Multi-monitor?

[Davej]

How do you do multi-monitor? I was going to upgrade to a newer laptop but Iam really interested in the idea of having multiple monitors and I think adesktop would make more sense for that. What kind of hardware would I needfor a decent two or three monitor set up? This is not for gaming. This is just for text files, Excel, and coding. Thanks.

 

[Paul]

How do you do multi-monitor? I was going to upgrade to a newer laptop but I am really interested in the idea of having multiple monitors and I think a desktop would make more sense for that. What kind of hardware would I need for a decent two or three monitor set up? This is not for gaming. This is just for text files, Excel, and coding. Thanks.

Video cards have been "dual head" for many years.
If you look at the video card faceplate, there can be as many
as three connectors, and you can use any two of three.

There are also video cards sporting Eyefinity. With
the right video card, you can have as many as six
monitors (two of them DVI/HDMI type, four of them
via DisplayPort).

(Example of a mid-range card with five connectors.
Should be easy to do a 1x3 spanned display horizontally.
Two monitors DVI, one monitor with DisplayPort to DVI adapter.
"Eyefinity" from ATI/AMD.)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814103229

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyefinity#Multi-display_technologies

So just look for something with lots of connectors.
It's a start.

Connect the second monitor. Look in the Display Control
panel, select the desired arrangement (Spanned or Cloned
or whatever). You can also use the control panel installed
by the video card, to do some things.

I have tested a four monitor setup, using two video cards,
each video card with two connectors. What happens with that
one, is two of the monitors are slower to update than the
other two (lag). It probably works slightly better, if the
monitors are hosted by the same video card. But if you
really need it, a multitude of video cards can do it.

This web site shows a picture gallery of systems constructed
using multiple video cards. This is an example.

16 monitors, 4 video cards, 2 chips per card, two connectors per chip, NVS440

http://www.realtimesoft.com/multimon/gallery_browse.asp?ID=954&date=desc&nummon=false&mon=desc

Paul

 

[Charlie Hoffpauir]

How do you do multi-monitor? I was going to upgrade to a newer laptop but I am really interested in the idea of having multiple monitors and I think a desktop would make more sense for that. What kind of hardware would I need for a decent two or three monitor set up? This is not for gaming. This is just for text files, Excel, and coding. Thanks.

Almost any modern video card will have provision for 2 monitors. On my
Win 7 system I have such a 2-monitor card in the PCI video slot, and a
very old "original" PCI card in the regular PCI slot, and win 7
recognizes them all and lets me arrange them as I please.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How do you do multi-monitor? I was going to upgrade to a newer laptop but I am really interested in the idea of having multiple monitors and I think a desktop would make more sense for that. What kind of hardware would I need for a decent two or three monitor set up? This is not for gaming. This is just for text files, Excel, and coding. Thanks.

I currently have a fairly nice video card with 5 ports on it. 3 of
them go to three monitors, albeit through some adapters as the port
types don't match the monitor types. One remains idle and one has
sufficient compatibility issues that it's unlikely I could put it to
use. This is by far the easiest approach although it generally takes
a fairly expensive card to have enough ports. (And beware that I have
seen cards with shared circuits--there are multiple ports but you
can't actually use them at the same time.)

In the past I've done it with multiple video cards. In this case I
have found you're more likely to get it to work if every video card
involved can be run from the same driver, although I have had setups
work where this wasn't true. Big brands are more likely to behave
than small brands--once I spoke with a tech (not merely technical
support!) at one of those smaller outfits and he swore that multiple
cards simply weren't an option under Windows and wouldn't believe that
I had been doing it for years. Is it any surprise that their drivers
would not behave in a multi-card setup?

In general I have found that the install disks do not support
multi-monitor setups. Sometimes they can be tricked by installing one
card, running it's disk then swapping to the other card and running
it's disk.

Downloaded drivers tend to work better, especially if they're packed
so that Windows can install them from the device manager.

 

[Flasherly]

Big brands are more likely to behave
than small brands--once I spoke with a tech (not merely technical
support!) at one of those smaller outfits and he swore that multiple
cards simply weren't an option under Windows and wouldn't believe that
I had been doing it for years. Is it any surprise that their drivers
would not behave in a multi-card setup?

In general I have found that the install disks do not support
multi-monitor setups. Sometimes they can be tricked by installing one
card, running it's disk then swapping to the other card and running
it's disk.

Downloaded drivers tend to work better, especially if they're packed
so that Windows can install them from the device manager.

Pretty well covered most of the vagaries, (gott''a love it when
contacting tech to be forced spoon fed), short of another hardware
angle, being running AGP and PCI (haven't worked extensively at it
from the PCI-E perspective).

My first multi-display, two monitors, were 19" CRTs - as in heavy. I
took the rails from a bed, cut them up and heliarced a stand with
space provisions over the lower CRT. Painted, ground, and with nuts
for angle adjustment -- do recall eventually tossing it in the trash
barrel. A thing to bear in mind with any display - eyelid angle, or
how the eyeballs are going to be lubricated by blinking;- what the
eyelids normally cover when stretching them upwards, in order to look
upwards at high-placed monitors (AKA eye fatigue).

In sum, with newer 32/40" displays (I prefer a 32") going for the
budget price from the CRT era, on that large of a LED/LCD, is there
really the need for multiple displays if judicious use of desktop
X-window schemes well may serve that same intent. . .

(Not saying sometimes I could not use what I have, actually,
considered: two side-by or stacked 40" displays;... just don't
actually the size room to make it moreover a feasibility than
pragmatic intent might suggest.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My first multi-display, two monitors, were 19" CRTs - as in heavy. I
took the rails from a bed, cut them up and heliarced a stand with
space provisions over the lower CRT. Painted, ground, and with nuts
for angle adjustment -- do recall eventually tossing it in the trash
barrel. A thing to bear in mind with any display - eyelid angle, or
how the eyeballs are going to be lubricated by blinking;- what the
eyelids normally cover when stretching them upwards, in order to look
upwards at high-placed monitors (AKA eye fatigue).

