Multiple monitors

Hi,

In the past, I've configured each *pair* of workstations in my work area to support a pair of 4:3 monitors, side by side -- using the A/B switches in the monitors themselves to select between which of the workstations' displays is presented on that monitor (e.g., Workstation A displays

1 and 2 on the two monitors; Workstation B displays 1 and 2 on the two monitors; WS A 1 on monitor 1 with WS B 2 on monitor 2; etc.). This has made it easy for me to consult one machine while working on another -- as well as having bigger "desktops" on either.

I've been shedding equipment lately and figure I can get rid of some of the workstations I've had to hold onto in order to support past clients. Every pair of workstations I can discard frees up a pair of monitors! And, *space* for them!

So, I am looking into adding another pair of monitors to my primary pair of workstations (again, using A/B switches to decide how the monitors are used, dynamically).

But, a 2x2 arrangement puts the top displays far too high -- it seems like my head is tipped far back to read "up there". (Keep in mind, distance between eyes and ALL monitors must be constant and relatively short).

If, instead, I opt for a 4x1 arrangement, it seems like I am watching a tennis match! :-/ And, the "far" monitors start to tax my near vision...

I'm thinking that a compromise might be to rotate the displays (portrait orientation) and possibly downsize to 21" monitors. This puts the top of the visible display area at about the limit of a comfortable "look up" and narrows the cumulative display (less "tennis court-ish") width. Say 4800x1600? But, with lots of bezels chopping up the field of view (this isn't as big a problem in landscape mode as you have a fair bit of "width" on each monitor to work with!)

Alternatively, buy a pair of wide 30" monitors -- I suspect that gives me roughly the same "desktop" (?). And, eliminates some of the "bezel" issues...

Anyone been down this road with firsthand comments? Note I don't use these machines for "entertainment" (I don't watch movies, etc.). And, ideally, I'd like to leverage existing kit instead of making new investments (at a time when I am trying to get *rid* of kit!)

Thx,

--don

Reply to
Don Y
Loading thread data ...

One thing I have done with a multi-monitor setup is to put the monitors in an arc so that the end one are still about the same distance away as the center ones.

Reply to
Richard Damon

Most people get used to the bezels after a while. Or, you can use some tricky software to get rid of the bezel transitions:

Would 5760x1080 suffice? Note that this is Display Port, DVI, or Thunderbolt but not HDMI. More: There are other such multi-headed video cards and adapters, but this is one that I've used recently.

Incidentally, AOL 9.7 has problems with the "Retina" like displays on Windoze 8.1. It works but is a bit messy. In general, programs that handle their own screen fonts usually screw up badly. Fortunately, CAD and simulation software are accustomed to large screens and handle them nicely.

I recently had one of my customers buy three identical 24" TV monitors without asking me first. They were just fine for watching TV, but a disaster for computing. They were all stuck at 1366x768 resolution maximum. The resultant 4098x768 screen was useless. Everything document that he had to read, required scrolling all 3 screens up and down to see the entire document. When that much display real estate moves at the same time, motion sickness can be a problem. The owner had no problems (he claims) but it sure made me sea sick.

I had two 24 inch 1920x1200 (LG Flatron L246W) monitors on my desk. Each monitors supports PIP (picture-in-picture) which I used to monitor a 2nd workstation. The shrunken picture is really too small to do much with graphics, but just fine for text only, such as watching log files scroll and port scans of my firewall. With the two monitors, that lets me run 4 computahs. However, I usually just run it as one big 3840x1200 desktop. I've also tried it with both monitors in portrait mode as 2400x1920, which proved to be useless because the bezel tended to be in the middle of everything I was doing. Unfortunately, this model monitor has some design issues in the power supply section. One of my monitors blew up again a month ago, and I haven't had time to fix it. (Note the missing 3rd filter cap).

I also have some CAD and stockbroker customers that are into multiple monitors. However, these were not planned and consist of random displays and dissimilar display cards. Not the best looking but quite functional. Mostly, they want to keep their main program on a big monitor, while using the small monitor to lookup parts, specs, lists, address book, and other trivia.

