Dual Head?

Post by **bicostp** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:36 pm

I have a Radeon 9200. It's nothing new or special, but it does have multiple monitor connections:

DVI-D
S-Video
VGA

I use Flash and Photoshop a lot, and both obscure the canvas space with toolboxes. (Flash is really bad when the Actions box is also open)

Judging by the control panel, this card does support dual monitors:

The problem is, the DVI port is only DVI-D, so I can't use a DVI-VGA converter, and all of my monitors are VGA. Should I get a new monitor that supports digital DVI connections, or should I get a cheap graphics card that has two VGA ports? (As long as it isn't a downgrade.) It would have to be AGP because I don't have PCI-E slots in this computer.

A new monitor would probably be best., since DVI will eventualy become the new de facto standard, and my current monitor only has a 500:1 contrast ratio and a 25ms response time.

(It's a Viewsonic VG800b.) The new one would get bumped to secondary status.

Also, to you guys running more than one screen, is it worth the effort? Do you tend to use one screen more and use the other as a "dump" of sorts?

Thanks!

tom61 · Post by **tom61** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:02 pm

Another option is to install an extra PCI video card and use that to drive the other older monitor.

For the uses you listed, most people rant and rave about having dual screens available to them.

I've played with dual screening, but for me, dual screens isn't as useful as a single widescreen display, since I game a fair bit as well. Wide screen lets you have a good compromise work surface for 4:3 (I'm guessing most flash is still done this way) editing or 8 1/2x11 document and portrait photo editing as well as having your toolboxes arrayed on the right and left. Then, when you want to game, its easier to get working (i.e. possible in Windows) and you don't have to have a triple screen to get the retical centered. My next box (figuring out parts now) will have a 22" widescreen display. Ben and a few others on here decided on the best of both worlds (and spending lots of money) and have dual widescreen displays.

Post by **bicostp** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:38 pm

I would use a PCI card, but the only ones I have are old S3 and TI boards from the mid 90s that probably don't even work anymore.

And honestly, I really, really hate 16:9 widescreen PC monitors. You get the same resolution one way, but it's lower the other way and you pay the same as the next size up 4:3 screen costs. (1280x768 vs 1280x1024... I don't want to pay $50 more for 327,680 fewer pixels.) They also feel cramped to me, for some reason. Or maybe it's just stubbornness, born from 16 years of using normal screens.

timmeh87 · Post by **timmeh87** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:24 pm

well you could buy a $30 pci video card instead of replacing your card with another AGP one

Post by **Skyone** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:47 pm

It is DEFINITELY worth the effort. As a programmer, debugging and running and multiple apps at once is completely bothersome, but having multiple monitors is so relieving. Photoshop/Web Design is also something I dual.

tom61 · Post by **tom61** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:23 pm

bicostp wrote:They also feel cramped to me, for some reason. Or maybe it's just stubbornness, born from 16 years of using normal screens.

19" and below monitors I agree, too cramped. However, once you get in 22"+ screens they're a fair bit cooler. They're as tall as a 19" 4:3 screen. I'm not sure I'd want a 4:3 bigger than 19".

Felino · Post by **Felino** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:38 pm

Through my computers, i originally had a 17" lcd and a 15" lcd together, untill the 15" got retired.

Then i had my iBook hacked up to run dual screens (14" and the 17" from before).

My current setup is a 15" macbook pro with a 17" cinema display.

Dual screens?
I could never go back.

EDIT: Photoshop is not that great dual screen in my experence.

Post by **bicostp** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 7:37 am

timmeh87 wrote:well you could buy a $30 pci video card instead of replacing your card with another AGP one

I'd rather not waste my money on another card, especially since my spare monitor is a 15" IBM with a low contrast ratio, aging backlight, and a slow response time.

(Besides, $200 for a nice screen that will work on a new computer in the future is a better investment than a PCI graphics card that was probably not very good when it was new.)

tom61 wrote:19" and below monitors I agree, too cramped. However, once you get in 22"+ screens they're a fair bit cooler. They're as tall as a 19" 4:3 screen. I'm not sure I'd want a 4:3 bigger than 19".

It's the aspect ratio that makes the screen feel small. I don't know what it is, but to me as a screen gets wider it feels shorter. And you're still paying more for the same amount of screen real estate because "zomg it's widescreen!" No wide screens, thanks.