Is four enough?

[ark_ader]

I have been trying to get three displays to work together on my PC for a better part of two years.  I have tried numerous attempts to get both my PCIe and AGP graphics cards to play with each other in my Asrock 939 Dual Sata2 (the only board that supposed to work) without having some problems, like the PC rebooting randomly (which I thought was bad memory) and monitors refusing to leave standby.  I have tried to upgrade to a an Intel board and use a PCIe and PCI combo to give me triple displays only to be stuck in XP.  A move to Windows 7x64 brought me back to the drawing board.

Purchasing a HD 5570 changed all that.  Well it changed how my monitors work, and it is an interesting journey how Windows 7 X64 sees your hardware or rather plays with it.  I have a LG W2261VP and a Acer P225 with two Daewoo HL711A all working fine (today). 

The PS3 is hooked into the HDMI on the LG, the Xbox1 plugs into the VGA but if I hook the PC up to the HDMI on the LG, the monitor goes to sleep and never wakes up.  Why I do not know.  So I have to use a DVI.  The Acer connects to the Xbox 360 via VGA and the PC via HDMI->DVI.  If I use plain DVI, it too goes to sleep and doesn't wake up.  So when you have walked away to make a drink and come back after 10 minutes you have two monitors flashing on and off.  It's quite disturbing.  So I HAVE TO use this configuration to keep all the monitors coordinated.  It is so bizarre.

Now the HD5570 has a Displayport.  Can I buy a monitor that has a Displayport and can go higher than 1920 x1080?  No, the highest is 1920 x1050, with a healthy price increase to boot, like a Dell or HP offering.  So I go look at the alternatives, and there are some real horror stories of expensive adapters that do fail after a few weeks, due to them not being powered properly.  Well I got good reviews on the Star Tech Displayport to VGA adapter.  It came in the post the next day from Amazon and it is a real treat. 

I tend to read a lot of ebooks and I like to play Mame in portrait mode, so before I got the Displayport to VGA I bought a Star Tech USB to VGA.  Major disappointment.  Great for web surfing or ebooks but movies and games just suck. Real slow.  I thought it would be fast enough as a main display but it works as a slave, with good resolution.

I heard that there is a new interface out that converts a single Displayport into six further Displayports, considering Displayports are supposed to be daisy chained.

So is four monitors enough (well five if you include a laptop slave)?  I have found I can be twice as productive with two screens, and I am wondering I can be even more productive with four.

Does anyone else have multiple monitors in their setup, and if so what benefits have they experienced?

[drventure]

I use 2 (a 24" and a 20" dell)

Going from a standard screen to the 24" screen was a HUGE boost for me.

Adding the 20" screen to one side was a big boost, but not quite as much.

I'm seriously considering either a 30" dell, or another 20" on the other side of my main screen.

Check out Scott Hanselman's take on multi monitors. He's got lots of links too. He seems to think three is the sweet spot for productivity (unless you're a day trader, or maybe a movie producer, or something).

http://www.hanselman.com/blog/TheSweetSpotOfMultipleMonitorProductivityThatMagicalThirdMonitor.aspx

[Vigo]

I use a couple 20" monitors at work, and wish I had 1 more. I don't know if I could handle multiple monitors for one computer, and my monitors have to be butted directly up to each other.

[Ridgefire]

My desk at work has 7 monitors and 1 TV. 5 are dedicated to the 911 CAD system, 1 is radios, 1 internet and the TV. The 5 are all hooked up together so you can move your CAD screens where ever you want

[shmokes]

I use 2 (a 24" and a 20" dell)

How funny. I also use a 24" and 20" -- both Dell monitors. I keep the 20" one permanently in portrait mode. You should try it. It's great. It makes no difference which orientation you use for things like Photoshop tools. But a lot of applications are better in portrait (Word, for example), but you almost never use them that way if it means switching into physically rotating the monitor and then making the necessary software adjustments for it to display properly. I have found that I never, ever find myself wanting the monitor in landscape, but when it was in landscape I periodically wished it was in portrait. Now I've had it permanently in portrait for at least three years and I love it.