Full disclosure. I like to watch Netflix on the 2nd display or in the small PIP window while working. If I see something interesting, I punch a button on the monitor, and switch inputs. One of the nice things about working for myself is that I can get away with such nonsense.

I can't help there since I'm not familiar with your existing hardware and existing operating system. Incidentally the big surprise for me was the cost of dual VESA 100 monitor mount that would work for 24" screens. For example: I ended up building one for myself out of Unistrut and plumbing parts, and paying the price of the fancy model for my customers. The desk clamp turned out to be rather marginal (it bends) which I reinforced with some scrap metal. If the clamp looks flimsy, it probably is.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Yes, with a pair of monitors, it's trivial to just arrange them at a slight angle wrt each other so the eye-monitor distance remains relatively constant (about 26-28" in my case). I can comfortably take in *most* of both screens while facing straight ahead; and very little side to side motion to take in the extremes of each as required.

But, increasing this to 4 monitors (landscape) either requires moving the monitors farther away (to keep the angles between them shallower) *or* you end up literally having to "turn your head" to see the far left or far right monitor.

I was hoping making the monitors "narrower" (by rotating them to portrait orientation) would cut down the overall chord length so less head motion even at the *shorter* viewing distance.

(i.e., even four 21" monitors represents ~120 degrees of arc at that short distance -- approaching the limits of *any* sort of peripheral vision... let alone central/focused vision!)

(sigh) The solution is "younger eyes"! :<

Reply to
Don Y

Well, *one* pair of "embedded" bezels is relatively easy to adjust two. Not sure how *three* pair would be! :< The bigger issue is the 4:3 orientation seems more "appropriate" to most of the (program) user interfaces with which I regularly interact. I.e., forcing one of these UI's to fit in the narrower "space between bezels" would make it ~25% smaller.

I have a couple of: that I figure would be acceptable. But, probably would still only run the monitors at 1600x1200 (text starts to get too fine when you move to higher resolutions on SMALLER screens)

No provisions to fine tune the video output?

I need the screen real estate to view a schematic while routing a PCB; or, looking at a 3D CAD model of the enclosure into which it fits; or, writing some code while consulting some documentation (about what the code is supposed to *do*!), etc.

I have my workstations arranged in a "U" so I can swivel my chair to move from workstations 3+4 to 1+2 or 5+6. But, usually the "extra two" workstations are displaying some sort of "reference" information and I am primarily interacting with two *other* workstations.

That's exactly the problem of which I am wary! At 3200x1200 (current dual displays), an application can nicely "hog" an entire display. OTOH, moving to 4x(1200x1600) means you can't go quite as far (1200) before encountering a bezel.

I had some large greyscale monitors (~3000 dots horiz) but they weren't effective for the sorts of things I needed to display (would be great for text or monochrome output -- used for displaying digital XRays).

I use a TV to watch video :> Sitting bolt upright in a chair is not my idea of being entertained! :<

I've had opportunities to rescue multiple monitor mounts. But, think I can just set N monitors side-by-side on a worksurface just as easily. Had the 2x2 approach been useful, then a fancy mount would have been useful.

Reply to
Don Y

I like one monitor directly in front of me, so three works out really well. The fourth I'd probably mount high, just as reference.

There probably is a point of diminishing returns. ;-)

For coding, portrait is probably the way to go but almost everything I do is graphics so landscape works much better and bigger (and higher resolution) the better.

Glasses.

Reply to
krw

In my never humble opinion, switching from 4:3 to 16:9 was one of the dumbest decisions (from the user standpoint) ever made by the electronics industry. Do they expect everyone to only watch wide screen movies on their computahs?

Yep. It will work, but won't be particularly speedy if you're doing video. With 4 DVI outputs, only 512KB of DDR2 RAM, and sign of any kind of acceleration features in firmware, it's going to be rather slow. I couldn't find the card in the benchmark results at: I'll look some more later.

