Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (2441 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [SLE] 2 heads
- From: William Gallafent <william@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:41:36 +0100
- Message-id: <200506271041.36539.william@xxxxxxxxxx>
On Sunday 26 June 2005 04:35, Doug McGarrett wrote:
[snip re disliking multiple head systems]
> I would like to hear from those who disagree, along with
> their reasons. I would expect those who disagree would
> have used a 2-monitor system for some time, of course.
Multiple heads are very useful for writing and debugging
graphics or games software. Head one: the image window (or
the running game display). Head two: palettes, toolboxes
etc. Head three: Dev environment - source code editor /
debugger / IDE etc. Head four: Web browser, news feeds,
weather forecast, cluster monitoring, email, instant
messaging...
OK, so head four's slightly tongue in cheek, though I'm half
serious even about that one :)
A two head system, though, certainly improved my experience
of software development a great deal, and if the software
you're developing's sufficiently complex that a user might
want two heads (and much graphics software is), then a
developer could probably do with three.
In another domain, and not from personal experience, but:
people who work in finance get as many heads as they can:
multiple data feeds of market information from many
different places, outputs of your own models and predictions
to compare, CRM info about the client you're talking to on
the phone, ..... it's useful to be able to see all of that
at once.
A graphic designer acquaintance uses one very high quality
22" CRT to display the image he's working on, and a smaller
display to hold tool windows, menus etc.
For all of those applications, with all the windowing
systems I've used, it's actually _easier_ to have multiple
screens than just one: maximising windows and otherwise
arranging stuff works very well when you have several
rectangles to arrange it in to rather than just one.
I'm sure there are many other examples, but it basically
boils down to getting as much information as possible
(potentially requiring differing display characteristics -
e.g. high refresh rate vs perfect colour reproduction)
displayed _simultaneously_. Alt-tab doesn't cut it.
And a final point: if you're not very very rich, cost is
also a consideration. I have a 2560x1024 desktop with 3D
acceleration on both heads (GeForce FX5600) connected
digitally (DVI-D) to two 17 inch 16ms refresh panels, for a
great deal less money (The card was £130 more than a year
ago, the panels about £270, also more than a year ago) than
buying a 2.6Mpix panel! (Even a 1920*1200 Apple Cinema
Display at £1050 has only 88% as many pixels! The cheapest
display with more that I could find with a quick search is
the 30" Apple Cinema Display at £1999.99, which buys a _lot_
of large high quality panels to use for multi-head). And,
really finally, if one fails then you can carry on working
with a quick reconfigure.
I've never looked back since I switched from a single 17"
display to a pair of Samung 15" panels about 2.5 years ago.
--
Bill
[snip re disliking multiple head systems]
> I would like to hear from those who disagree, along with
> their reasons. I would expect those who disagree would
> have used a 2-monitor system for some time, of course.
Multiple heads are very useful for writing and debugging
graphics or games software. Head one: the image window (or
the running game display). Head two: palettes, toolboxes
etc. Head three: Dev environment - source code editor /
debugger / IDE etc. Head four: Web browser, news feeds,
weather forecast, cluster monitoring, email, instant
messaging...
OK, so head four's slightly tongue in cheek, though I'm half
serious even about that one :)
A two head system, though, certainly improved my experience
of software development a great deal, and if the software
you're developing's sufficiently complex that a user might
want two heads (and much graphics software is), then a
developer could probably do with three.
In another domain, and not from personal experience, but:
people who work in finance get as many heads as they can:
multiple data feeds of market information from many
different places, outputs of your own models and predictions
to compare, CRM info about the client you're talking to on
the phone, ..... it's useful to be able to see all of that
at once.
A graphic designer acquaintance uses one very high quality
22" CRT to display the image he's working on, and a smaller
display to hold tool windows, menus etc.
For all of those applications, with all the windowing
systems I've used, it's actually _easier_ to have multiple
screens than just one: maximising windows and otherwise
arranging stuff works very well when you have several
rectangles to arrange it in to rather than just one.
I'm sure there are many other examples, but it basically
boils down to getting as much information as possible
(potentially requiring differing display characteristics -
e.g. high refresh rate vs perfect colour reproduction)
displayed _simultaneously_. Alt-tab doesn't cut it.
And a final point: if you're not very very rich, cost is
also a consideration. I have a 2560x1024 desktop with 3D
acceleration on both heads (GeForce FX5600) connected
digitally (DVI-D) to two 17 inch 16ms refresh panels, for a
great deal less money (The card was £130 more than a year
ago, the panels about £270, also more than a year ago) than
buying a 2.6Mpix panel! (Even a 1920*1200 Apple Cinema
Display at £1050 has only 88% as many pixels! The cheapest
display with more that I could find with a quick search is
the 30" Apple Cinema Display at £1999.99, which buys a _lot_
of large high quality panels to use for multi-head). And,
really finally, if one fails then you can carry on working
with a quick reconfigure.
I've never looked back since I switched from a single 17"
display to a pair of Samung 15" panels about 2.5 years ago.
--
Bill
| < Previous | Next > |