[leapinlew]

I think I've come around to wishing my dual screens were 4:3. The widescreen is mostly wasted in landscape and I don't like portrait since it messes with remote access. At home I use dual 24" 16:9 which replaced my dual screen 19" 4:3. I've been using it for about 2 years and thinking about adding a 19" 4:3 in the middle flaked by the 24".

I wish 4:3 monitors were still around. I prefer them.

[crashwg]

I wish 4:3 monitors were still around. I prefer them.

I'm with you on that one.  I don't game on my computer and rarely watch videos so to me 4:3 is what I would buy if money were no object (because there are a couple large 4:3 LCDs out there but they're expensive!)

I keep the 20" one permanently in portrait mode. You should try it. It's great.

Arrrggh, I've been wanting to do this for a couple years now but just haven't been able to justify the cost of a second monitor.  Soon...

[drventure]

Yeah, I used it that way for a bit, but went back to landscape mode. I guess mainly because that's what I was used to.

However, I'm a programmer, so most of my work tends to need horizontal space more than vertical, so I much prefer widescreens in landscape for that.

On the other hand, If I get a 30", As I understand it, a 20" is the same size horizontally that a 30 is vertically, so you can easily place a 30" in the middle with 2 20" screens on either side in portrait orientation and things "line up" better.

Here's hoping I can get there soon to try it!

[bleargh]

I wish 4:3 monitors were still around. I prefer them.

Agreed... I wish we could get back to the hi-res displays we used to have, and get rid of this "1080" crap... for years I had a pair of 21" CRTs on my desk that each did 2048x2048, and being forced to switch to a pair of 24" LCD widescreen 1920x1080s after our flood a few years back was like taking a f'in step backwards by ten years.

Although I'll admit that the extra width is nice (2x widescreens is like having 3x CRTs wide), the drop in resolution is just crap.

[Gray_Area]

Does Windows support monitors stacked?

[SavannahLion]

I wish 4:3 monitors were still around. I prefer them.

Agreed... I wish we could get back to the hi-res displays we used to have, and get rid of this "1080" crap... for years I had a pair of 21" CRTs on my desk that each did 2048x2048, and being forced to switch to a pair of 24" LCD widescreen 1920x1080s after our flood a few years back was like taking a f'in step backwards by ten years.

Although I'll admit that the extra width is nice (2x widescreens is like having 3x CRTs wide), the drop in resolution is just crap.

THANK YOU!

I'm one of the last bastions who insisted on keeping my 4:3 multi-monitor setup. The damn penny pinchers decided that my CRT's sucked down too much electricity and I've been forced to live with a pair of crappy LCD monitors. I didn't even have the option of going 1080, they gave me the cheapest pair nobody would buy. They're not even 4:3 or 16:9. They're something like 2 pixels off from 5:4. Took me months to figure out why I couldn't get a sharp image on them.
 

The whole 1080 ---fudgesicle--- fest is just maddening really.

[Samstag]

I use a pair of 4:3 LCDs at work.  They're still available in various places, although the ones we buy lately are more expensive touchscreens.

[ark_ader]

I use a pair of 4:3 LCDs at work.  They're still available in various places, although the ones we buy lately are more expensive touchscreens.

Actually I prefer 4:3 too, but the added room with the wide screens is helpful, but placing them to be productive is difficult.  College has the 19" 4:3 and they look huge in comparison, so much that I am thinking of pivoting my 22"s into portrait and placing them slightly behind each other to hide the bezel. With ATI Infinity I can make them one display, but that defeats the object to have separate displays doing different tasks.