Maybe a good idea. 1920x1200 on a 24" screen is the best I can do before my eyes give out. However, I had an interesting experience on a Lenovo Yoga 2 Pro laptop with 3200x1800 resolution on an 13.3" display. Because the dots were smaller and denser, I could read incredibly tiny print on the small screen that would be completely unreadable on my larger, but fuzzier display. It wasn't the size that was important, but rather the ability to separate detail (i.e. resolution). If you happen to visit a Best Buy store, take a look at the Lenovo Yoga 2 Pro, and you'll see what is possible with a much higher resolution display.

The video output could be tweaked to any resolution possible, but the junk TV monitors that the customer bought would only do 1366x768 maximum.

Ok, 3 monitors. One each for the various EDA windows. I vaguely recall one of the EDA vendors advertising or web site literature showing a smiling engineer with three LCD displays on his ultra-clean desk, with each display showing one aspect of the design process. I also like to read science fiction.

Yep. What that taught me was to ignore the horizontal dot pitch and concentrate on getting the largest number of vertical pixels possible. For 24" that's about 1200 pixels. For 27", I can go to 2560x1440. I guess when I run out of space for more icons on my desktop, I can justify a bigger monitor:

I made the mistake of showing a customer how to display TV video on his new projection display on the ceiling. Within a week, he ordered another one for the bedroom.

My situation is a bit unusual. I was getting these LG L246W monitors very cheap because they came without mounts. The local vendor of information kiosks was selling them very cheap. He didn't need the mount with a kiosk wall mount, so he tossed them. The monitor in my office is held up with a wooden contrivance that I threw together as a temporary mount. That was about 9 months ago and I have yet to find something that fits and works. In the case of my customers, they wanted the fancy mount and were willing to pay the price.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

I think for a TV it is a great choice! I much prefer watching movies in their original format than P&S versions trimmed to "The Small Screen" -- or, worse yet, letterboxed (with a smaller image and half of the screen artificially blanked!)

For people with single monitors, I imagine the extra real estate can be a benefit. But, IMO, too little to justify. I have a widescreen monitor on SWMBO's computer -- as are most of our laptops -- as she isn't keen on having yet another "thing" (i.e., second monitor) on her desk.

I look for resolution and depth. Not really interested in features that would benefit a "gamer". When presented with "gaming PC's" for rescue, I usually just pull motherboard & video card (a couple of power supplies) and set them aside "just in case". But, I've never had anyone ask for a gaming PC so they tend to just collect dust.

Putting a power hog (video card) like that in a machine for the sorts of uses that I require is just like running an air conditioner with the window open... :<

In my case, the size *is* important. E.g., I can tolerate a smaller display on a laptop solely because I am seated much closer to it.

But, I am uncomfortable at that range. Hence the ~28" at which I have my desktop monitors positioned. I can easily see/read without having to squint, reposition my head, "zoom", etc.

Ultra-clean desk?? Obviously not real!! :>

I've been able to "get by" with two monitors -- primarily because I can look at other things on another workstation (swivel my chair). But, if I have to start an X server on a PC in order to talk to a UN*X host, that tends to eat a display (I can arrange for the X server's root window to be shared with the PC's "desktop" -- but it makes the user interface more tedious: how do I click on the "root" window/desktop??).

The 2x2 format would be good if I could *sink* the two lower monitors into the worksurface a bit... (but, cruft would inevitably get sucked into such a "depression")

At 21 or 24" LANDSCAPE, I can comfortably read a typical 8.5x11 "paper" that I've typeset (margins off-screen). If I am manipulating the document, then I need to zoom in so only half a sheet is visible in the height available (too hard to finely position the cursor, otherwise, when inserting callouts, etc.)

Moving to portrait orientation would be a win, here. But, only for those sorts of applications. Schematics would ill fit that sort of layout -- as would most of the PCB's that I've laid out (though "orientation" there is strictly artificial!)

Not a VESA mount? I've had monitors with 3" spacings for which I've had to fabricate a 4" adapter plate. And, some of the Samsungs have a wacky configuration (possibly related to the swivel action -- even though not strictly REQUIRED for it!)

