and have cartridge slots or something. A rumbling mouse? A Virtual Boy-style interface? A 64-bit system as the standard?

What other innovations will Nintendo^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H the computer industry make in the years to come? Oh my, what a silly post :P

Who so wide ?

[terminal.dk]

2x 1280x1024 - So why 2560 x 1024 ?

I would have made it 2048x1280 - 1:1.6 is a more natural aspect ratio.

The onbly large resolution screen that is made right that I have seen is the Apple 30".

Talking about real problem...

[jigyasubalak]

..I am trying hard to be discreet spending whatever
time on /. with a 15 inch monitor.
I definitely don't want to go for a mega
super-duper-double-screen
trying to invite more attention than I am presently
getting.

footprint

[parasite]

What is with the faggot reference to desktop foot print ? HMMMMmmmm you GOD DAMN DIPFUCKS, I wonder would it be cheaper to buy an LCD to save your 'desk' footprint space, or to buy a BIGGER DESK. Well if you didn't figure that one out, you need to invest in a FUCKING BRAIN first.

You need to get out more ;)

[Shadowlore]

In order to get 1600x1200, I would have had to buy at least a 20". And judging from the current prices at NewEgg, that's at least $600.

So shop other than at NewEgg.

20" pretty decent 1600x1200 20 inch LCD:
http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?prodid=1 1044707&whse=&topnav=&cat=&s=1

I picked up one of these babies for less than the above price last summer, and they've come down further since (under 500 now if you know when/where to look):
http://www.sceptre.com/Products/LCD/Specifications /spec_x20g_NagaII.htm

It will do 16:9 or 4:3, has picture in picture, multi-input (DVI, VGA, S-Video), USB Hub and built in speakers. Great colors, excellent brightness (important to me because my window faces the morning sun), good response times, and very nice video quality.

That said, even NewEgg has 20" LCDs for under 600.

To get a 20" viewable screen in CRT you need to go to a 21" CRT. Of course there will be price differences. What's a 21" going for?

Samsung, NewEgg, 21" flat screen:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82 E16824001149
459 smackers. Definitely not a third of 600, actually comparable to what you can get a 20" viewable LCD w/extras. You got higher resolution but less space to use it with.

Comparing the price of an 18" viewable CRT to the price of a 20" viewable LCD is an invalid comparison.

Where does the cat sleep?

[Joce640k]

One question the LCD manufacturers don't seem to be addressing is where the cat is supposed to toast himself.

I have dual CRTs with matching cats.

I've seen software cat simulators which overlay legs and tails on the top of the screen but somehow it's not the same...

Panoramtech beat em to it

[VolciMaster]

did this a long time ago. See their corporate website: http://www.panoramtech.com/products/index.html. I was first set on to them in 2000, 3 years before DoubleSight was founded (http://www.doublesight.com/idx_about.htm). It's nice that other companies are doing this, but it's not new.

WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, why bother making a dual monitor like this if your still going to have a 2" bezel between them?

I don't get it.

Re:2 at such low resolution is not enough... try q

[ecloud]

Well you are just restating my point, and I definitely am not the type that likes to run low-res on a large display. But a pair of $600 LCDs is still a lot of money, and to actually get 1600x1200 on them you'd have to run analog right? because there is the problem that DVI doesn't (usually?) support higher resolution than 1280x1024. Apple is using dual DVI connections to get around that. 1280 is an awfully low barrier for digital video, and I hate to spend a lot of money on something that's already obsolete.