I found out a huge performance benefit:  Turning off Aero.  Games, applications and boot all increase like 50%, even the USB2VGA adapter (which have issues with Aero anyways) is much faster in operation.  I wanted 3 22" displays but now I am not sure now.  Maybe a 17" 16:9 would angle the displays better than 3 22". 

I'm going to mount the 2 17" 4:3 vertically so I can then start using them in Mame and Visual Pinball.  Super Punchout will look so awesome!

   

[Gray_Area]

Does Windows support monitors stacked?

Let me clarify: you can span the display horizontally between monitors. Can you vertically?

[drventure]

Does Windows support monitors stacked?

Let me clarify: you can span the display horizontally between monitors. Can you vertically?

Yes, In the display settings, there's a screen where you can literally drag the monitors around to any position you like. Put one on top of the other, to the left right, below, offset, etc. Any arbitrary position you want.

[Donkey_Kong]

Anyone here trying to get that 3rd monitor going, this might help you. haha   


http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=117032.msg1240822#msg1240822

[ark_ader]

Anyone here trying to get that 3rd monitor going, this might help you. haha   


http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=117032.msg1240822#msg1240822

I have a StarTech VGA2USB.  Its too slow for Games and Video, but perfect for Web and Office use.

[DillonFoulds]

I guess this is as good as any time to brag about my desktop. It's a Triptych, where-in each monitor serves a secondary purpose. The left monitor is DVI to the desktop, and VGA to some xbox 360 cables sitting on the computers, the right monitor is DVI to the server as a "head" for my linux box, and VGA to the desktop. The middle monitor is VGA to the desktop, and DVI->HDMI for PS3 cables, also on the computers. The two console cables have separate audio outs and it all goes into a reverse splitter into the speakers (no individual channel controls, though ). Lastly, it's all wired so that I can flip off a power bar to cut all extra power drain when not in use, but the UPS stay on, powering only the speakers, server, router, and external hard drive.

The desktop is windows 7 x64, with a Radeon 6970, and a secondary PCI card for the third monitor (the right monitor).

The monitors are Dell 2007FPb's. These monitors are notorious for having faulty power-boards, it seems. Had to replace quite a few caps on them before I got steady picture. Regardless, they're a nice picture quality, in a 4:3 - 1600x1200. Ended up having about 10 die at work over the last few years, with various power problems. Of those 10 only 4 have been salvageable so far. The fourth is probably going to end up being de-cased, and mounted in my cocktail.

[MonMotha]

So, since it's come up, anybody know of a good solution for 3x ANALOG (VGA) outputs that don't suck aside from using multiple video cards?  By "don't suck", I mean pixel clocks in excess of 250MHz and the analog bandwidth on everything to back it up.  This seems surprisingly hard to get on a single output, let alone three...

1920x1200 @ ~95Hz times 3 monitors wide for the win.  Awesome for gaming, but I can't find a video card that can drive them well enough for satisfactory thin line performance (e.g. small text, CAD, etc.), so I tend to use other monitors for that.

BTW, yes, wider is not better.  I bought my laptop when I did specifically because it was the last 16:10 at 1920x1200 on a laptop I could find.  Everything's 16:9 1920x1080, now, and I really like that extra vertical space for toolbars. I'm still up in the air as to 4:3 vs. 16:10 preference, though.  Both have their uses, but 16:9 just seems too wide for computer work (it's fine for TV, though).

[ark_ader]

So, since it's come up, anybody know of a good solution for 3x ANALOG (VGA) outputs that don't suck aside from using multiple video cards?  By "don't suck", I mean pixel clocks in excess of 250MHz and the analog bandwidth on everything to back it up.  This seems surprisingly hard to get on a single output, let alone three...

1920x1200 @ ~95Hz times 3 monitors wide for the win.  Awesome for gaming, but I can't find a video card that can drive them well enough for satisfactory thin line performance (e.g. small text, CAD, etc.), so I tend to use other monitors for that.