In my case, most monitors are rescues -- bad caps or fets (power supply and/or inverter). Other times, firmware bugs (I think Planar has a model or two that "crash" and need a magic set of keystrokes to "reset"... REPAIR! :> )

I tried using touch monitors for a while -- found it useless for the sorts of things I do! Likewise, tried pen interfaces "on the glass" but they also sucked. Now, decided displays should just be displays and leave the positioning and motion control to other devices!

I've been waiting/hoping for *this* machine (all in one) to "bite the shed" so I can replace it with something newer/nicer. But, barring that, its hard to promote it to the head of The List if it is still operational! :-/

(sigh) Too much "stuff"!

Reply to
Don Y

In control room applications, 1x3 arrangements are quite common. You adjust the left and right monitor so that they are at the same distance from your sitting position as the center monitor. Put those display that are needed constantly on the left and right monitor and use the center monitor for user activated "pop up" windows.

1x2 and 1x4 arrangements are nasty, since at least in Windows, a new program starts in the middle, shared between the left and right monitor and the first thing you have to do is to move it into the left or right monitor.

Putting monitors above each other is a bad idea, since sooner or later, you are going to have neck problems.

I do not understand the complaints about 16:9 or 16:10 monitors, these will nicely fit two A4 documents side by side, with some space left over.

With 4:3 displays, the portrait mode would make sense especially in the 1x7 configuration (21:4=5.25), but due to the huge TV market (1920:1080) of 16:9 panels, the 1x3 landscape arrangement would be

48:9 or 16:3=5.33, practically the same width would be available with only 3 panels instead of 7 panels.
Reply to
upsidedown

The biggest issue is that your eye will have a given resolving power in angular space. To show a given number of pixels will take a given angular space. If you push the monitors back to make them take less angular space, then you can't resolve the details as they are "too small".

Going Portrait mode will help (maybe), as you end up with less pixels horizontally, so less angle, and more pixels vertically, so more data in your field of view. The one issue is that some programs aren't going to like the fact that your horizontal resolution on a single monitor will be smaller than normal, and may cause some issue.

One issue that you are running into is that a 4:1 display is very far off the shape of the human field of view. Monitors are wide because the human field of view is wider than it is tall. The original 4:3 aspect ratio displays worked well for matching the "active" field of view. The wide screens came about mostly because movies went wide to fill your peripheral field of view, which actually makes a lot more sense for a movie than for a data display. When fitting to the field of view, the

2x2 arrangement should actually be better, the issue become that the break point is in the worse possible position (the center of your field of view), and by the time you shift your active spot to the center of one of the displays, the up shift becomes excessive since we aren't used to a lot of up-down to our field of view, we are much more used to expanding it horizontally to get to a 360 degree view. (Perhaps if we had to deal with more avian predators in the past we could look up better).
Reply to
Richard Damon

I disagree, sorta. While I don't like 16:9, much, 16:10 works out quite well for things like schematics. The additional 100 lines matters. Unfortunately, movies tend to be 16:9, so anything else commands a premium.

Matrox' history leans more to business graphics than gaming.

Yes, I also think the better formed characters matter. There ain't no substitution for resolution. ;-)

This laptop will only do 1366x768. I bought it because of the touch screen but the low resolution is a PITA. It's OK, literally, on the lap top but it's just too small and low resolution for any serious work. Most web sites are larger so I'm always scrolling around. The touch screen makes up for a lot of that (particularly on the lap) but it doesn't work on every site.

Sounds good. Except you're missing the fourth display, for the datasheet. ;-) Actually, I tried one of the USB(2) graphics interfaces but it slowed my work computer down so much that schematic rendering was absolutely painful, even on the directly attached screens.

Good grief! I could never work that way. I get pissed when my icons move because each has a place and if it isn't there, searching for them takes too much time. YOY can't there be separate desktop setups for each display setup?

Reply to
krw

Software allows you to preconfigure where a particular application "instantiates".