Yeah, I used to have a pair of 19" monitors.

In sum, with newer 32/40" displays (I prefer a 32") going for the
budget price from the CRT era, on that large of a LED/LCD, is there
really the need for multiple displays if judicious use of desktop
X-window schemes well may serve that same intent. . .

(Not saying sometimes I could not use what I have, actually,
considered: two side-by or stacked 40" displays;... just don't
actually the size room to make it moreover a feasibility than
pragmatic intent might suggest.)

I have 3840x1024 total space across my three screens. I haven't seen
anything like that out of even a big screen.

 

[Flasherly]

I have 3840x1024 total space across my three screens. I haven't seen
anything like that out of even a big screen.

Mine will runs at up to 1920x1080. . .oh, but you're averaging across
three screens. I've two, a 32" (not sure offhand what'll it upwardly
handle, it's at 1368x768) and that 40". 40" is across the room,
hooked up to two stereo amps run through an ASUS sound board, mixer,
and dedicated sound process. Doesn't matter much what the 40 is at if
all it ever does is provide song lists, render video decodes and PDF
sheet music (likely lower than 1368x768 for sheer convenience).

I see, though. If a 50" were to come out, so to say closer to
3840x1024 pixel resolution from technological advancements, you could
possibly use it. I couldn't. My eyes can't handle that fine of
resolution anymore;- Not really as much the actual resolution, but the
way any OS is, the programming provisions for sizing text at
hypothetical fines, possibly near-future resolution levels, which
hasn't as yet been adjusted feasibly in any accountable sense for a
realistic approach, of the OS, into averages across mean human models
of eye sight.

That's right, all you whiz-bang, pointy-eyed and high-resolution
viewers. Keep on looking at it. Some day, like me, your eyesight
might wear down from the fatigue of doing just that. (Early laptops
and their shit screen technology, actually, got me.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I see, though. If a 50" were to come out, so to say closer to
3840x1024 pixel resolution from technological advancements, you could
possibly use it. I couldn't. My eyes can't handle that fine of
resolution anymore;- Not really as much the actual resolution, but the
way any OS is, the programming provisions for sizing text at
hypothetical fines, possibly near-future resolution levels, which
hasn't as yet been adjusted feasibly in any accountable sense for a
realistic approach, of the OS, into averages across mean human models
of eye sight.

I know what you mean. As it is with these monitors I had to bump the
fonts up a bit in Windows. Everything I've seen that's bigger than
what I have now either has tiny pixels or it's very widescreen--and
since I run multiple montiors I consider widescreen to be a detriment,
not a benefit.

 

[Charlie Hoffpauir]

I know what you mean. As it is with these monitors I had to bump the
fonts up a bit in Windows. Everything I've seen that's bigger than
what I have now either has tiny pixels or it's very widescreen--and
since I run multiple montiors I consider widescreen to be a detriment,
not a benefit.

I feel the same. I'm presently running 2 21" widescreens 1920x1080
each for an overall 3840x1080, and am wondering if I'd be better
served using 3 widescreens rotated to give me an overall 3243x1920.
Has anyone tried that and if so does it work? Of course, the monitors
I now have don't rotate, but windows does support rotating the
display, so it seems like it would work if I either get different
monitors, or build a support for these.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I feel the same. I'm presently running 2 21" widescreens 1920x1080
each for an overall 3840x1080, and am wondering if I'd be better
served using 3 widescreens rotated to give me an overall 3243x1920.
Has anyone tried that and if so does it work? Of course, the monitors
I now have don't rotate, but windows does support rotating the
display, so it seems like it would work if I either get different
monitors, or build a support for these.

I have had the same thought about rotated screens. Long ago I saw
someone with a rotated screen and it didn't work right for stuff that
goes full screen (say, that pipe-drawing screen saver) but it's been a
long time.

 

[Flasherly]

I know what you mean. As it is with these monitors I had to bump the
fonts up a bit in Windows. Everything I've seen that's bigger than
what I have now either has tiny pixels or it's very widescreen--and
since I run multiple montiors I consider widescreen to be a detriment,
not a benefit.

On this new 40" SCEPTRE, I picked up with a VGA port from Walmart for
a $250 sale, it has what's called a "Dot by Dot" mode button on the
remote. What that does is to instantly throw the monitor into its
native resolution of 1920x1080 -- rendering anything else, as set by
the OS, XP/SP3, as a block, centered and contained within the monitor,
exactly as if it were a X-window to itself. Whereupon bringing the OS
up to that, 1920x1080, adjusting for larger(est) fonts -- well, for
me, I just can't handle it. Way too damn small for the eyeballs in my
head.

Aside, there wasn't any advantage to my purposes, as the monitor's
quality of display for video renderings, a primary function, is subpar
after I've determined and exhaustively researched and run color
setting tests and corrections, software routines. (Blacks are plain
and unacceptably screwed). Hence I left it at 1024x768 or close enough
for what it is.

I'm sure it would function at 1920x1080 just fine for information only
purposes if only I could handle XP's largest font provisions, which I
can't (maybe at 1600x1200, perhaps). I'm finished with "computer
monitors," though. I see no merit in their marketing other than for
price gouging. All that's left is I'm lacking HDMI support for the
next "television" I potentially may buy to run for a monitor. (I see
there are "active HDI" cables on Ebay for $10 or $15 to run a VGA to
HDMI, those little trapezoidal connects, sans sound pins or whatever.)