BTW, yes, wider is not better.  I bought my laptop when I did specifically because it was the last 16:10 at 1920x1200 on a laptop I could find.  Everything's 16:9 1920x1080, now, and I really like that extra vertical space for toolbars. I'm still up in the air as to 4:3 vs. 16:10 preference, though.  Both have their uses, but 16:9 just seems too wide for computer work (it's fine for TV, though).

Yes.  Garden Variety Nvidia PCIe with dual head VGA/DVI with adapter and a PCI Nvidia 8400GS.  Works with Windows 7 and XP. Matrox triple headed card.

It's a Triptych, where-in each monitor serves a secondary purpose.

Yes mine is too.  I am thinking of getting a 17 LCDTV for all the consoles, but I have a Magic VGA sitting idle which could just link into the KWorld 1440 that drives the component XBOX display to VGA.  I had this daisy chained before but I got too much noise and the display looked crap.  Alternatively I am looking to add a VCR to the Kworld and use the composite in which gives no signal noise for the DC and PS2.

The added cable hell is something I am not looking forward to.  

Audio is served by a 5 port switch box. I'll post a picky later with the setup.

[DillonFoulds]

I used zip ties (I know, I know, use velcro, blah blah) and really went to town. Every 6 inches is a tie. I'll grab a picture of the back when I get home. It's very clean, and since I've been using the same set of peripherals for a couple years, I'm not anticipating having to add any more cables. In the event that I do, I'd more than gladly add the new cable to the bunch, and re-tie everything else in place.

[Blanka]

Just get one 2560x1600 30 inch. That caters all.

[ark_ader]

I used zip ties (I know, I know, use velcro, blah blah) and really went to town. Every 6 inches is a tie. I'll grab a picture of the back when I get home. It's very clean, and since I've been using the same set of peripherals for a couple years, I'm not anticipating having to add any more cables. In the event that I do, I'd more than gladly add the new cable to the bunch, and re-tie everything else in place.

I wish that was true for me, every time I reset (take it all apart and cable again) I think to myself: I'll just duct tape or cable tie everything in place and it will be neat and tidy.

Errrr no.  Because when I do that I get cable strain and I have to un-clip them all.  Velcro all the way baby! So much easier than banging your head, under the desk snipping as you go. 

One day I will make a box for all my cables to go into.   
 

[bleargh]

Thinking of velcro ties... I've found these ones over at Lee Valley to by far be the best ones to use...

    http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/page.aspx?p=51955

Each year for Xmas I get myself a few packs of these.  They're cheap, and with the extra hole in them they're easy to secure to one of the wires so that they don't fall off and get lost when you unwrap them.

[ark_ader]

Thinking of velcro ties... I've found these ones over at Lee Valley to by far be the best ones to use...

    http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/page.aspx?p=51955

Each year for Xmas I get myself a few packs of these.  They're cheap, and with the extra hole in them they're easy to secure to one of the wires so that they don't fall off and get lost when you unwrap them.

Thanks for the link.  That is exactly what I have been looking for.   

[bleargh]

Thanks for the link.  That is exactly what I have been looking for.   

No problem.  Pisses me off to no end when I go into any tech store or hardware store and see them charging $0.50 or $1 a piece for velcro straps, when these things are less than half that price and grip/stick far better than those fluffy looking ones.

That said, though... its a dangerous event when the Lee Valley catalog arrives at the house... there's always something I see in the catalog where I'm like "WOW... I can find a use for that..."  Between my wife, her dad, and myself, the Lee Valley catalog always ends up with dog-eared pages and circles drawn throughout it for stuff we find that's cool and want to get.

[MonMotha]

Yes.  Garden Variety Nvidia PCIe with dual head VGA/DVI with adapter and a PCI Nvidia 8400GS.  Works with Windows 7 and XP. Matrox triple headed card.