I've found two monitors to be relatively easy to deal with -- my gaze is either "just left of center" or "just right of center". Larger monitors would necessitate moving them further away to keep the same limits on head/neck motion. E.g., it is inconvenient when I have to swivel my chair (rotate my *body* 90 degrees) to take in something on one of the dual displays to the left (or right) of my primary workstation. But, usually those shifts of attention are accompanied by a change in activities. E.g., watching the boot process of the DUT and/or interacting with the device directly (vs. writing code or examining schematics/artwork to identify a possible problem).

Yes. And, it seems like there is more motion required to raise and lower my gaze than there is to shift it left/right.

My objection is that they don't give you enough to justify the added space *consumed*. Read *a* typewritten page and look at the schematic/layout that it is describing. Or, read a page out of a specification while writing (in a different application!) the code that the spec dictates.

I do a *lot* of formal writing. Yet, seldom view "facing pages" at the same time -- it just doesn't show me anything that I can't also see in single page view (i.e., I don't create "two page spreads" in my documents so no *need* to view two pages at one... unlike "centerfolds" :> )

Portrait mode is great WHEN WRITING (documents for print publication). But, seldom otherwise. At one point, I had configured displays to allow for physical rotation of the display as needed. This was *way* too much work for the reward!

I think trying to piece together a large *monolithic* display is bound to be disappointing. Rather, you (i.e., "I") want a display

*surface* on which you can manipulate objects (without having to "transfer" a client application to another "display server" as in X)
Reply to
Don Y

Yes. Conversely, any gains in SIZE of display are canceled by the losses introduced by the "need" to move the display further away. The "solution" is to get the same amount of display *area* in a shorter chord.

If I ran the monitors 1200x1600, then they just seem to be "taller than normal" (i.e., many folks use 1080 line displays). But, I still have to scale the application to fit (effectively) a 1200x900 display (in terms of the single-monitor-width).

Exactly. I think "top" (or bottom) displays really only make sense for things that are seldom observed. E.g., put your clock up there so you can easily find it when you want to check the time... without wasting "prime real estate" on it down below.

If, OTOH, you are actively moving your focus between different objects (apps, etc.), I think it is more natural to shift your gaze left/right. And, ideally, just by moving your eyes, not your *neck*!

Reply to
Don Y

Lol, adding a monitor to your computer so you can see a clock instead of putting a $5 clock on the wall?

Have we reached the point of diminishing returns of display number? What about three displays instead of 4? Is that a happy medium?

I wanted to add a TV to use as a monitor. I did a little estimation and realized that if I mount it on the wall about 10 feet away it is actually smaller in my view than my laptop at about two feet. Due to limitations of arm length my laptop screen is usually a bit closer than that actually. I'd have to get a TV some 70 inches diagonal to improve on the size of the display.

--

Rick
Reply to
rickman

Um, that's not what I said. "Things that are seldom observed" yet "so you can easily find it". E.g., I don't want to have to open my email every time I want to "check it". Or, open a "clock" application every time I want to know what time it is. Or, a "(appointment) calendar" to know what has been added to my schedule (by third parties). Or, call up a calculator when I need to do some quick math.

My point was the things you put "up there" want to be things that you *don't* interact with regularly. Just like the clock on your WALL -- instead of in the middle of your SCREEN! (you wouldn't put the clock there and move your text editor to the "wall"!)

Perceived size is only one issue. The idea of watching a movie sitting in a chair -- especially one where I would likely interact with a computer -- is not my idea of fun/comfort. In addition to body position, it's too "imposing"... too "in your face".

I have some "smart glasses" that have built in monitors -- "The equivalent of a 55 inch screen at 10 ft!". Yet, it is far more comfortable to watch the 46" plasma -- or even a 19" LCD TV (at a comfortable viewing distance). The smart glasses only see use on air/rail trips (which I have been religiously avoiding!)

I've a 17" laptop that I have used to watch DVDs when I've been "bedridden" -- but that's because no TVs in bedrooms. I'd much prefer to sit up in bed and watch a smaller (effective) screen across the room than the laptop's up close!

Reply to
Don Y

Don Y:

Virtual desktops (workspaces, whatever) solve almost all of these issues (for me, anyway). I have 10 virtual desktops at work: One for each major project (each containing multiple windows with editor(s), etc.), one for administrivia, one with a monthly calendar, etc. I can move to any of them with a single keystroke. Each desktop has access to the two monitors I have attached. I *prefer* this to lots of monitors.

Most of the rest is solved by a single taskbar with notification capability that is present on all desktops. Well... I keep a real calculator on my real desk. I just hope HP keeps making some reasonable kind of RPN calculator, for awhile there it looked pretty grim.

Yes, there are occasionally times when I need to move a window from one desktop to another. Nothing's perfect.

Do virtual desktops of some kind not work for your workflow?

--
Charles Allen
Reply to
Charles Allen

Yes, I can have multiple desktops on each of my hosts. But, that really only works for separating different *types* of activities. When I have to deal with activities that span "disciplines", then they fall down -- and the only real solution is "more real estate".

IF, for example, I am writing a driver for a board I've designed, then it's primarily a "software writing" task. So, an editor, compiler/linage editor and debugger?

But, I'll need to reference the schematic to see what the actual hardware interface looks like ("what's connected to bit 3?"). And, the specification to see it's design requirements/responsibilities.

When the code is loaded into the target, I'll need to look at the target's "I/O" (e.g., display) to see if it is behaving as I intended. If something doesn't appear to be working, I may have to look at a PCB layout to figure out where to probe with a 'scope/analyzer.

When all is well, I may need to capture waveforms or "traces" from the scope or analyzer to include them in the documentation ("Troubleshoots").

[I've not mentioned a wall clock, email, appointment book, etc.!]

Doing this on multiple workspaces is tedious. As is maximizing and minimizing windows (or, shuffling Z order). It's just *so* much easier to have everything spread across *one* virtual desktop... much like you would work with physical documents and a test bench.

In the past, I've relied on having different monitors on different workstations to give me additional "desktop". E.g., when I want to interact with the target, swivel my desk to use a different workstation for that.

But, I am trying to get rid of workstations -- yet, electing to save the bits that seem most useful to me going forward (e.g., monitors).

Reply to
Don Y

Sure. Moving your eyes to find the clock and refocusing takes longer than just glancing at the display clock, in the same plane. I don't think he was specifically talking about only a clock, though. The task bar takes space, it might be good to get it off the main monitor. My laptop screen space is at enough of a premium that I keep it hidden, which just changes the problem.

That's kinda where I am, with one directly in front. Again, one on top might be useful for static things but haven't actually tried it.

Reply to
krw

You can want what you want of course. I don't have a problem minimizing windows I'm not using or even just laying on window over another. I use Alt-Tab to quickly switch between the top several apps in use and I have little trouble with that... until Windows 8 which has apps like a tablet that take over the screen and don't share with the other children. Damn you Bill Gates... give me what I say I want, not what *you* think I

*should* want.

As to the clock example, I use the windows clock in the lower left corner of my screen along with the day of the week and date... always there and very unobtrusive. :)

Ok.

Lol... so you are in an uncomfortable position for computing but want a more comfortable position for watching movies? Ok.

Why? Do you have trouble with your glasses for short distances?

My ideal would be a 47"-55" display 6-8 feet from my eyes. But I can't find a good mount for the middle of the room. One that would let the monitor swing up and out of the way.

--

Rick
Reply to
rickman

I tried hiding the task bar, but it keeps coming up accidentally and I got tired of the movement. It's easier to just live with 40 or so fewer pixels out of the 1920 on my screen.

I'm an old guy and I found some time ago that moving my head up and down is a pain in the... neck, literally. It would be hard to look at a monitor above the main one without bending the neck and ending up with sore muscles. That's also why I rejected progressive lenses. They only have a tiny focus region and I had to move my head constantly to view the screen. Now I just wear a pair of glasses just for the computer, not even bifocal.

--

Rick
Reply to
rickman

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.