While the Matrox cards do have awesome quality output, they're seriously lacking in the 3D department.  I was mostly wondering if anybody knew of a DisplayPort to VGA dongle that's actually decent.  Most of them seem built purely for cost, with correspondingly low quality at high resolutions, and the reviews are worthless since most people are just buying them to hook up their ancient 1024x768 blurry LCD.

I've found your typical nVidia/ATi stuff to also have somewhat lacking analog outputs.  Laptops are generally far worse than the desktop cards.  I'm guessing it's overly aggressive EMC control components on the laptops, but they may just use a cheap DAC thinking you're only ever driving a low end projector with it.  Even fairly good desktop cards vary a lot in quality.  Defeating the ferrites or similar EMC components on the ouputs can help (and I'm sure break the FCC certification, but I don't care).  I've yet to find one that can really keep up with 1920x1200@95Hz.  I suspect they're thinking most people are using DVI/HDMI/DP these days, which is probably not a terrible assumption, and good analog outputs cost money.

[ark_ader]

Yes.  Garden Variety Nvidia PCIe with dual head VGA/DVI with adapter and a PCI Nvidia 8400GS.  Works with Windows 7 and XP. Matrox triple headed card.

While the Matrox cards do have awesome quality output, they're seriously lacking in the 3D department.  I was mostly wondering if anybody knew of a DisplayPort to VGA dongle that's actually decent.  Most of them seem built purely for cost, with correspondingly low quality at high resolutions, and the reviews are worthless since most people are just buying them to hook up their ancient 1024x768 blurry LCD.

I've found your typical nVidia/ATi stuff to also have somewhat lacking analog outputs.  Laptops are generally far worse than the desktop cards.  I'm guessing it's overly aggressive EMC control components on the laptops, but they may just use a cheap DAC thinking you're only ever driving a low end projector with it.  Even fairly good desktop cards vary a lot in quality.  Defeating the ferrites or similar EMC components on the ouputs can help (and I'm sure break the FCC certification, but I don't care).  I've yet to find one that can really keep up with 1920x1200@95Hz.  I suspect they're thinking most people are using DVI/HDMI/DP these days, which is probably not a terrible assumption, and good analog outputs cost money.

Startech dp2vga.

Still going strong

[MonMotha]

What resolution and refresh are you running it at?  I'm not sure many people understand just how hard it is to push 1920x1200 at 95Hz with good, sharp edges to make small fonts look good.  1920x1200 is already a rather high resolution, and 95Hz results in a pixel clock more than 50% faster than your typical 60Hz refresh rate.  You're talking bandwidths of 500MHz+ for a good, sharp white-to-black or vice-versa transition.

I can get even 1920x1200 at 60Hz out of most things and have it look decent, but very few sources I have look good at 95Hz.  Even finding a cable that can handle that is tough.  Mini-coax is mandatory, and using controlled impedance BNC connectors instead of an HD15 can make a surprising difference.

[ark_ader]

What resolution and refresh are you running it at?  I'm not sure many people understand just how hard it is to push 1920x1200 at 95Hz with good, sharp edges to make small fonts look good.  1920x1200 is already a rather high resolution, and 95Hz results in a pixel clock more than 50% faster than your typical 60Hz refresh rate.  You're talking bandwidths of 500MHz+ for a good, sharp white-to-black or vice-versa transition.

I can get even 1920x1200 at 60Hz out of most things and have it look decent, but very few sources I have look good at 95Hz.  Even finding a cable that can handle that is tough.  Mini-coax is mandatory, and using controlled impedance BNC connectors instead of an HD15 can make a surprising difference.

I do not think that this adapter will suit your needs.  This is a simple low cost solution that works for monitors as a standard display.  Anything freaky like you are suggesting will cost you.  I know the setup you are referring to, and I used to have Vewsonic Multi-Sync monitors myself with VGA to BNC, and yes they did look good.  My eyesight isn't as good as it was 15 years ago and my expectations are much lower so this DP2VGA does the job, at £20 too.

I found this of interest